The courts belong to the public
The people who run our courts police themselves. It isn't working.
The public entrusts judges with administering justice, and lawyers admitted to practice become officers of the courts in which they appear. Together they are the guardians of the public's trust in the judicial system — yet they are largely responsible for policing themselves. That system of self-regulation fails to hold misconduct accountable, eroding public confidence in the courts. Vitreo counts what the profession won't, and is building a public, structured way to document misconduct in the open.
Sources: Vitreo's independent 51-jurisdiction collection, ABA surveys, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. See full data & citations →
Americans have noticed
Confidence in the courts has collapsed
The erosion of trust runs deeper than the partisan fight over the Supreme Court.
Confidence at a record low
Gallup finds Americans' confidence in the judicial system and courts at a record-low 35% in 2024 — down 24 points in four years and roughly 20 points below the average for wealthy democracies.
Judges' ethics ratings at a record low
Gallup's honesty-and-ethics survey rates judges at a record-low 28% — about half their standing two decades ago — with lawyers, too, rated more negatively than positively.
The word Americans chose: “corrupt”
Asked by the World Justice Project to describe the state of the rule of law in the United States, the word Americans chose most often was “corrupt.”
“Secrecy in discipline proceedings continues to be the greatest single source of public distrust of lawyer disciplinary systems.” — ABA Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement (“McKay Report”), Lawyer Regulation for a New Century
The problem
Self-regulation without transparency
“Corrupt” is difficult to quantify — but evidence may be found in the numbers the system produces about itself.
Few complaints go anywhere
Only about 2–3% of the ~110,000 complaints filed against lawyers each year end in any public discipline. For judges it is narrower still: the median state converts just 0.9% of complaints into a public sanction — and the federal bench sanctioned zero judges in FY2025.
Secrecy by default
In most jurisdictions, complaints and investigations stay confidential unless public discipline is imposed. Dismissed complaints — the overwhelming majority — leave no public trace, so patterns of misconduct stay hidden for years.
Even the counting has stopped
Ten states publish no discipline figures of their own at all, and national survey totals shrink as states stop reporting. Where you practice matters too: public-discipline rates vary roughly eightfold between the strictest and most lenient states.
Why it matters
Accountability requires a public record
Courts are supposed to be open. Yet the system that disciplines the people who run them operates mostly out of view. When a client is wronged or a litigant is mistreated, there is rarely a durable, searchable record — so the next person has no way to know.
Vitreo's premise is simple: sunlight is the precondition for accountability. A credible public record, built on evidence and fair to everyone named in it, changes the incentives for an entire profession.
How Vitreo addresses it →Public discipline, per year
Who actually gets held to account:
| Attorneys (~1.38M nationwide) | ~2,500 |
| State judges (~30,000 nationwide) | ~95 |
| Federal judges (~860 judgeships) | 0 |
Attorneys: Vitreo bottom-up count, 2023. State judges: NCSC core sanctions, 2024. Federal: Table S-22, FY2025 (1,857 complaints, zero sanctions).
Our approach
From scattered grievances to an open, structured record
Vitreo is building a civil-docket–style platform to document complaints in public, with fairness built in.
Count
Rebuild the national numbers from the bottom up — 2,932 data points across all 51 jurisdictions, flagged and sourced.
Document
Turn unstructured grievances into evidence-backed, numbered, searchable public dockets.
Be fair
Anyone named gets a permanent, free right to respond on the same record.
Open the data
Aggregate what's been hidden, so patterns across the system become visible.
Register your interest
Tell us what you care about and how you'd like to be involved. Members get updates and early access.
Volunteer your skills
Reviewers, fact-checkers, legal advisors, researchers, writers, and developers all move this forward.
Fund the work
Independent accountability work needs independent funding. Support keeps the record free and public.