Judicial misconduct breaks the fabric of what is essential to an effective judiciary - citizens who believe its judges are fair and impartial. The judiciary cannot exist without the trust and confidence of the people. Therefore, judges must be held accountable to legal and ethical standards. To hold them accountable for their behaviour, a review of judicial conduct must be conducted without compromising the independence of judicial decision-making. This task can be daunting. More than any other branch of government, the judiciary is built on the foundation of general doctrine - judges do not command armies or police forces, do not have the power to finance initiatives and do not pass legislation. Instead, they make judgments about the law. Judgments that people must believe in are issued by competent, legitimate and independent judicial officers. Judicial misconduct comes in many forms, and ethical standards address problematic actions, omissions, and relationships that drain public trust. Common complaints of moral misconduct include inappropriate behavior; disqualification properly when a judge has a conflict of interest; Engaging in unilateral communication and not carrying out their judicial duties in a timely manner. Behavior outside the courtroom can also be contested. Monitoring judicial conduct should not attempt to regulate the purely personal aspects of a judge's life. However, a judge can commit misconduct by engaging in personal conduct that calls into question his or her judicial integrity. This is true even if the same behavior is considered unwise to the average citizen. As the saying goes, the dress magnifies the behavior. Visible examples include violations of criminal law, sexual misconduct with employees/lawyers/parties, joining discriminatory organizations and using the judicial position to advance private interest. Many codes of judicial conduct also include general language urging judges to maintain judicial integrity and to avoid even appearing inappropriate. For example, the preamble to the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct states that “judges shall maintain the dignity of office at all times and avoid both wrongdoing and inappropriate appearances in their professional and personal lives.” [1] At what point is the judge's judgment so far so far removed from case law and law or such a flagrant violation of fundamental rights that the judge appears to be acting with impunity toward the law? In general, a judge's decisions should be left for judicial review, not for criticism by a conduct committee. However, incidents in which people are imprisoned without due process, judges invent inappropriate remedies for cases, or a breakdown in the rule of law can amount to judicial misconduct. Regulating this type of behavior without violating the separation of powers or the independence of decision-making becomes just a knife-edge. Implementing a purposeful method to protect the public from judicial misconduct is vital - there should be a review. Moreover, it should be done with the least risk of unlawful interference by forces trying to prevent unpopular, but correct, judgments about the law. Of course, there must be a proper system in place to protect the rights of judges to challenge moral charges. If there is a conclusion that the judge has violated standards of judicial ethics, determining punishment or compensation will be the next step. A well-equipped Conduct Committee must have appropriate remedies available. Public discipline serves the dual purpose of correcting the judge in question, as well as educating others in the judiciary. Executive committees usually have the power to publish warnings or reprimands for unethical behavior. Remedial measures that require, for example, guidance, monitoring or additional education may be required. The rare and serious penalties of suspension or removal from office are reserved only for the most heinous cases of misconduct. The judiciary must support measures that make it accountable. While the majority of judges act with honor, moral errors must be corrected, and serious breaches of trust must be acknowledged. The judiciary must be willing to assist in the development of ethical standards and be an active part of any enforcement mechanism. Quoting former President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt: “No man is above the law nor is there a man under it; nor do we ask permission of any man when we ask him to comply. Obedience to the law is required as a right, and it is not required as a service.” The judges who administer justice in our country must be seen as moral and subject to meaningful correction when necessary. Nothing less than the rule of law is at stake.