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 Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
The post Maryland Federal Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby Acknowledges Creating ‘Abusive’ Workplace appeared first on Above the Law.