WASHINGTON - Federal judges usually police one another's behavior, but they rarely mete out punishment.  Of 766 ethical complaints lodged last year, only one resulted in a penalty.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments, and only Congress can remove them from office.  Other forms of punishment come at the discretion of fellow federal judges.

In the single case last year in which the judge was punished, the penalty was a private censure and no details, not even the judge's name, were released.

The system encourages lenient treatment, American University law professor Paul Rice said Tuesday.

"They have an obligation to police themselves, and of course that is the problem," he said.  Judges sit on the boards that review allegations of ethical misconduct and are loath to punish a colleague, Rice said.

"We don't like burning brothers in the bond, because you don't know whose ox is going to be gored in the future," he said.

The American Bar Association plans a national commission, to be announced during the group's annual meeting this week in Washington, to examine wider ethical questions involving judges.  The group's incoming president points to an erosion of public trust in the judicial system as money and politics play a growing role in the election of state judges.

Hundreds of ethical complaints are filed against federal judges each year, many of them by prisoners or others unhappy with the outcome of a case.  A large portion of the complaints are frivolous and the overwhelming majority are quickly dismissed by the local chief judge or by a local judges' council, said Richard Carelli, spokesman for the federal judiciary's Washington administrative office.

During the 12 months ending in September 2001, 766 complaints were filed and 668 were resolved.  Only five were referred to a special investigation committee, and four of those were later dismissed, show statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.