THE INTEREST IN NEW FORMS OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL SUSTAINED IN THE U.S. OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES HAS SPURRED THE ESTABLISHMENT IN ALMOST ALL THE STATES OF JUDICIAL BRANCH COMMISSIONS. THESE COMMISSIONS ARE COMPOSED OF JUDGES, LAWYERS, AND NONLAWYERS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED JUDICIAL UNFITNESS AND TO PURSUE A RANGE OF SANCTIONS FOR DEALING WITH IT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALSO BEEN PRESSURED TO INSTITUTE SUCH A COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH ALLEGED FEDERAL JUDGE UNFITNESS. CONTRIBUTING TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS IS THE FACT THAT JUDICIAL SYSTEMS ARE NOW PERCEIVED AS COMPLEX AND INTERDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS IN NEED OF SOME OVERSEEING. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CENTRALIZED, REFLECTING THE VIEW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO EITHER INDIVIDUAL JUDGES OR COURTS. FURTHERMORE, WIDESPREAD POPULAR OPINION HAS GAINED MOMENTUM IN DEMANDING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY MECHANISMS. FOUR NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN JURISDICTIONS CONSIDER ENSURING QUALITY OF THEIR JUDICIARY. FIRST, THE IMPORTANCE AND THE LIMITS OF THE OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE JUDICIAL INDEPENCES MUST BE RECOGNIZED. SECOND, THE BEST QUALITIES OF INFORMAL METHODS MUST BE RETAINED FOR DEALING WITH PROBLEM JUDGES. THIRD, ASSURANCE THAT THE SYSTEM WILL INDEED RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS MUST BE PROVIDED. FINALLY, ANY SYSTEM MUST CONFORM TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JURISDICTION IN QUESTION. THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR MECHANISM FOR JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE HAS PROVEN SUCCESSFUL IN ONE OR MORE STATES DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, OR OTHER STATES, WITHOUT CAREFUL SCRUTINY. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--MHP)