PENNSYLVANIA’S LAWYERS AND JUDGES

 

Pennsylvania has one of the nation’s oldest judicial systems. You can find an excellent summary of that history on the AOPC web site: http://www.aopc.org/Index/UJS/courthistory.asp

 

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE IN PENNSYLVANIA

 

The Two-Tier System of Judicial Discipline in Pennsylvania

The Judicial Conduct Board and The Court of Judicial Discipline

 

Ethical complaints against Judges in Pennsylvania are filed with the Judicial Conduct Board. The Board’s web site: http://www.judicialconductboardofpa.org/ contains a detailed explanation of the judicial disciplinary system, a complete set of the enabling legislation and ethical rules for judicial officers, biographies of the Board Members and a downloadable complaint form.

 

The Judicial Conduct Board is composed of twelve members, of whom six are appointed by the Governor and six by the Supreme Court. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall appoint one judge from either the Superior Court or the Commonwealth Court , one district justice, one lawyer and three non-lawyer electors. The Governor's appointees include one judge from the courts of common pleas, two lawyers and three non-lawyer electors. No more than half of the members appointed by either authority may be registered in the same political party.

 

Powers and Duties of the Judicial Conduct Board

 

Article V, §18(a)(7) of the Constitution sets forth the general powers and duties of the Judicial Conduct Board. Among the primary responsibilities of the Board are:

I. to receive and investigate complaints regarding judicial conduct filed by individuals or initiated by the Board,

II. to determine whether probable cause exists to file formal charges against a judicial officer, and

III. to present its case in support of the filed charges before the Court of Judicial Discipline.

Essentially, the Board acts in a manner similar to a prosecutor in a criminal action.

 

Confidentiality of Judicial Board Proceedings

 

All proceedings of the Judicial Conduct Board are confidential until the Board files formal charges with the Court of Judicial Discipline unless the judicial officer under investigation elects to waive confidentiality. All proceedings in the Court of Judicial Discipline are open to the public.

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

 

If the Judicial Conduct Board determines that a complaint may have merit formal charges are filed in the Court of Judicial Discipline. The Court’s web site: http://www.cjdpa.org/ contains an explanation of their procedures, a complete collection of their decisions, and biographies of the Judges on the Court.

 

The Court of Judicial Discipline is composed of eight members , four of whom are appointed by the Supreme Court and four of whom are appointed by the Governor. No more than two of the members appointed by each appointing authority may be of the same political party. Membership is further broken down as follows: the Supreme Court appoints: two judges (from the common pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts); one justice of the peace (District Justice); and one non-lawyer elector. The Governor appoints: one judge (from the common pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts); one non-lawyer elector; and two non-judge members of the bar.

 

Powers and Duties of the Court of Judicial Discipline

 

Article V, §18(b)(5) of the Constitution provides that, upon the filing of charges with the Court by the Judicial Conduct Board, the Court shall promptly schedule a hearing to determine whether a sanction should be imposed against the judicial officer. The Constitution provides that the Court shall be a court of record and all proceedings shall be a matter of public record. All hearings shall be public proceedings conducted pursuant to rules adopted by the Court and in accordance with the principles of due process and the law of evidence. Parties appearing before the Court shall have a right to discovery pursuant to rules adopted by the Court and shall have the right to subpoena witnesses and to compel the production of documents. The charged judicial officer shall be presumed innocent and the Judicial Conduct Board shall have the burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence.

 

Article V, §18(d)(1) provides that a judicial officer may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for conviction of a felony; violation of Section 17 of Article V; misconduct in office; neglect or failure to perform the duties of office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law; or conduct in violation of a canon or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. In the case of a mentally or physically disabled justice, judge or justice of the peace, the Court may enter an order of removal from office, retirement, suspension or other limitations on the activities of the justice, judge or justice of the peace as warranted by the record. Upon a final order of the Court for suspension without pay or removal, prior to any appeal, the justice, judge or justice of the peace shall be suspended or removed from office; and the salary of the justice, judge or justice of the peace shall cease from the date of the order.

 

The Constitutional Amendment, at Article V, §18(d)(2), empowers the Court of Judicial Discipline to issue an interim order prior to a hearing directing the suspension, with or without pay, of any judicial officer against whom formal charges have been filed with the Court by the Board, or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony.

 

On appeal, as mentioned, the Supreme Court's review of the decision of the Judiciary Inquiry and Review Board has been de novo. The 1993 Amendment imposes a much more narrowly defined scope of review. Article V, §18(c)(2) provides that on appeal the Supreme Court shall review the record of the Court as follows: on the law, the scope of review is plenary; on the facts, the scope of review is clearly erroneous; and, as to sanctions, the scope of review is whether the sanctions imposed were lawful. The Supreme Court may revise or reject an order of the Court upon a determination that the order did not sustain this standard of review; otherwise, the Supreme Court shall affirm the order of the Court.

 

LAWYER DISCIPLINE IN PENNSYLVANIA

 

Our Supreme Court licenses lawyers in Pennsylvania . Complaints against lawyers begin at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which serves as the prosecutor in attorney discipline cases. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court hears these cases. The Disciplinary Board web site: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/ includes a searchable database of attorneys licensed in Pennsylvania, listing each lawyer’s office address, license status and disciplinary history. The web site also has a downloadable official complaint form and a brochure explaining the disciplinary complaint process. Proceedings before the Board are confidential. Recommendations for serious discipline are filed with the Supreme Court which has the final decision authority. The Court can accept or modify the Board’s recommendation.

 

Attorney William “Skip” Arbuckle served in the Attorney General’s Criminal Division Public Corruption Section (1981-1985) and as Counsel to the Judicial Board for eight years (1986-1993). Since entering private practice Skip has represented many lawyers, judges, and district justices in disciplinary proceedings. If you are a lawyer or judge who may be facing a disciplinary inquiry or investigation call Attorney Arbuckle for a confidential consultation.

 

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client”

Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Special Note: This article has been posted to inform and not to advise. It is based on Pennsylvania law. The statements are general, and individual facts in a given case may alter their application or involve other laws not referred to here. Please call The Mazza Law Group, P.C. today for an appointment to speak with Attorney Arbuckle about the specifics of your particular case. When you call, tell the receptionist you would like an appointment to discuss a judge or attorney discipline case and there will be no charge for the initial consultation. Our appointments telephone number is (814) 237-6255 .