THE NUNN BILL (S.1423) PROVIDES FOR INQUIRIES INTO COMPLAINTS ABOUT FEDERAL JUDGE CONDUCT AND PROPOSES THE CREATION OF A COMMISSION AND A COURT BASED ON WASHINGTON, D.C., TO HANDLE JUDICIAL CONDUCT MATTERS. FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, THE BILL IS UNWISE AND UNNECESSARY SINCE IT FRONTALLY ATTACKS THE INDEPENDENCE OF FEDERAL JUDGES. THERE ARE FEW JUDGES WHOSE CONDUCT WARRANTS THEIR REMOVAL, AND THE CREATION OF A FULL-FLEDGED BUREAUCRACY CONSISTING OF A COMMISSION AND A COURT IS NOT VIABLE. INSTEAD, JUDICIAL COUNCILS OF APPROPRIATE CIRCUITS SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF BOTH DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS TO HANDLE THE FEW CASES WHERE MISCONDUCT MERITS ATTENTION. THESE COUNCILS SHOULD TRANSMIT THEIR REPORTS TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES IF RARE CASES ARISE WHERE ALLEGED CONDUCT REPRESENTS LARGE-SCALE CORRUPTION. BENEFITS OF HANDLING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM ARE FLEXIBILITY IN MEETING LOCAL NEEDS, THE OPTION OF INFORMAL RESOLUTION, AND A STRUCTURE TAILORED TO MEET PERCEIVED NEEDS WITH ONLY MINOR INTRUSIONS ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. IMPEACHMENT IS THE EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF REMOVING A FEDERAL JUDGE FROM OFFICE. THE NUNN BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EMBODIES ERRONEOUS PRINCIPLES, AND IS ADMINISTRATIVELY BURDENSOME. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)