All federal judges appointed under the provisions of Article III of the Constitution hold office "during good Behavior," which means in effect for life or until they choose to step down. The only way they can be removed from the bench is by impeachment (indictment by the House of Representatives) and conviction by the Senate. In accordance with constitutional requirements (for Supreme Court justices) and legislative standards (for appeals and trial court judges), impeachment may occur for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." An impeached jurist would face trial in the Senate, which could convict by a vote of two-thirds of the members present.
Since 1789 the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings against only 13 jurists -- although about an equal number of judges resigned just before formal action was taken against them. Of these 13 cases, only seven resulted in a conviction, which removed them from office.
Although outright acts of criminality by those on the bench are few, a gray area of misconduct may put offending judges somewhere between acceptable and impeachable behavior. What to do with the federal jurist who hears a case despite an obvious conflict of interest, who consistently demonstrates biased behavior in the courtroom, whose personal habits negatively affect his or her performance in court? Historically, little has been done in such cases other than issuance of a mild reprimand by colleagues. In recent decades, however, actions have been taken to discipline judges.
On October 1, 1980, a new statute of Congress took effect. Titled the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the law has two distinct parts. The first part authorizes the Judicial Council in each circuit, composed of both appeals and trial court judges and presided over by the chief judge of the circuit, to "make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit." The second part of the act establishes a statutory complaint procedure against judges. Briefly, it permits an aggrieved party to file a written complaint with the clerk of the appellate court. The chief judge then reviews the charge and may dismiss it if it appears frivolous, or for a variety of other reasons. If the complaint seems valid, the chief judge must appoint an investigating committee consisting of himself or herself and an equal number of trial and circuit court judges. After an inquiry the committee reports to the council, which has several options: the judge may be exonerated; if the offender is a bankruptcy judge or magistrate, he or she may be removed; and an Article III judge may be subject to private or public reprimand or censure, certification of disability, request for voluntary resignation, or prohibition against further case assignments. However, removal of an Article III judge is not permitted; impeachment is still the only recourse. If the council determines that the conduct might constitute grounds for impeachment, it will notify the Judicial Conference, which in turn may transmit the case to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration.
Do you have a source for that?