In
late
2022,
soon
after
I
launched
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
to
correct
injustices
I
experienced
as
a
law
student
and
law
clerk,
a
clerk
from
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland
told
me
he’d
recently
been
reassigned,
along
with
his
co-clerk,
to
a
different
judge
to
escape
their
abusive
clerkships.
Apparently,
the
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO)
and
newly
created
Office
of
Judicial
Integrity
(OJI)
quickly
and
quietly
reassigned
both
clerks
—
a
rare
dual
reassignment
—
but
the
judge
was
not
investigated,
let
alone
disciplined
and
retrained.
The
situation
was
serious
enough
to
reassign
both
clerks,
but
not
serious
enough
to
investigate?
Fast
forward
three
years
—
during
which
subsequent
clerks
were
left
vulnerable
to
abuse
—
and
that
clerk
is
the
complainant
featured
in
a
recently
published
Fourth
Circuit
disciplinary
order
regarding
Maryland
federal
judge
Lydia
Kay
Griggsby.
Importantly,
the
Griggsby
matter
evidences
a
wholescale
judicial
branch
failure
to
meaningfully
address
misconduct
and,
rather,
to
attempt
to
sweep
misconduct
under
the
rug
—
which
the
courts
would,
absent
this
complaint.
The
complainant
and
his
co-clerk
—
clerking
for
14
months
and
just
two
months,
respectively
—
were
simultaneously
reassigned
to
a
district
chief
judge
for
the
remainder
of
their
clerkships
in
late
2022.
Back
then,
suffering
in
silence,
rather
than
reassignment,
was
the
norm.
To
reassign
two
clerks
simultaneously
should
raise
red
flags
for
all
involved.
Although
judiciary
officials
in
a
position
to
act
knew
of
serious
allegations
against
Griggsby
—
including
the
AO,
OJI,
district
chief
judge,
human
resources,
and
law
clerk
points
of
contact
in
the
Circuit
—
no
one
investigated
back
then.
The
district
chief
judge
or
AO
could
have
raised
this
with
the
Fourth
Circuit
Chief
Judge,
himself
empowered
to
launch
an
investigation.
This
shameful
failure
to
act
for
three
years,
during
which
employees
were
vulnerable
to
mistreatment
—
similar
to
the
situation
with
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam
—
evidences
willful
ignorance
and
obstruction
of
justice.
It
should
raise
red
flags
for
the
court
whenever
HR
offboards
or
reassigns
clerks
early:
sadly,
it
does
not.
Griggsby
faced
similar
allegations
to
those
leveled
against
Merriam
in
both
2022
and
late
last
year.
In
fact,
the
Griggsby
clerk
said
the
Merriam
allegations
were
eerily
similar
to
his
own
experience.
Clerks
alleged
Griggsby
created
an
abusive
work
environment
and
bullied
them,
causing
mental
anguish
and
health
issues
they
attributed
to
their
clerkships.
Griggsby
berated
them
for
perceived
mistakes;
created
a
climate
of
fear
in
chambers
that
prevented
clerks
from
asking
questions;
and
referred
to
one’s
work
as
“crap;”
and
the
other,
“an
embarrassment
to
the
court.”
In
fact,
when
the
complainant
started
his
clerkship,
the
outgoing
clerk
(who
apparently
was
not
interviewed
during
the
investigation)
warned
him
about
the
hostile
work
environment
—
but
it
was
too
late.
One
particular
story,
whitewashed
in
the
order,
haunts
me.
The
co-clerk,
who
was
never
told
she
could
not
use
the
judge’s
private
bathroom,
was
in
the
restroom
when
Griggsby
barged
over,
started
banging
on
the
door,
and
barked,
“My
bathroom!
My
bathroom!”
The
co-clerk,
distraught,
ran
out
of
the
bathroom
with
her
pants
still
unzipped.
She
was
subsequently
too
traumatized
to
drink
or
eat
during
the
day
for
the
rest
of
her
(short)
clerkship
with
Griggsby,
for
fear
of
needing
to
use
the
restroom.
This
inappropriate
and
disrespectful
behavior
is
wholly
unbecoming
of
a
life-tenured
federal
judge.
The
Fourth
Circuit’s
efforts
to
whitewash
this
horrible
experience,
and
the
rest
of
the
clerks’
allegations,
underscore
how
desperately
they
attempt
to
shield
judges
like
Griggsby
from
accountability.
There
are
respectful,
appropriate
ways
to
conduct
oneself
as
a
manager,
especially
under
stressful
circumstances:
Griggsby
—
like
Merriam,
Mark
Wolf,
and
many
others
I’ve
written
about
—
should
not
manage
employees.
The
federal
judiciary’s
claimed
commitment
to
an
“exemplary”
workplace
repeatedly
rings
hollow.
The
judiciary’s
shameful
failure
to
act
for
three
more
years
subjected
subsequent
Griggsby
clerks
to
abuse.
Importantly,
reassigning
clerks
without
addressing
the
underlying
abusive
conduct
through
remedial
action,
retraining,
and
meaningful
discipline
is
a
Band-Aid
over
a
bullet
hole
that
fails
to
solve
the
problem.
Judges
who
mistreat
clerks
but
are
not
disciplined
will
continue
mistreating
them.
Punishment
is
a
deterrent.
Judges
who
evade
meaningful
accountability
may
be
emboldened
to
treat
clerks
worse,
as
with
Merriam.
This
systemic
failure
by
judicial
branch
officials
to
ensure
safe
and
respectful
workplaces
requires
systemic
reform.
Griggsby
may
not
have
been
familiar
to
Above
the
Law
readers,
but
this
was
not
news
to
many
in
the
Maryland
legal
community.
Nor
was
this
news
to
Maryland
Law,
which
warns
students
to
avoid
externships
with
Griggsby
and
offered
to
help
students
get
reassigned
in
the
past.
Disturbingly,
Griggsby
also
made
news
recently
as
the
judge
presiding
over
Tom
Goldstein’s
case
—
engendering
a
wrongly
lionizing
Law360
piece.
It’s
ironic
that
judges
being
investigated
for
misconduct
are
simultaneously
tasked
with
adjudicating
others’
misconduct.
Furthermore,
the
deceptive
practice
of
publishing
disciplinary
orders
anonymously
on
the
U.S.
courts
website,
referring
only
to
a
“subject
judge,”
shields
judges
found
to
have
committed
misconduct
from
accountability.
Fortunately,
I
knew
who
this
judge
was.
That’s
not
always
the
case.
Often,
the
press
and
public
are
forced
to
deduce
judges’
identities.
This
is
not
meaningful
transparency
or
accountability:
the
judiciary
checks
a
box
while
obfuscating
about
serious
misconduct.
Why
is
transparency
important
here?
First,
public
accountability
is
a
deterrent
for
both
the
subject
judge
and
their
colleagues.
Judges
fear
being
publicly
named
and
shamed
and
are
motivated
to
avoid
this:
knowing
their
identities
will
be
shielded
even
if
they’re
found
to
have
committed
misconduct
doesn’t
deter
bad
behavior.
Discipline
is
an
important
deterrent,
especially
in
the
judiciary,
where
judges
are
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
and
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws
and
cannot
be
sued
for
misconduct.
Second,
prospective
clerks
need
to
know
which
judges
mistreat
clerks,
so
they
do
not
clerk
for
judges
like
Griggsby.
Fortunately,
LAP’s
nationwide
Clerkship
Database
serves
as
a
tool
to
warn
applicants,
but
LAP
continually
fields
new
information
about
more
judges
to
avoid.
In
the
wake
of
the
clerks’
reassignment
in
2022,
Griggsby
apparently
made
window
dressing
changes,
including:
“(1)
meeting
with
a
mentor
judge
to
discuss
best
practices
for
chambers
management,
(2)
implementing
informal
coffee
hours
with
staff,
(3)
scheduling
periodic
informal
outings
for
chambers
staff
with
the
judge,
(4)
extending
the
time
for
weekly
docket
review
meetings,
(5)
conducting
informal
exit
interviews,
and
(6)
allowing
incoming
law
clerks
to
shadow
the
outgoing
clerks.”
Some
of
these
are
counterproductive.
Judges
should
not
treat
clerks
like
family
—
clerking
is
a
job
like
any
other
—
and,
rather
than
force
clerks
to
spend
time
outside
the
office
with
the
judge,
likely
extending
their
work
hours
—
Griggsby
should
have
participated
in
remedial
management
training;
trained
each
set
of
incoming
clerks
herself
rather
than
delegating
to
outgoing
clerks;
and
solicited
feedback
from
incoming
and
outgoing
clerks
about
management
preferences
and
how
to
improve.
Judges
delegating
incoming
clerks’
training
to
outgoing
clerks
creates
unnecessary
miscommunication
and
unclear
expectations,
exacerbates
poor
management
and,
when
tensions
run
high,
leads
to
bullying.
Additionally,
this
pre-clerkship
“shadow
time”
is
often
unpaid.
Frankly,
many
judge/clerk
issues
could
be
avoided
if
judges
trained
clerks
themselves;
made
expectations
clear
at
the
outset;
and
regularly
communicated
expectations
and
feedback.
But
the
judiciary
insists
on
decentralization:
every
judge’s
chambers
is
its
own
“fiefdom.”
A
chief
judge
is
loath
to
question
chambers
management,
even
when
a
judge
is
accused
of
misconduct.
The
first
thing
I
noticed
about
this
order,
just
days
after
LAP
filed
our
first
complaint
against
Merriam,
is
the
laughable
“corrective
actions”
for
Griggsby:
they’re
the
same
toothless
remedies
that
did
not
work
on
Merriam.
In
fact,
watching
training
videos,
checking
in
with
the
chief
judge,
and
instructing
the
director
of
workplace
relations
(DWR)
to
check
in
with
clerks,
shockingly,
did
not
deter
Merriam’s
misconduct.
They
won’t
deter
Griggsby,
either:
I
suspect
she’ll
continue
mistreating
clerks,
given
the
lack
of
meaningful
discipline.
Here’s
why
the
specific
corrective
actions
imposed
by
the
Fourth
Circuit
are
meaningless:
•
Participating
in
discussions
about
workplace
conduct
issues
and
proper
management
of
chambers
staff,
including
regular
meetings
with
[the
Chief
Judge]
.
.
.
every
two
months
and
will
be
discontinued
after
18
months
if
no
additional
concerns
arise.
This
did
not
work
with
Merriam—the
Second
Circuit
Chief
Judge
either
failed
to
recognize
Merriam
continued
mistreating
clerks
or,
if
the
Chief
Judge
knew,
she
failed
to
take
meaningful
action
to
protect
clerks
and
discipline
Merriam.
•
Attending
workplace
training
annually
with
chambers
staff.
The
judiciary
claims
this
is
already
required
for
judges
and
clerks.
•
Pledging
to
bring
to
me
(or
to
a
future
chief
judge)
any
workplace
conduct
concerns
that
come
to
the
judge’s
attention.
We
have
no
evidence
a
judge
would
affirmatively
admit
misconduct.
•
Informing
new
law
clerks
that
they
may
bring
any
concerns
directly
to
my
attention
in
addition
to
relying
on
regular
complaint
procedures.
This
is
already
delineated
in
the
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Rules.
•
Affirming
“the
judiciary’s
commitment
to
maintaining
a
work
environment
in
which
all
judicial
employees
are
treated
with
dignity,
fairness,
and
respect,
and
are
free
from
harassment,
discrimination,
.
.
.
retaliation”
and
other
abusive
conduct.
Judicial-Conduct
Rule
4
cmt.
“Affirming”
is
a
meaningless
term.
If
the
corrective
action
is
not
enforceable,
it
won’t
be
enforced,
and
it
won’t
work.
And,
•
Agreeing
that
the
circuit
director
of
workplace
relations
will
meet
with
law
clerks
every
other
month
to
gauge
the
workplace
environment,
with
such
meetings
to
be
discontinued
after
18
months
if
no
additional
concerns
arise.
This
is
probably
the
most
toothless
corrective
action
of
all:
the
Second
Circuit
DWR
learned
of
Merriam’s
ongoing
misconduct
but
failed
to
act.
DWRs
apparently
believe
they
do
not
have
a
duty
to
report
misconduct.
Griggsby
is
the
third
judicial
misconduct
story
in
just
six
weeks
—
following
allegations
against
Merriam
and
a
disciplinary
order
regarding
former
judge
Mark
Wolf,
who
allegedly
resigned
in
late
2025
to
take
a
“principled
stand”
against
Trump
administration
lawlessness,
but
actually
resigned
amid
a
misconduct
investigation
to
evade
accountability.
And
yet,
following
three
stories,
all
widely
covered
in
the
press,
outrageously,
we’ve
seen
radio
silence
from
Congress.
Not
a
single
statement
from
a
single
member
following
any
of
these
stories.
Talk
about
failing
to
use
the
bully
pulpit.
Perhaps
most
disappointing
is
the
lack
of
response
from
a
member
of
my
Pennsylvania
congressional
delegation
—
a
lawyer
who
clerked
and
is
on
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
—
who
refused
to
send
an
oversight
letter
to
the
AO,
even
though
the
Griggsby
complainant
is
one
of
their
constituents
and
one
of
just
two
brave
law
clerk
complainants
last
year.
This
deafening
silence
from
spineless
members
of
Congress
is
shameful:
Congress
has
wholly
abdicated
its
oversight
responsibility
over
the
federal
courts.
To
be
clear:
these
are
congressional
problems
requiring
congressional
solutions.
Congress
believes
they
won’t
be
held
accountable
for
failing
to
act,
because
constituents
don’t
know
this
is
a
problem,
don’t
care
about
this
issue,
or
don’t
understand
how
the
lack
of
accountability
in
the
courts
affects
them.
(In
the
case
of
this
Pennsylvania
congressperson,
I
can’t
think
of
a
more
direct
constituent
impact.)
Congress
doesn’t
understand
judicial
branch
lawlessness
affects
all
of
us.
Clearly,
who
represents
us
in
Congress
matters.
Fortunately,
2026
is
an
election
year.
If
your
member
of
Congress
won’t
act,
hold
them
accountable:
replace
them
with
someone
who
will.
Congress
has
at
least
four
tools
in
its
toolbox
—
legislation,
oversight,
appropriations,
and
the
bully
pulpit
—
and
should
use
these
now
to
hold
the
judiciary
accountable
for
misconduct.
Sadly,
congressional
Democrats
won’t
hold
judges
accountable
who’ve
ruled
against
the
Trump
administration:
that
runs
counter
to
their
perceived
interests.
They
also
seem
intent
on
shielding
abusive
liberal
judges
from
accountability,
since
if
Democratic
appointees
like
Merriam
and
Griggsby
step
down,
Trump
would
choose
their
replacements.
But
congressional
Democrats’
failure
to
prioritize
the
courts
led
us
here;
and
the
Biden
administration’s
and
Senate
Democrats’
failure
to
properly
vet
judicial
nominees
created
this
conundrum.
Congress
must
accept
responsibility
for
fixing
the
mess
they
created.
The
federal
judiciary
fails
to
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct,
refuses
to
enforce
its
own
code
of
conduct,
and
shields
abusive
judges
from
accountability.
Like
other
insular
organizations
that
insist
on
“self-policing,”
like
the
military
and
police
unions,
this
leads
to
a
lack
of
policing.
Congress
must
step
in
and
conduct
oversight
over
the
courts.
Sadly,
Congress
has
done
basically
nothing
on
this
issue
—
allowing
the
federal
judiciary
to
get
away
with
perpetrating
a
fraud
upon
the
public.
We
must
urge
Congress
to
act:
if
they
won’t,
our
votes
are
our
voices,
and
we
should
pick
a
better
Congress
that
will.
After
three
judicial
misconduct
stories
in
just
six
weeks,
when
will
feckless
members
of
Congress
act?
I’ve
heard
every
excuse.
But,
as
I
said
in
congressional
testimony
back
in
2022,
thousands
of
law
clerks
and
tens
of
thousands
of
judicial
branch
employees
cannot
wait
another
year
for
desperately-needed
reforms.
At
a
time
when
Congress
seems
solely
obsessed
with
Trump
—
routinely
calling
for
“accountability”
and
“transparency”
—
they
should
focus
on
the
judiciary,
too:
a
lawless
branch
of
government
acting
with
impunity.
The
entire
country
—
impacted
by
judges’
decisions
—
cannot
wait.
The
time
for
action
is
now.
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.