Beginning with California's adoption of the first such commission in 1960, 49 States and the District of Columbia have disciplinary systems other than the traditional but seldom used methods of impeachment, address, and concurrent resolution. A judicial conduct organization -- most of which are called commissions, boards, councils, or courts -- has permanent agency (1) to which any individual can directly bring a complaint about a judge, (2) that investigates the matter and nofifies the complainant of the dismissal or disposition of the complaint, (3) that holds a formal hearing on serious allegations or brings charges against the judge in a hearing before a separate but related board or court, and (4) that orders discipline or recommends discipline or removal to the State's highest court. The introductory essay traces the development of the judicial conduct commission. It then provides a framework for comparing the 50 systems, that is, whether their structure, procedures, and activities contribute to fulfilling the objectives of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, and educating judges about the high standards of conduct expected of them. Data summarized in the accompanying tables provide the basis for comparing the disciplinary systems' structure, composition, grounds for discipline, sanctions, and confidentiality requirements; their disposition of complaints in 1979; and the degree to which they make their organizations visible. Citations to the governing provisions of all judicial conduct organizations are in tabular form. Finally, a State directory provides information on the administration, personnel, and budget of each organization. Descriptions of the nine disciplinary systems that do not follow the typical unitary commission model are included. (Author abstract modified).