Audit of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC)

This is a state performance audit of the agency that investigates complaints about Massachusetts state court judges.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.”

Auditors checked whether the commission reviewed complaints quickly and investigated accepted complaints within required deadlines.

“The purpose of our audit was to determine whether CJC had screened and investigated complaints within the timeframes established by CJC Rules of Procedure 6(B) and 6(J), respectively.”

The commission is the state body responsible for looking into claims that judges acted improperly or cannot perform their duties because of a disability.

“[CJC] is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints alleging that a state court judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability preventing him or her from properly performing judicial duties.”

If you file a complaint about a state judge, this audit says the commission generally followed its timing rules for screening and investigating complaints during the audit period.

“Are complaints that CJC receives screened promptly in accordance with Rule 6(B) of the CJC Rules of Procedure and CJC’s internal control plan?”

The auditors answered yes to both main questions: complaints were screened promptly and docketed complaints were investigated within the required timeframe.

“Are docketed complaints investigated within 90 days in accordance with Rule 6(J) of the CJC Rules of Procedure?”

After an investigation, the commission can dismiss the complaint, seek an agreed resolution with the judge, send the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court, or move toward formal allegations.

“After considering the investigation of a complaint, CJC votes for one of the following actions: (1) to dismiss the matter, (2) to propose to the judge that the complaint be resolved through an agreed disposition, (3) to propose to the judge that the complaint be resolved through a CJC Rule 13 referral to the Supreme Judicial Court, or (4) to proceed to signing a sworn complaint or statement of allegations.”

The report is significant because it found no major compliance failures in how the commission met complaint-handling deadlines from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019.

“Conclusion Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”

“Screened out” means a complaint was dismissed because it did not fall within the commission’s authority, such as when it was only about disappointment with a judge’s decision.

“As a result of this, the majority of complaints are dismissed (i.e., screened out) because they are outside CJC’s jurisdiction.”