The recent call by Northwestern law professor Steven Lubet for a special judicial-conduct committee to investigate Judge Roy Altman's media interviews from his chambers is based on a misreading of the applicable rules. As Joshua Mitts, a Columbia law professor, explains, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit correctly dismissed the complaint because the facts are undisputed and the legal standards were met.
Lubet suggested that whether Altman's interviews constituted a "substantial" use of government resources could be "reasonably disputed," thus warranting a deeper probe. But the commentary to the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings makes clear that a special committee is only needed to resolve genuine factual disputes. If the alleged conduct, even if true, does not violate the rules, dismissal is appropriate.
The facts here are not in dispute. Altman admitted to conducting podcast and TV interviews in his chambers on thirteen separate days. Lubet does not contest any specific fact; instead, he raises interpretive questions about the meaning of "substantiality" and whether any compensated activity from chambers should be permitted. These are legal questions, not factual ones, and therefore do not trigger the need for a committee.
Moreover, the commentary explicitly notes that dismissal after a limited inquiry is proper when a complaint refers to transcripts and the chief judge determines they support the subject judge. In this case, the chief judge reviewed the transcripts of Altman's interviews, which is exactly the kind of summary disposition the rules envision.
Lubet's assertion that a judge should not make "even one sales pitch from chambers" is not supported by the law. Advisory Opinion No. 79 from the Committee on Codes of Conduct explicitly allows judges to use judicial resources like chambers and internet for compensated activities, provided the use is within reasonable limits and imposes no incremental cost on the government. Altman's use appears to have met those conditions—there is no evidence of interference with his duties or use of staff.
Lubet's argument also seems to ignore the broader context of judges earning income from books. In 2024, Supreme Court justices collectively earned over $10 million from book deals. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made nearly $4 million, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a $3 million advance for her memoir. Justice Jackson even gave an interview from her chambers to promote the book. Judge Richard Posner, a prolific author, also appeared on television as "Judge Richard Posner" to discuss his works.
Mitts, who is a law professor, points out that if Lubet is concerned about judges profiting from their positions, he should focus on the Supreme Court rather than a district judge in Florida. The law is clear: Altman followed the rules, and it is unfair to criticize him for doing so.
