An ethical issue has arisen regarding a solicitation sent by the chairman of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, requesting contributions to Leslie Crocker Snyder, an attorney who is challenging District Attorney Morgenthau in the September Democratic primary.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has 11 members, chosen by the governor, the chief judge, and legislative leaders. Its chair is Manhattan attorney Lawrence Goldman, commissioner since 1990, most recently reappointed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

What happened here is that Mr. Goldman wrote a form letter, which he sent to many of his professional colleagues, asking them to contribute to Ms. Snyder’s campaign. One of the letters, Mr. Goldman claims, inadvertently went to Thomas Liotti, a criminal defense lawyer and part-time town justice in Westbury, Nassau County.

Judges are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns, except their own. Mr. Goldman’s solicitation came to public attention when Mr. Liotti complained; we do not know whether any other judges were asked for money.

Mr. Goldman, a state official, reviews the conduct of judges and votes on whether they should be removed from office. For him to write letters soliciting money from lawyers to elect a district attorney is not illegal, but questions arise as to its propriety and the impression it may convey.

The issue of political intervention stirs interest into Mr. Goldman’s record on the commission. He is its longest-serving member (since 1990); his current four-year term expires in March 2006.

In a number of recent cases, Mr. Goldman has proved himself to be particularly merciful in dealing with judicial misconduct. Although he concurs in findings of guilt, he is extremely reluctant to impose the only sanction the commission can impose that goes beyond a slap on the wrist.

For example, Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg gave more than $9 million in fees in 475 estates to his Manhattan Beach neighbor and Brooklyn Law School buddy, Louis Rosenthal. In many of these cases, the fees the judge allowed were exorbitant. In five and a half years, Mr. Rosenthal never submitted the affidavit required by law with an application for fees. His requests for payment were handwritten on Post-it notes attached to the case file.

Mr. Rosenthal demanded and received a flat 8% of each estate, regardless of the amount of work he did on the case. A 1988 agreement between the state attorney general, the Kings County surrogate, and the counsel to the public administrator set a maximum fee of 6% of each estate, except in unusual circumstances. When the Commission on Judicial Conduct voted in February 2005 to remove Mr. Feinberg as Kings County surrogate, Mr. Goldman wrote a lengthy dissent from the commission’s decision.

In another case, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason lifted money from escrow accounts, both as a lawyer and as a judge. He took $26,000 in checks to himself, plus $4,000 in checks made out to cash. He spent this money, which did not belong to him, for personal travel and political contributions. Mr. Mason was removed from the bench in 2002, with Mr. Goldman dissenting. The dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Mr. Mason was subsequently disbarred.

An unusual case, which did not involve greed, was decided in 2004. Henry Bauer, a city court judge in Troy (across the Hudson River from Albany), when dealing with minor offenses, including riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, imposed bail of $25,000 on young bicyclists who were not represented by counsel.

Unable to make bail, the defendants were remanded to city jail, where they languished for periods up to seven days before Mr. Bauer saw them again. At that time, the defendants were offered a plea bargain. If they pleaded guilty, they were sentenced to time served, which means they would be released immediately. If they pleaded not guilty, they would be sent back to jail until their case would be heard. Understandably, nearly everyone pleaded guilty.

The situation is made more bizarre because, in many cases, the original offense was not punishable by jail, even if the perpetrators were convicted.The commission voted to remove Mr. Bauer for numerous instances of this unusual practice. Mr. Goldman again dissented from the decision.

In each of the cases cited here, Mr. Goldman was joined in dissent by two others, out of the 11 on the commission. But his co-dissenters varied from case to case, while Mr. Goldman was the most consistent voice for keeping deeply flawed judges on the bench. Although he chairs the commission, he appears to be in substantial disagreement with most of the other commissioners, who insist on higher standards for judicial conduct. This does not reflect on his professional ability, and we have no evidence of any inappropriate intervention to influence his decisions.

It is Mr. Goldman’s judgment in these cases that we find puzzling. Perhaps over his many years on the commission, he has become more tolerant of judicial misbehavior and more in sync with Albany’s laissez-faire attitude with regard to ethical standards. If that be the case, he may not be the most suitable person in the state of New York to chair its Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Mr. Stern is a former New York City Parks Commissioner and the director of New York Civic.