Legal News

Kozinski Calls for Investigation of Himself

By Amir Efrati

Folks, this just in on the Alex Kozinski front. The 9th Circuit judge, who posted sexually explicit material on a personal site, according to a Los Angeles Times story yesterday, has just released this statement:

I have asked the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to take steps pursuant to Rule 26, of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability, and to initiate proceedings concerning the article that appeared in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. I will cooperate fully in any investigation.

Alex Kozinski

News of the images was reported earlier this week by the Los Angeles Times, which said the judge acknowledged posting sexual content and conceded some of the material was inappropriate. The judge told the newspaper that he thought the material was private, though he acknowledged sharing some with friends. After the article came out, a court spokeswoman said the judge’s son said he uploaded much of the material referenced in the Times story to a computer server that the son maintains. It’s not clear what was posted by the judge and what was posted by others.

Legal ethics professors said they thought an investigation was appropriate. The main concerns, they said, should be whether the judge took sufficient steps to make sure the material was inaccessible, and whether and to what extent material was disseminated.

“I’m not sure the fact that a judge looks at or circulates, internally, pornographic images is a valid basis to say he engaged in misconduct,” says Charles Geyh, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law. But, Geyh says, “You have a chief judge accused of misconduct of a kind that will be widely known because of its titillating character. Take it seriously.”

Deborah Rhode at Stanford Law School said that to have the material “open to public consumption at the very least displays an extraordinary lack of judgment.”

Any investigation would likely be conducted by another circuit, as Kozinski is chief judge of the Ninth Circuit.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on June 12, 2008 (boomark / email).