Despite the moral dilemmas posed by such situations, no rule of disclosure has been proposed as an amendment to the Canon of Judicial Ethics, and the issue has been largely ignored by the public. Since judges are immune from liability for acts and omissions in the course of their duties, judges are unlikely to act as whistleblowers. They will not be sued for inaction, but could be sued or disciplined for taking extrajudicial action to protect the public. In cases of corporate wrongdoing that threatens the rights of shareholders or the safety of the public, the ethics of sealing records or notifying the press need to be addressed. Medical malpractice and misconduct by lawyers raise problems in determining the judge's obligation to litigants and nonlitigants. Criminal cases may reveal information that entails conflicts between the judge's obligation to defendants and to others such as employers. The conflict between judicial obligations to litigants and human responsibilities to those at risk of harm will not disappear. Lacking a clear policy defining judicial duties or rights to act, most judges will not act. Consequently this issue should be addressed by rule of court or canons of judicial responsibility. 26 footnotes.