THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THESE COMMISSIONS IS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT IN A PARTICULAR JURISDICTION. THE COMMISSIONS ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR AN APPEAL BY AN AGGRIEVED LITIGANT, AND THEY SHOULD NOT ACT IN A WAY THAT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. IN PRACTICE, JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY COMMISSIONS HAVE FIVE RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH ARISE WHEN A JUDICIAL OFFICER: IS CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A SPECIFIC CRIMINAL OFFENSE; WILLFULLY VIOLATES STATUTES, RULES, OR ETHICAL STANDARDS IN CARRYING OUT JUDICIAL DUTIES; IS GUILTY OF CONDUCT UNRELATED TO JUDICIAL DUTIES WHICH PREJUDICES THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM; NEEDS CORRECTION OF CONDUCT RELATED TO DEFICIENCIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL DUTIES; OR HAS A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY THAT PREVENTS THE CARRYING OUT OF RESPONSIBILITIES. PROPOSED STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION DEALING WITH JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY CATEGORIZE GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE BY COMMISSIONS IN THE WAY THAT PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THESE GROUNDS HAVE DEVELOPED UNDER EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. THE PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY COMMISSIONS IS TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND NOT TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR TRADITIONAL PROCEDURES. CASE LAW IS REVIEWED. (DEP)