On November 7th, the Alaska Supreme Court finalized the disbarment of Joshua Kindred, a former federal judge who was forced to resign after an investigation revealed that Kindred had been intimidating/harassing female law clerks and having sex with two prosecutors who appeared before him. The Alaska Bar Association then conducted its own investigation against Kindred, and the Bar recommended that he be disbarred. Under Alaska law, the Alaska Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for disbarment of any attorney licensed under Alaska law.

This scenario is extremely important to every Alaskan for several reasons. First, Kindred’s unethical involvement with the prosecutors raised questions about whether his decisions were improperly based upon his relationships with the prosecutors – or on the law and the facts of each case. Kindred’s involvement with prosecutors who appeared before him on criminal cases cast doubt upon the integrity of the dispositions in each of those cases. Convictions obtained in those cases have been challenged, causing chaos, reversals and retrials.

Second, the disbarment reflects that Alaska’s system that governs the professional conduct of all Alaskan attorneys sets high professional standards that must be met on a continuing basis – and holds attorneys accountable when their professional conduct falls below those standards.

Third, this sorry episode highlights the importance of comprehensive evaluations of every judicial applicant being considered for a position on any court – and that those evaluations should be conducted by independent, nonpartisan bodies and made public. It contrasts the manner in which Kindred landed on the federal bench – a partisan appointment against Alaska’s wholly independent, nonpartisan, constitutionally-mandated system that requires a comprehensive background evaluation of every state judicial applicant before that individual can be considered for nomination or appointment to the bench.

Our system is recognized as one of the best in this country, if not the best, and has served Alaskans well for almost 70 years, producing high quality judges who have served Alaska with integrity, skill, and deep commitment to the rule of law. The system relies upon the work conducted by the Alaska Judicial Council, an independent, nonpartisan body tasked with the responsibility for thoroughly evaluating every judicial applicant, leaving no stone unturned in this comprehensive process.

Alaskans have a right to be proud of our constitutional process, and proud of the work done by the Judicial Council. The evaluation process required by our constitution is intended to protect Alaskans from the behavior in which Kindred engaged. Alaska’s Constitution adds an additional important layer of protection – requiring every state judge and justice to stand for retention periodically. They must appear on the ballot every so many years, giving Alaskans an opportunity to consider every judge’s job performance and to vote to keep them on the bench – or not. The Alaska Judicial Council again conducts a comprehensive dive into the professional job performance of every judge or justice when it is their time to be on the ballot and stand for retention and makes that evaluation available to the public.

While Alaska’s system does not apply to the appointment of federal judges – it applies only to state judges – Kindred’s unprofessional behavior eroded public faith in Alaska’s state justice system, making our work more difficult. But Alaskans for Fair Courts is up to the challenge. We will continue to reach out across Alaska to help Alaskans understand the current constitutionally created and why it benefits all. We must all do everything in our collective power to protect Alaska’s Constitution and the rule of law.

We appreciate your past support – and really cannot do this work without you.

-Alaskans for Fair Courts