The Legal Accountability Project Responds To Yet Another Federal Judge’s Resignation Amid A Misconduct Investigation

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

For Immediate Release

Contact: Aliza Shatzman, 267-481-2095, aliza.shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org

The Legal Accountability Project Responds To Yet Another Federal Judge’s Resignation Amid A Misconduct Investigation

The First Circuit’s investigation into former judge Mark Wolf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which concluded when he resigned in November 2025, is just the latest example of both the disturbing lack of accountability for federal judges who abuse their power and the urgent need for outside congressional oversight over the federal courts. 

This November 24, 2025 order, which was affirmed by the First Circuit Judicial Council just one month after The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) filed its first judicial misconduct complaint against Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam, alleging Judge Merriam also created a hostile work environment for clerks and staff, illustrates that the federal judiciary has a pervasive misconduct problem requiring systemic change. The time for reform is now. 

On November 24, 2025, First Circuit Chief Judge David Barron issued a judicial misconduct order regarding an anonymous district court judge within the First Circuit. NPR reporting subsequently confirmed that the subject judge was Mark Wolf. The order explains that Chief Judge Barron received a letter from a District Chief Judge containing "information constituting reasonable grounds for inquiry into whether" a district judge from the chief judge's district "ha[d] engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." Chief Judge Barron subsequently conducted a “limited inquiry,” which included an interview with the clerk. The interview and letter revealed "'reliable information'" that "if credited, would be 'reasonably likely' to constitute 'cognizable misconduct' within the meaning of Rule 4(a)(2)" of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Rule 4(a)(2) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct provides in relevant part: "Cognizable misconduct includes: . . . treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; or . . . creating a hostile work environment for judicial employees." 

Chief Judge Barron subsequently identified a formal complaint against the subject judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA) and conducted a limited inquiry, pursuant to Rule 11(b) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct, which included “lengthy oral interviews of the subject judge and the former law clerk, respectively, review of the written summary of these interviews, several conversations with the subject judge, and review of a number of written submissions from the subject judge.” 

However, Chief Judge Barron concluded the inquiry due to an “intervening event”—Wolf’s resignation late last year, allegedly to take a principled stand against Executive Branch overreach. Under current judiciary policy, a judge’s retirement or resignation currently concludes any investigation into them, effectively allowing judges accused of misconduct to step down to evade accountability. A bill LAP helped introduce in 2025 would close this legal loophole. 

According to LAP’s President and Founder Aliza Shatzman, “A judge’s departure from the bench amid a misconduct investigation does not eliminate the need for real accountability or transparency. This outcome represents neither justice for the mistreated clerk who bravely reported the misconduct, likely facing significant headwinds against reporting, nor accountability for one of many federal judges who abuse their power by mistreating judicial law clerks and staff. This situation also demonstrates the urgent need for Congress to pass the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary (“TRUST”) Act, which would revise the JCDA so investigations into judges’ alleged misconduct can continue even after judges step down to evade accountability for misconduct.”

The federal judiciary appears intent on shielding abusive judges from real accountability, at the expense of ensuring safe work environments for its more than 30,000 judicial branch employees, who are also exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and all federal anti-discrimination laws and workplace protections. It is beyond time for the federal judiciary to be held accountable for its failure to enforce basic ethical standards for life-tenured federal judges. Furthermore, Congress must take action by both extending federal anti-discrimination protections to over 30,000 exempt judicial branch employees, and revising the clearly broken judicial complaint process that allows allegedly abusive judges like Wolf to simply resign to evade accountability. Judges should be held to the same workplace standards as all other employers across the country. It defies logic that the judges interpreting federal anti-discrimination laws are not subject to those same laws. A fairer and more transparent judicial discipline system would help restore public confidence in the federal courts, at a time when public trust is rightfully lacking.