The Institute for Judicial Studies was founded in 2005 to defend judicial independence and demand judicial accountability.

In 2006 the Institute launched JudicialReports.com to cover developments within the state and federal judiciary, starting with the New York metropolitan region. Deeply detailed Judicial Profiles are also available. The Blue Book of New York Judges offers a digest of that research, focused on State Supreme Court Justices in the City. Its second edition, scheduled for publication in 2008, will include capsules on the same level of Justices sitting in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester, as well as Federal Judges sitting in the Eastern and Southern Districts.

Anyone seeking a full understanding of a jurist’s performance is urged to delve deeply and carefully. Gauging judicial performance is a complicated, often subjective endeavor. Individual competence and integrity are foremost considerations. But context is often key, whether it be the sociology of a given jurisdiction, the division of caseload labor among jurists, or the political economy that brokers the allocation of resources for the system.

Both IJS and JudicialReports.com conduct analyses aggressively but soberly, with a commitment to expanding journalistic sources and refining metrics as efforts evolve. Careful attention has been paid to how each jurisdiction's criminal or civil benches are organized. In New York City, each borough is in many ways a jurisprudential world unto itself, with customs and protocols that differentiate it from its sisters in the city. IJS is attentive to how easily manipulated or misinterpreted statistics can be. A high reversal rate, for example, can mean anything from a highly political appellate bench to a manifestly incompetent jurist.

Beyond that, the Institute has adopted some core principles:

- The IJS approach to judicial research and journalism is rigorously nonpartisan and nonideological. The Institute publishes its conclusions without fear or favor.

- IJS assumes that a majority of judges are competent and hard-working. But it also proceeds from the observation that the opaque method of their selection at the State level has undermined public confidence in the system of justice.

- Although IJS research indicates that judicial elections are inferior to many appointive regimes to be found throughout the country, the Institute readily acknowledges that voters are reluctant to surrender what they perceive to be their franchise.

- Until an appointive system can be enacted, IJS will pursue greater electoral transparency.

- IJS research indicates that judges should be paid more — and that the system charged with their oversight should likewise receive more resources. A judge makes less than the average first-year associate at a major law firm. Both the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Legal Aid services also require increased funding to improve public confidence and access to justice.

In sum, IJS advocates the development of a judiciary both stronger and wiser. It must be both independent under the Constitution but more accountable to the commonweal. In that pursuit, the institute believes that knowledge is power — and ignorance is no excuse.