IN RE:
	Gordon J. Daghir,	:	Court of Judicial Discipline
	President Judge of the	:	Docket No. 1 JD 95
	Court of Common Pleas,	:
	Fifty-Ninth Judicial District,	:
	Elk and Cameron Counties	:

BEFORE:		FILED: April 19, 1995
	Honorable Joseph F. McCloskey, President Judge Honorable William F. Burns, Judge Honorable Peter DePaul, Judge Honorable William C. Cassebaum, Judge Honorable Justin M. Johnson, Judge Honorable Samuel J. Magaro, Judge

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 1995, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court enters the following ORDER:

1. Judge Daghir is hereby REPRIMANDED for the conduct to which he has admitted.

2. Judge Daghir is hereby SUSPENDED for a term of seven calendar days without pay. Said suspension shall begin on Sunday, May 21, 1995 and shall conclude at the end of the day, Saturday, May 27, 1995.

3. Judge Daghir is directed to APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT on Tuesday, May 23, 1995 at 9:45 a.m. in Commonwealth Court Courtroom No. 1, 5th Floor, South Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, at which time this Court shall impose an ORAL REPRIMAND.

4. The Court has based its decision to impose the above sanctions upon the following determinations:

(a) Judge Daghir demonstrated a serious lack of judgment in accepting Penn State football tickets from a person who had a matter of significant financial interest pending before him.

 

(b) Judges are rightly expected to conduct their professional and personal lives in an exemplary manner. The public has a right to a judicial system in which they can have complete confidence.

 

(c) A judge must always be alert to situations which give rise to inherent impropriety. The mere giving of a gift from a lawyer to a judge, even when the lawyer does not have a case pending before the judge, implies that there is some string or thread attached to the gift, unless, of course, the gift arises out of a longstanding personal friendship between the lawyer and judge.

 

(d) Accepting gifts from litigants is one of the clearest examples of a situation that a judge must avoid, even if the judicial officer perceives the gift as one that does not have much value, and even if the judge has no intention of bestowing favorable treatment upon the donor in exchange for the gift.

 

(e) Judge Daghir's acceptance of the tickets demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of his position as a jurist and his responsibilities to the public. Judges must always be concerned with not only the presence of actual bias, but the appearance of bias and partiality as well. Judge Daghir failed to recognize that his acceptance of the gift from a litigant created, at a minimum, the appearance of partiality and impropriety. Such conduct results in the erosion of public confidence and increases the skepticism and cynicism with which the public often views the administration of justice. Judge Daghir's improper conduct has caused the image of all the members of the Commonwealth's judicial system to be tarnished, and has undermined the public's view of the administration of justice throughout the state.

 

(f) The Respondent's laudable act of reporting his improper acceptance of the tickets to the Judicial Conduct Board does not excuse his conduct in this matter. The Court encourages judicial officers to report such misconduct; selfreporting is indeed one means by which a judge may show that he or she is remorseful and cooperative. However, in the case of the Respondent, this Court notes with disapproval the fact that Judge Daghir delayed reporting his receipt of the tickets and did not recuse himself from the case until after the donor-litigant had contacted him and until after the Special Master the Respondent appointed to decide the equitable distribution aspect of the donor-litigant's divorce action had issued a proposed report on the distribution of property.

 

(g) Respondent testified that, after this matter became public, he took a leave of absence from his position as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners. That Board has included among its powers the responsibility of recommending the admission of persons to the Pennsylvania bar and the practice of law. Pa.B.A.R. 104(c)(3). In discharging that obligation, the Board is required to evaluate the qualifications of candidates, and must find an absence of prior conduct by the applicant which in the opinion of the Board indicates character and general qualifications incompatible with the standards expected to be observed by the members of the bar of this Commonwealth. Pa.B.A.R. 203(a)(3).

 

(h) We recognize that a position on the Board of Law Examiners is at the pleasure of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. However, we cannot but express our concern that Judge Daghir's decision, to merely take a leave of absence, rather than resign from the Board, while stipulating to the facts presented to this Court, appears to reflect a lack of appreciation by him for the adverse impact his continued connection must have upon the work, and the image, of that Board.

 

(i) The supplemental stipulations of fact make clear the fact that the Respondent did indeed have a demanding case load. Those stipulations indicate that in the years 1987 through 1993, Judge Daghir disposed of cases in criminal, civil, family and orphans' court matters totaling between approximately 2,500 and 4,500 per year. Nevertheless, Judge Daghir failed in his responsibility to render a prompt decision to litigants in six cases. Delay in the administration of justice causes the image of the judiciary in general to be tarnished. And, where the delay is unjustified, as in these six cases, the task of burnishing the tainted image of the judiciary becomes more difficult.

5. The Clerk shall forward copies of this ORDER to the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania and the Treasurer of Pennsylvania.