Newly disclosed court orders show a misconduct inquiry into a federal judge that was halted when the judge retired.
Mark Wolf, 79, left the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts last November after more than four decades on the bench. In an essay for The Atlantic published Nov. 9, he said he retired because he could no longer be constrained about what judges can say or do outside the courtroom, criticizing President Trump’s actions as an “assault on the rule of law.” He later told PBS NewsHour he was concerned that attacks on the courts were eroding public confidence in judicial impartiality.
The retirement coincided with a limited misconduct review by U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Barron, according to an order dated Nov. 24, 2025. Barron said he conducted interviews — including with the judge under review and the judge’s former law clerk — and found probable cause to believe an unnamed jurist had engaged in misconduct. The order did not disclose specific allegations but said the conduct could encompass “treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees or others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner” or creating a hostile workplace for court staff. Barron concluded further action was unnecessary after “intervening events” — the judge’s retirement.
A person familiar with the investigation, speaking anonymously because it is a sensitive internal matter, identified the judge as Wolf and said his resignation ended the review.
Appointed by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed in 1985, Wolf gained national prominence for prosecuting corruption related to the FBI’s handling of Whitey Bulger informants. Earlier in his career he served as a special assistant to the attorney general after Watergate and led the public corruption unit in the U.S. attorney’s office in Massachusetts.
Reached by phone, Wolf declined to comment directly, saying he was preparing to leave for two weeks and had nothing to say at the moment. Susan Goldberg, executive for the First Circuit, directed inquiries to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which declined to comment.
The newly released orders draw attention to how the federal judiciary polices alleged misconduct internally. Court employees are not covered by federal anti-discrimination statutes, and an NPR investigation previously documented problems with the courts’ internal complaint system, including widespread fear of retaliation by whistleblowers. The steep power imbalance between federal judges and law clerks — who often depend on judges for mentorship and career advancement — can foster silence and deter reporting.
The First Circuit’s limited review appears to have begun after officials received a letter from a judge who relayed what was described as “reliable information” from a former law clerk about potential misconduct.
Aliza Shatzman, founder of the Legal Accountability Project, which helps law clerks understand problematic workplace behavior by judges, said the episode highlights a lack of accountability and the need for congressional oversight. “A judge’s departure from the bench amid a misconduct investigation does not eliminate the need for accountability or transparency,” Shatzman said, calling the outcome neither justice for the reporting clerk nor accountability for judges who mistreat staff.
Last year, a member of Congress introduced the Trust Act, legislation that would require pending misconduct investigations to continue even if a judge retires, resigns or dies. Congress has not advanced the bill. Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, which advocates for judicial transparency, said the federal judiciary “should not tolerate this.”
