On
December
18,
2025,
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
took
a
meaningful
step
toward
real
judicial
accountability,
filing
our
first
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
(JC&D)
Act
complaint
against
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam.
Disturbingly,
this
is
the
second
misconduct
complaint
against
Judge
Merriam
in
fewer
than
four
years.
And
it’s
the
first
time
a
federal
judge
has
been
publicly
reprimanded
for
mistreating
clerks,
only
to
engender
a
second
misconduct
complaint
for
similar
conduct
—
flouting
both
judiciary
policy
and
a
public
disciplinary
order.
With
this
complaint,
LAP
circumvents
both
congressional
intransigence
and
judicial
branch
inaction.
In
December
2023,
Second
Circuit
Chief
Judge
Debra
Livingston
published
a
whitewashed
disciplinary
order
disposing
of
the
first
complaint
against
Merriam.
The
laughable
remedies
delineated
in
that
order
—
watching
training
videos;
committing
to
treating
clerks
better;
checking
in
with
Livingston
periodically;
and
the
Director
of
Workplace
Relations
(DWR)
for
the
circuit
—
a
clerk
point
of
contact
—
would
check
in
with
Merriam’s
clerks
every
six
months
through
2025
—
were
toothless.
It
was
literally
the
least
the
circuit
could
do.
Immediately
thereafter,
incoming
Merriam
clerks
asked
whether
to
withdraw
from
their
clerkships.
Sadly,
since
the
order
misrepresented
the
clerk’s
allegations,
cherry-picking
to
paint
them
in
the
worst
possible
light,
incoming
clerks
were
misled
to
believe
the
clerkship
wouldn’t
be
that
bad
and
opted
to
proceed
anyway.
Big
mistake.
But
there’s
currently
no
outside
oversight
over
the
judicial
complaint
process
—
Congress
has,
unsurprisingly,
abdicated
its
oversight
responsibility
over
the
courts
—
and,
like
most
clerk
complainants,
the
clerk
did
not
have
a
lawyer
at
all
times.
So,
the
circuit
misled
the
public,
painting
the
situation
as
a
personality
conflict
between
judge
and
clerk
rather
than
the
hostile
work
environment
it
was.
Between
December
2023
and
December
2025,
LAP
fielded
troubling
allegations
from
clerks
—
those
who
endured
mistreatment,
one
who
quit
after
just
one
month
working
for
Merriam,
and
several
who
withdrew
from
clerkship
offers
after
learning
the
clerkship’s
realities.
LAP’s
complaint
alleges
Merriam
created
a
hostile
and
toxic
work
environment
—
nothing
like
the
exemplary
workplace
the
federal
judiciary
claims
to
foster.
Chambers
conditions
may
have
gotten
worse
after
the
public
reprimand.
Clerks
allege
Merriam
routinely
bullied,
belittled,
isolated,
and
dehumanized
them;
yelled
at
them;
and
sent
unhinged
emails
in
all
capital
letters.
The
complaint
alleges
Merriam’s
conduct,
including
sudden
and
unpredictable
outbursts,
is
part
of
an
emotional
rollercoaster
of
unpredictable
mood
swings.
Importantly,
the
complaint
also
alleges
Second
Circuit
clerk
points
of
contact
—
the
DWR
and
Circuit
Executive
—
were
aware
of
ongoing
misconduct
for
at
least
one
year
before
this
second
complaint
but
failed
to
report
this
to
Chief
Judge
Livingston
and
urge
her
to
open
a
second
investigation.
Frankly,
those
who
knowingly
and
willfully
conceal
information
about
judicial
misconduct
are
obstructing
justice.
There
is
an
enormous
power
disparity,
not
just
between
life-tenured
federal
judges
and
clerks,
but
also
between
clerks
and
judicial
branch
officials.
Clerks
are
particularly
vulnerable
during
investigations,
because
they
typically
lack
legal
representation,
while
going
up
against
the
full
weight
of
the
federal
judiciary
and
its
army
of
lawyers.
Disturbingly,
far
too
little
about
workplace
conduct
policies
is
delineated
in
writing.
That’s
by
design.
It’s
ironic,
considering
how
much
judges
love
to
expound
on
process
and
enforce
courtroom
rules.
Judiciary
officials
regularly
fail
to
follow
their
own
policies
or
change
the
rules
midway
through:
but
without
transparency
around
investigations,
it
can
be
challenging
to
allege
procedural
wrongdoing.
It
appears
that
Livingston
likely
either
knew
or
should
have
known
about
ongoing
issues
in
Merriam’s
chambers,
since
she
allegedly
met
with
Merriam
to
discuss
workplace
conduct,
according
to
the
2023
order.
And,
Livingston
supervises
the
DWR
and
Circuit
Executive,
who
knew
of
the
misconduct.
Circuit-wide
willful
ignorance
by
those
in
positions
of
power
who
should
know
better,
is
shameful.
Anyone
can
file
a
JCD
complaint
—
including
law
clerks,
litigants,
attorneys,
and
members
of
the
public
—
alleging
a
“judge
has
engaged
in
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
effective
and
expeditious
administration
of
the
business
of
the
courts.”
LAP
filed
this
complaint
because
we’re
able
to
shoulder
the
risk
that
law
clerks
believe
they
cannot.
Frankly,
clerks
don’t
do
their
best
work
when
they
are
being
mercilessly
bullied
—
risking
harm
to
litigants
who
depend
on
orders
and
opinions
issued
from
overworked
and
demoralized
chambers.
And
it
undermines
public
confidence
in
the
courts
when
judges’
workplace
conduct
is
so
lawless,
and
when
judges
display
such
callous
disregard
for
the
laws
they
interpret.
Disturbingly,
just
two
or
three
clerk
complaints
are
filed
each
year
against
judges.
While
the
federal
judiciary
misleadingly
claims
this
indicates
a
lack
of
misconduct,
that’s
proven
false
by
the
judiciary’s
own
2023
workplace
conduct
survey,
released
in
March
2025.
Those
data
indicate
as
many
as
106
judges
mistreated
their
clerks
in
2023,
yet
just
three
clerk
complaints
were
filed
that
year.
Why
the
discrepancy?
Law
clerks
—
and
more
than
30,000
federal
judiciary
employees
—
are
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
and
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws,
including
legal
protection
against
retaliation
for
reporting.
It’s
simple:
clerks
do
not
and
will
not
report
misconduct
until
they’re
protected
against
retaliation.
The
judiciary
vociferously
opposes
extending
Title
VII
protections
to
the
Third
Branch,
even
while
Congress
extended
Title
VII
to
itself
and
the
Executive
Branch
in
1995,
because
exempting
clerks
from
legal
protection
against
retaliation
will
also
chill
complaints.
Judges
can
and
do
retaliate
against
clerks
by
intervening
in
their
bar
applications
and
by
contacting
employers
to
give
negative
references
and
blackball
them
from
jobs.
(That’s
what
happened
to
me,
following
my
clerkship
with
the
D.C.
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
four
years
ago.)
The
judicial
complaint
process
is
flawed,
but
it’s
the
system
we
have:
using
the
system
is
how
we’ll
change
it.
Importantly,
since
LAP
is
the
named
complainant,
Merriam’s
current
and
former
clerks
will
be
confidential
witnesses:
they
can
speak
freely
with
the
circuit,
without
Merriam
knowing
who
said
what
to
whom,
better
protecting
them
against
retaliation.
Troublingly,
during
lengthy
investigations,
judges’
clerks
are
not
typically
reassigned.
For
example,
during
the
year-long
investigation
into
former
Alaska
federal
judge
Joshua
Kindred,
who
resigned
in
July
2024
amid
threat
of
further
discipline,
after
Kindred
was
credibly
accused
of
sexually
harassing
clerks,
they
were
forced
to
continue
working
under
him.
So,
LAP’s
complaint
requests
that
Merriam’s
clerks
be
immediately
reassigned
to
protect
them,
pending
an
investigation.
Clerks
tell
me
Merriam
should
not
be
a
judge.
She
cannot
manage
her
chambers
or
supervise
employees.
But
as
long
as
judges
like
Merriam
remain
on
the
bench,
they’ll
get
clerks:
someone
is
desperate
enough
for
the
credential,
or
believes
it
won’t
happen
to
them.
In
fact,
several
Merriam
clerks
didn’t
think
this
would
happen
to
them;
wish
they’d
listened
when
warned;
and
wouldn’t
have
accepted
the
clerkship
if
they
knew
how
bad
it
would
be.
While
federal
judges
enjoy
life
tenure
“during
good
behavior”
and
can
therefore
only
be
removed
by
congressional
impeachment,
some
resign
amid
threat
of
further
discipline.
Kindred
did.
I
hope
to
see
the
same
outcome
here.
The
judiciary
has
a
harassment
problem
that
no
one
cares
to
solve.
The
courts
refuse
to
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct,
turn
a
blind
eye
to
known
abuses
of
power,
obfuscate
and
willfully
mislead
the
public,
and
stonewall
Congress.
Blame
also
lies
with
presidents
of
both
parties
who’ve
nominated
but
failed
to
properly
vet
judicial
nominees
—
appointing
them
with
total
disregard
for
who
they
are
as
people
and
managers.
But
while
the
judiciary
is
perpetrating
a
fraud
upon
the
public,
Congress
—
the
branch
of
government
empowered
to
act
—
refuses
to
act.
While
it’s
easy
to
blame
Republicans
for
everything
that’s
wrong,
much
responsibility
lies
with
feckless
congressional
Democrats,
who’ve
not
only
abdicated
their
oversight
responsibility
over
the
federal
courts
but,
frankly,
do
not
understand
what
their
responsibilities
are.
Congressional
Democrats
are
obsessed
with
Trump
—
to
the
exclusion
of
any
other
issue.
It’s
ironic
to
see
Democrats
on
the
news
demanding
“accountability”
for
government
actors
who
are
“above
the
law”
and
calling
for
“transparency”
—
accountability
and
transparency,
except
for
the
judiciary.
Democrats
failed
to
prioritize
the
courts:
if
they
had,
our
judiciary
might
actually
be
a
trusted
bulwark
against
creeping
autocracy.
Members
and
their
staff
tell
me
this
issue
“isn’t
in
their
legislative
agenda;”
they’re
“too
busy”
to
send
an
oversight
letter
(while
sending
letters
about
everything
else);
and
“if
it’s
not
about
Trump,
we
won’t
act.”
Yet
Congress
has
at
least
four
tools
in
its
toolbox
—
oversight,
legislation,
appropriations,
and
the
bully
pulpit
—
and
none
requires
them
to
be
in
the
majority
to
show
some
spine
right
now.
Congress’s
failure
to
act
shields
judges
like
Merriam
from
accountability
and
perpetuates
judicial
branch
lawlessness.
Oversight
Any
member
can
direct
questions
to
the
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO).
While
members
send
letters
about
countless
other
topics,
they
have
refused
to
do
this,
even
after
I
drafted
questions
for
them
—
including
one
member
whose
constituent
was
one
of
just
two
law
clerk
complainants
last
year.
The
judiciary
enjoys
an
outrageous
lack
of
congressional
oversight.
Since
it
released
its
workplace
survey
results
in
March
2025
—
on
the
same
day
a
judge
resigned
amid
misconduct
allegations,
not
a
single
member
has
asked
a
single
question
about
why
as
many
as
106
judges
committed
misconduct
in
2023,
yet
just
three
clerks
filed
complaints
that
year.
Nor
has
Congress
demanded
to
know
who
those
judges
are
and
why
they’re
not
being
investigated.
Democrats
could
hold
a
“shadow
hearing”
(chaired
by
just
Democrats),
which
they’ve
held
on
several
other
rule
of
law
topics.
If
and
when
Democrats
retake
the
majority,
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
—
which
has
apparently
decided
judicial
branch
oversight
isn’t
in
its
job
description
anymore
—
should
immediately
hold
hearings.
Majority
members
with
subpoena
power
should
demand
notes
and
documents
revealing
systemic
misconduct
that
the
courts
may
have
withheld.
And,
when
Congress
calls
witnesses,
while
judiciary
leadership
will
stonewall,
underlings
like
DWRs
will
have
on-the-ground
information
from
conversations
with
clerks
about
abusive
judges,
and
an
insider’s
view
of
leadership’s
obfuscation.
Legislation
Congress
should
reintroduce
the
Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA),
which
would
finally
extend
Title
VII
and
whistleblower
protections
to
more
than
30,000
exempt
law
clerks,
permanent
court
staff,
and
federal
public
defenders.
Congress
should
also
reintroduce
the
Transparency
and
Responsibility
in
Upholding
Standards
in
the
Judiciary
(TRUST)
Act,
which
would
amend
the
JCD
Act
so
investigations
can
continue
even
if
judges
step
down
to
evade
accountability.
And,
Congress
should
attach
a
Title
VII
amendment
to
a
mandatory
spending
bill
(or
to
the
judiciary’s
annual
budget
request).
Appropriations
Congress
controls
the
purse
strings
and
should
use
the
judiciary’s
annual
budget
request
as
a
sword
and
shield.
Congress
should
at
least
threaten
to
zero
out
the
judiciary’s
budget
until
they
implement
meaningful
reforms.
And
the
Appropriations
Committee
should
tie
judiciary
funding
to
benchmarks
for
progress.
Last
May,
AO
Director
Robert
Conrad
testified
before
the
Financial
Services
and
General
Government
Subcommittee:
workplace
conduct
was
the
second
item
in
his
written
testimony.
Yet
not
a
single
member
asked
about
workplace
conduct.
Conrad
will
be
back
this
spring:
Congress
should
ask
tough
questions.
Bully
Pulpit
Of
all
the
tools
at
their
disposal,
this
is
perhaps
members’
greatest
untapped
power.
Congresspeople
have
huge
national
platforms
to
do
new
interviews,
publish
op-eds,
and
utilize
social
media
to
raise
awareness,
spark
dialogue,
and
effect
change.
Their
silence
on
this
topic
is
shameful.
This
year,
every
House
member
and
many
senators
run
for
reelection.
Congress
believes
they
don’t
have
to
act,
because
constituents
don’t
know
the
judiciary
is
exempt
from
Title
VII,
don’t
believe
this
affects
them,
and
won’t
hold
them
accountable
by
demanding
action
or
voting
them
out
of
office.
Congress
doesn’t
understand
the
courts
affect
all
of
us.
If
you’re
frustrated
about
the
lack
of
accountability
for
judges
who
abuse
their
power
—
or
think
it
defies
logic
that
the
entire
federal
judiciary,
which
interprets
our
laws,
is
exempt
from
all
workplace
anti-discrimination
laws
—
hold
your
member
accountable
or
elect
someone
who
will
act.
The
judicial
complaint
process
was
not
crafted
with
law
clerks
in
mind.
Frankly,
it’s
set
up
to
shield
abusive
judges
from
accountability.
But
for
now,
it’s
the
system
we
have.
I
hope
clerks
see
LAP’s
complaint
and
are
empowered
to
come
forward,
because
fixing
the
system
from
the
inside
is
how
we’ll
create
meaningful
change.
Someday,
the
tide
will
turn:
we’ll
remember
who
was
on
the
right
side
of
history
when
it
was
hard.
It
would
be
a
stain
on
the
judiciary
to
shield
Judge
Merriam
from
accountability
under
these
circumstances,
LAP’s
complaint
concludes.
Pressuring
the
judiciary
to
act
requires
all
of
us
—
law
clerks,
law
students,
lawyers,
members
of
Congress,
and
the
press
—
to
demand
change
and
shine
a
light
on
misconduct
that’s
historically
been
hidden.
The
judiciary
has
long
exploited
clerks’
fears
and
benefitted
from
clerks’
silence.
Let’s
not
give
them
that
any
longer.
Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.