Decisions of The Court of Judicial Discipline of the Commonwealth Of PA

The Judicial Conduct Board (1) obtained interim suspension order based on former Justice Larsen's felony conviction for improperly obtaining controlled pharmaceuticals and (2) filed formal complaint against former Justice Larsen based on felony conviction. With regard to the suspension request, the Court considered whether its pre-conviction denial of a suspension request precluded the Court from granting a post-conviction request for suspension. The Court, in granting the suspension request, concluded that it may reconsider such requests, and should evaluate any request for suspension on a case-by-case basis.

746 A.2d 108 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1999)
Filed December 31, 1999
Opinion and Order, Panella, J.

After the filing of a formal complaint against former Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen, the Court addressed Larsen's omnibus pretrial motion. The Court held that it continued to have subject matter jurisdiction, and the case was not moot, even though Larsen had already been twice removed from office by the state Senate and as a condition of his criminal sentence following his conviction of a felony. The Court specifically held that the Court of Judicial Discipline has exclusive jurisdiction to consider the disbarment of a Judicial Officer who is also an attorney registered to practice law in Pennsylvania.

Following a trial which was held on June 30, 1999, the Court filed an Opinion and Order on December 31, 1999, and found that Larsen had been convicted of a felony and therefore was subject to discipline under Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

On February 4, 2000, the Court imposed the following sanctions: (1) removal from office, and (2) disbarment from the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a Petition to Implement Automatic Forfeiture of Judicial Office based on District Justice Raymond Gentile's conviction for crimes of official oppression and obstruction of government functions. The Court considered whether the 1993 Constitutional Amendment of Article V, §18, relating to the discipline of judicial officers, and the provisions for automatic forfeiture for conviction for "misbehavior in office," were self-executing, and if not, how that term should be interpreted. The Court could not garner a majority vote, and therefore dismissed the Petition.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against former District Justice Robert Chesna based on his conviction for unlawful operation of gambling machines. The Court considered whether his conduct constituted a violation of Rules 1, 2A, or 13 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices, conduct prohibited by law under Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and/or conduct which brings the judiciary into disrepute. The Court concluded that Chesna's conduct (1) violated Rule 13, (2) constituted conduct which brought the judiciary into disrepute, and (3) constituted an activity that was prohibited by law, which subjected him to the imposition of sanctions. The Court removed Chesna from office and held him ineligible to hold judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Roger Fischer for failing to make timely decisions in numerous Orphans' Court matters. The Court accepted a stipulation between the parties as to factual findings and legal conclusions, specifically that Judge Fischer's conduct constituted a neglect or failure to perform the duties of office and that he was subject to discipline. The Court issued a written reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Gordon Daghir based upon (1) his acceptance of Penn State football tickets from a litigant in a divorce case that later came before him, and (2) failing to make timely decisions. The Court accepted the stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law, agreed to by the parties, which specified that Judge Daghir had violated (1) Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in conduct which was improper and created an appearance of impropriety, and (2) Canon 3A(5), which directs judges to dispose promptly of the business of the courts. Based upon the facts and conclusions, the Court issued a written reprimand, orally reprimanded Judge Daghir, and suspended him for seven days without pay.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice John Hasay based upon allegations that (1) he engaged in nonconsensual sexual relations, (2) improperly detained a minor in his home, and (3) maintained unlawful possession of marijuana in his home. The issues raised were whether the sexual relationship had been consensual, whether his detention of the minor constituted sanctionable conduct, and whether the possession of marijuana was unlawful. The Court concluded that the Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Hasay had engaged in conduct which would subject him to discipline, and dismissed the Complaint.

674 A.2d 1217 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1996)
Filed February 27, 1996
Order and Decision, Burns, J.

674 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1996)
Filed April 18, 1996
Per Curiam Order and Opinion

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Bradford Timbers, and the parties submitted an agreement as to findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Court rejected. Upon resubmission to the Court, and following trial, the Court concluded that the Judicial Conduct Board had proven by clear and convincing evidence, that Timbers had (1) performed judicial duties while under the influence of alcohol, (2) attempted to influence the outcome of a speeding citation case, (3) made improper physical contact with a female clerk in his office, (4) returned from lunch under the influence of alcohol, (5) used expletives in the presence of co-workers, and (6) disobeyed the President Judge's directive to him that he not possess or consume alcohol on government property. The Court initially imposed sanctions of (1) a six-month suspension without pay, and (2) a requirement that he enter a sobriety-monitoring contract approved by the Court. However, because Timbers failed to comply with the sobriety-monitoring contract, the Court removed him from office, and barred him forever from holding judicial office.

682 A.2d 447 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1996)
Filed July 23, 1996
Decision and Order, McGinley, J.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Robert Horgos based on its claims that he had improperly acted as an executor for the estate of a friend and had failed to respond accurately to a question regarding his income on his financial interest statement submitted to the Supreme Court. The issues presented were (1) whether he had maintained a "close familial relationship" with the decedent of the estate, thus exempting him from the prohibition of Canon 5D against acting as executors, and (2) whether his failure to provide an accurate response to the income question on the statement of financial interest form constituted sanctionable conduct. The Court concluded, as a matter of law, that he had maintained a close familial relationship with the decedent, and that he should have an opportunity to amend his financial interest statement as required, and dismissed the Complaint.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Jeffrey Smith alleging that his delay in rendering numerous decisions warranted the imposition of sanctions. The Court considered the standard to apply to determine when decisional delay should result in the imposition of sanctions, and what provisions Smith's dilatory conduct violated. After concluding that such delay constituted (1) neglect or failure to perform the duties of office, (2) a violation of Canon 3A(5) and (3) a violation of Article V, §17(b), the Court imposed an in-court reprimand with a follow-up written reprimand.

698 A.2d 704 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1997)
Filed July 8, 1997
Per Curiam Order
Affirmed, 560 Pa. 183, 743 A.2d 431 (2000)

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against former Judge Richard Cicchetti, charging that he was subject to the imposition of sanctions for the following alleged conduct: (1) sexual harassment of a litigant, a police officer, and several employees, (2) improper use of court employees for election retention campaign, and (3) false statements on campaign expense reports. The Court concluded that the Board had offered clear and convincing evidence in support of its claims that Cicchetti had sexually harassed one of his employees, and that he had violated the Election Code by submitting a false campaign report; the Court concluded, however, that the evidence did not support the Board's other charges of sexual harassment or its charge that he had improperly used court employees for his retention campaign. On July 8, 1997, the Court imposed a sanction of severe reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Paul Walters based upon his violation of the Vehicle Code for driving under the influence of alcohol. The Court concluded that District Justice Walters had engaged in conduct prohibited by Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following a hearing on the issue of sanctions, the Court concluded the case without imposing a sanction.

President Judge James Diefenderfer filed a Petition for Relief with the Court seeking a continuance of a suspension of District Justice Bradford Timbers, based on that District Justice's alleged failure to comply with continuing education requirements for district justices. Because the Petitioner had no standing to file the petition, and because only the Supreme Court may seek to enforce the rule the District Justice allegedly violated, the Court dismissed the Petition.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Shirley Trkula based on her attempt to influence the outcome of an appeal a litigant filed from one of her decisions, and her alleged lies to Federal Bureau of Investigation officers regarding the incident. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulations in lieu of trial. Based on those facts, the Court concluded that Trkula had engaged in sanctionable conduct, and imposed a sixty-day suspension without pay.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Jeffrey Manning alleging that on two occasions he used racial epithets in public. Following trial, the Court concluded that the Board had failed to offer clear and convincing evidence in support of its factual allegations. The Court dismissed the Complaint.

712 A.2d 847 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998)
Filed April 2, 1998
Per Curiam Order of Reprimand

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Dennis Joyce, alleging that he had attempted to influence the outcome of certain cases by contacting an employee and judge of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas' Statutory Appeals Unit, before the cases would be heard. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that the conduct (1) brought the judiciary into disrepute, (2) prejudiced the proper administration of justice, (3) violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices, and (4) violated Article V, §17(b) of the Constitution. The Court imposed a reprimand as a sanction.

712 A.2d 848 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998)
Filed April 2, 1998
Per Curiam Order of Reprimand

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Richard Terrick, alleging that he had attempted to influence the outcome of certain cases by contacting an employee and judge of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas' Statutory Appeals Unit, before the cases would be heard. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that such conduct (1) brought the judiciary into disrepute, (2) prejudiced the proper administration of justice, (3) violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices, and (4) violated Article V, §17(b) of the Constitution. The Court imposed a reprimand as a sanction.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a Petition for Interim Suspension against District Justice Michael Smith based upon a criminal information filed against him relating to his conduct in seeking to be elected to his present office. The Court concluded that it may inquire into the factual nature of the underlying criminal charges in making a decision as to whether or not to grant a request for an interim suspension. The Court concluded that there were sufficient factual discrepancies regarding the criminal charges against the judicial officer and denied the Board's request.

The Judicial Conduct Board (1) obtained an interim suspension order based upon criminal information filed against District Justice Gloria Strock for alleged criminal mishandling of court funds, and (2) filed formal charges against her based upon allegations that she mishandled court funds. Upon Motion of the Board, filed upon a trial court's dismissal of the criminal charges, the Court vacated the suspension. However, following the submission of stipulations of fact in lieu of trial by the Board and judicial officer, the Court imposed the sanction of removal and ineligibility from future judicial office based upon Strock's failure to comply with directive to make daily deposits and commingling of court funds with personal funds.

Complaint for discipline filed by Judicial Conduct Board alleging that Nakoski engaged in racist conduct while attending recertification course. After trial, the Court found that District Justice Nakoski had an excellent reputation for fairness and evenhandedness, without any racial bigotry. Although the Court concluded that alleged statements did not amount to obstruction or interference with Nakoski’s ability to preside over judicial proceedings, his conduct on this occasion satisfied a common sense test for reproach.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against former district justice Jules Melograne, based upon his conviction for conspiracy to violate civil rights, a felony. The conduct underlying the felony conviction involved the respondent’s efforts, in his capacity as a district justice, to ensure that certain persons, who had challenged traffic citation decisions at the district justice level, would obtain dismissals in their appeals to the Statutory Appeals Unit of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.

Former District Justice Melograne and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 503(D)(1), through which the respondent admitted that he had been convicted of a felony. Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a provision that makes the conviction of a felony a basis for the imposition of sanctions.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) removed the respondent from office and held him ineligible for judicial office in the future, and (2) disbarred the respondent from the bar of this Commonwealth.

The Judicial Conduct Board charged District Justice Crahalla with disciplinary offenses arising out of his service as chairperson of a fundraising committee for the local Boy Scouts Council's "1999 Good Scout Award Dinner." Crahalla permitted the Council to send form letters and an invitation which contained Crahalla's photograph and signature, as well as a photograph of himself which identified him as a District Justice. Crahalla immediately resigned as Chairperson upon being advised that serving in that capacity was a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Rules Governing the Standards of Conduct of District Justices. The Court of Judicial Discipline was evenly divided as to whether this constituted a violation of Rule 11, and therefore the Complaint was dismissed. That Rule provides: "A district justice shall not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization...." The Opinion in Support of the Order of Dismissal found that the restricted conduct was malum prohibitum as distinguished from malum in se, and consequently proof of mens rea was required before a violation of this Rule could be found. There being no evidence that Crahalla intended to violate Rule 11 in particular or the Rules in general, this half of the Court found that the Complaint should be dismissed. The Opinion Contra Dismissal concluded that Crahalla was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Rather than require specific proof of a knowing intent to violate the Rules, the Board need only show that the offending judicial officer had the intent to commit the act in question. Because Crahalla conceded that he committed the act which Rule 11 proscribes, this half of the Court found that a sanction hearing was necessary.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice David Miller, charging that he had violated Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by allegedly misrepresenting his judicial status in his campaign advertisements, while he was seeking a position at the common pleas level. The Board claimed that Miller’s campaign advertisements, which (1) showed Miller in his district justice robe, (2) referred to his work as a judge, and his judicial experience, temperament, service and responsibilities, and (3) placed the word Judge under his name, inappropriately misrepresented to potential voters that he was already sitting at the common pleas level. Miller filed an omnibus motion seeking dismissal on various grounds, and the Court sustained his motion.

The Court concluded that district justices are indeed judicial officers, and hence, that any reference in Miller’s ads indicating he was a judge was not false, and therefore could not be a misrepresentation. Similarly, because district justices wear judicial robes in their capacity as district justices, the Court held that any depiction of Miller wearing his robe did not constitute a misrepresentation. Further, the use of the word Judge following Miller’s name in his campaign materials comported with campaign “conventions” long used by candidates for judicial and other elected office.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Senior District Justice James Kelly, alleging that he had attempted to influence the outcome of a traffic violation case involving an acquaintance. District Justice Kelly and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted findings of fact in lieu of trial, pursuant to Court of Judicial Discipline Rule of Procedure 502(D)(1), through which District Justice Kelly admitted sending a note to the district justice who was to preside over the traffic violation case, seeking that judicial officer’s help in obtaining a favorable outcome for his acquaintance. Based upon the submitted findings of fact, the Court concluded that District Justice Kelly’s conduct (1) brought the judicial office into disrepute, (2) was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, (3) violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices, and (4) violated Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following a sanction hearing, the Court imposed a severe reprimand upon District Justice Kelly and ordered that he should no longer be eligible to accept assignments as a senior district justice.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Richard Zoller alleging that he was demeaning, impatient, undignified and used vulgar language in addressing two constables during the course of an arraignment of a defendant. Following trial, the Court concluded that District Justice Zoller had engaged in conduct in violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices and which was prohibited by Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that the conduct was such that brought the judicial office into disrepute. Following a hearing on the issue of sanctions, the Court concluded (1) the respondent should remain under appropriate medical supervision and (2) no sanction was imposed.

The Judicial Conduct Board obtained an interim suspension order based upon District Justice Amati's three felony convictions for his involvement in video gambling enterprises. The Court concluded that, because (1) the crimes involved dishonesty, and (2) occurred while the Respondent served as a District Justice, an interim suspension without pay was appropriate. The Court held that it would undermine the integrity of the judiciary to allow the Respondent to continue to serve and receive his salary and benefits.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against former district justice Gigi Sullivan based upon her convictions of felonies for (1) conspiracy, (2) participating in a corrupt organization and (3) hindering the apprehension and others, for acts arising from her involvement with cocaine and other controlled substances.

Former district justice Sullivan and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 503(D)(1), in which the respondent admitted that she had been convicted of felonies. Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a provision that makes the conviction of a felony a basis for the imposition of sanctions.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) removed the respondent from office and (2) declared her ineligible for judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Former Judge Francis P. Eagen, based upon his conviction of violating “Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function,” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101 of the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania. The conduct underlying his conviction involved the respondent in engaging in a course of conduct designed to interfere with a Grand Jury criminal investigation.

Former Judge Eagen and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 503(D)(1), through which the respondent admitted he had been convicted of violating §5101 of the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania.

Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides that a judicial officer “shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law” by violating §5101 of the Criminal Code of Pennsylvania (18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101) and was subject to discipline under Article V, §18(d) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court removed the respondent from office and held him ineligible for judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Richard K. McCarthy alleging (1) that between 1999 and 2001 he engaged in a course of conduct whereby he frequented local bars, during and after district court business hours, to consume alcoholic beverages; and (2) that he repeatedly exhibited commonly accepted and recognized signs of alcohol intoxication and behaved in a manner grossly inappropriate while at these public places. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that such conduct (1) brought the judicial office into disrepute and (2) violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) suspended Respondent from office for a period of six (6) months, specifying that the first two (2) months be without pay and that Respondent’s medical benefits were not to be affected during the suspension; and (2) placed Respondent on probation for one year following the suspension.

The Judicial Conduct Board obtained an interim suspension order based upon the indictments filed against Judge Jaffe charging him with felonies involving extortion of funds from two lawyers who had cases pending before him. The Court concluded that because of the totality of the circumstances of this case, an interim suspension without pay was appropriate. Medical benefits, however, would not be suspended during the effectiveness of the Court’s order.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Allan C. Berkhimer alleging that he had attempted to influence the outcome of a case by contacting the arresting police officer. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that such conduct (1) prejudiced the proper administration of justice and (2) violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following a sanction hearing, the Court imposed a reprimand as a sanction

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Joseph A. Jaffe based upon his convictions of felonies involving extortion of funds from two lawyers who had cases pending before him.

Judge Jaffe and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 503(D)(1), in which the respondent admitted that he had been convicted of felonies. Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a provision that makes the conviction of a felony a basis for the imposition of sanctions.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) removed the respondent from office and (2) declared him ineligible for judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Bernice A. McCutcheon, charging that she was subject to the imposition of sanctions for the following alleged conduct: (1) failure to recuse from a case involving her grandson's friend, (2) engaged in ex parte communications with her grandson's friend, (3) acted in a discourteous and impatient manner toward a police officer in a proceeding and (4) did not wear her judicial robe during judicial proceedings. The Court concluded that the Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the district justice had engaged in conduct which would subject her to discipline, and dismissed the Complaint.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Ronald Amati based upon his convictions of three counts of criminal conduct: (1) conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States, Title 18 U.S.C. §137, (2) prohibition of illegal gambling businesses, Title 18 U.S.C. §1955 and 2, and (3) obstruction of state or local law enforcement, Title 18 U.S.C. §1511 and 2.

Former District Justice Amati and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(1), in which the respondent admitted that he had been convicted of felonies. Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a provision that makes the conviction of a felony a basis for the imposition of sanctions.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) removed the respondent from office and (2) declared him ineligible for judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against District Justice Toczydlowski alleging he used marijuana and cocaine. District Justice Toczydlowski and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact as to the respondent’s use of marijuana pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(2). The Court accepted those stipulations and proceeded to trial on the alleged use of cocaine.

Following trial, the Court concluded that the Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that District Justice Toczydlowski ever used cocaine. The Court did conclude, however, that the respondent’s possession of small amounts of marijuana on two occasions, a misdemeanor, was a violation of §17(b) of Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a hearing on the issue of sanctions, the Court imposed a sanction of public reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge Mark Pazuhanich based upon an Information charging the Respondent with (a) the summary offense of Public Drunkenness and similar misconduct in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5505; and (b) two (2) counts of Indecent Assault, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3126(a)(1) and (a)(7); Endangering the Welfare of Children, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4304; and Corrupting the Morals of a Minor, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6301.

Former Judge Pazuhanich and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, under C.J.D.R.P. No. 502 (D)1 in which the respondent admitted that he pled nolo contendere to the charges.

Based upon the stipulations, the Court concluded that the respondent had violated Article V, §17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides that a judicial officer “shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law” by violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5505, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3126(a)(1) and (a)(7), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4304 and 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6301 and was subject to discipline under Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court removed the respondent from office and declared him ineligible for judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Magisterial District Judge Allan Clifford Berkhimer alleging that he (1) routinely used improper and offensive language in his office in dealing with his staff and others, charging Respondent with misconduct in office, conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice and conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, violations of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (2) had his employees send congratulatory notes known as “Quickie Notes” by mail to constituents who were mentioned in the local newspaper for some particular accomplishment or other, charging this was a violation of Rule 2A, Rule 4C and Rule 3B of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court concluded that Respondent’s conduct (1) brought the judicial office into disrepute and (2) violated Rule 4C of the Rules Governing the Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court also held that Respondent’s use of his office and office employees for the preparation of the “Quickie Notes” was a violation of Rule 3B of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and of the Supreme Court Order of June 29, 1987 promulgating its Guidelines Regarding Political Activities of Court-Appointed Employees. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court removed the Respondent from his judicial office.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Magisterial District Judge Edward E. Hartman alleging that he (1) publicly endorsed a candidate for political office, a violation of Rule 15(B)(1) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, (2) engaged in partisan political activity and attended a political gathering, a violation of Rule 15(B)(2) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, (3) used his office and courtroom for the solicitation and collection of funds for various charitable and community organizations and activities in which he was interested, a violation of Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, (4) engaged in a prohibited ex parte communication with a litigant, a violation of Rule 4(D) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and (5) made remarks at the conclusion of a trial such that failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Rule 2(A) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that Respondent’s conduct (1) and (2) violated Rules 15(B)(1) and 15(B)(2) respectively of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, (3) violated Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court found (4) that the Board had not established that Respondent’s conduct constituted a violation of Rule 4(D) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges or (5) of Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court issued a sanction of reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Magistrate Moira C. Harrington alleging that she parked her motor vehicle at expired parking meters on a number of occasions placing on her windshield parking tickets which had been issued to others for overtime parking of other vehicles. The judicial officer and the Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that such conduct (1) violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices and thus a violation of Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) brought the judicial office into disrepute. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court barred the Respondent from holding a judicial office for five (5) years from the date of the Order of May 18, 2005.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Magisterial District Judge Ernest L. Marraccini charging that: (1) Respondent’s findings of not guilty in the Edgewood Borough traffic cases listed before him on the day in question, constituted misconduct in office, failure to perform the duties of office and conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, violations of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and charging that said disposition constituted failure to accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, a violation of Rule 4D of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges; and (2) in dealing with the defendants in those cases in the waiting room outside the courtroom, Respondent failed to be patient, dignified and courteous, a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court concluded that Respondent’s disposition of the Edgewood Borough traffic cases did not constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution nor of any of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court did conclude that Respondent’s conduct in dealing with the litigants outside the courtroom (1) constituted a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and (2) constituted conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, thus a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court imposed a sanction of reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Former Magisterial District Judge Wade J. Brown, Respondent, consisting of three parts.

Part A charged that Respondent had repeatedly used racially and ethnically insensitive and inappropriate terms in referring to minority members of the community in the presence of his office staff and occasionally in the presence of law enforcement officers. The Board charged this conduct was a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution as it was such that brought the judicial office into disrepute (Count 1); was a violation of Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in that Respondent failed to conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Count 2); and was a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in that Respondent failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he dealt in his official capacity (Count 3).

Part B charged that Respondent had repeatedly treated female members of his staff in a demeaning manner and charged that this conduct was a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution as it was such that brought the judicial office into disrepute (Count 4); was a violation of Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in that Respondent failed to conduct himself in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Count 5); and was a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in that Respondent failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he dealt in his official capacity (Count 6).

Part C charged Respondent with indecorous behavior toward members of his staff and charged that this conduct was a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution as it was such that brought the judicial office into disrepute (Count 7); and was a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges in the Respondent failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he dealt in his official capacity (Count 8).

Counts 1, 4 and 7 were withdrawn upon good cause shown.

The judicial officer and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that Respondent’s conduct set out in Parts A, B and C violated Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and did not violate Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court imposed a sanction of reprimand.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge William R. Shaffer (1) alleging that he failed to dispose of matters which were ripe for disposition for periods ranging from six months to thirty-four months in nine cases, charging Respondent with neglect or failure to perform the duties of office, violations of Canon 3A.(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (2) alleging that he filed 703 Reports in which Respondent represented that he had no matters awaiting decision ninety days or more, when, in fact, he did, charging Respondent with a violation of Canon 3B.(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judicial officer and the Judicial Conduct Board submitted stipulated facts in lieu of trial. Based upon those facts, the Court concluded that Respondent’s conduct (1) constituted neglect or failure to perform the duties of office, and (2) violated Canon 3A.(5), thus a violation of Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court also held that Respondent’s filing of four inaccurate semi-annual 703 Reports on which he failed to list cases which were more than 90 days overdue for decision was a violation of Canon 3B.(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) imposed a sanction of reprimand and (2) placed Respondent upon probation until July 31, 2007. The conditions of probation are: (1) Respondent shall dispose of all matters pending before him within 90 days of the date they become ripe for decision unless there is a legitimate reason not to do so; (2) Respondent shall file 703 Reports with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts in accordance with the directives of Rule 703; and (3) Respondent shall file a copy of his 703 Reports with the Judicial Conduct Board.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zupsic alleging (1) that he had attempted to influence the outcome of four cases, i.e., by influencing prosecuting officers, a chief of a local police, and persuading a prosecuting witness to reduce a charge, charging that such conduct was such that brings the judicial office into disrepute and conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice; and (2) that he failed to disqualify himself from four cases, charging that such failure was a violation of Rule 8A.(1) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court concluded that Respondent’s conduct was such that (1) brought the judicial office into disrepute; (2) prejudiced the proper administration of justice, both of which were violations of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (3) violated Rule 8A.(1) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court removed the Respondent from office and barred him from holding judicial office in the future.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a formal complaint against Judge James M. DeLeon alleging that he solicited campaign contributions through a committee prior to the time allowed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Based on the Judicial Conduct Board’s Alleged Violation of its Rule 31, and a hearing was conducted. The Court found that on the basis of the inordinate length of time which elapsed after receipt of Respondent’s response to the Notice of Investigation until the Board’s authorization to file charges, which was due to the Board’s lack of diligence, in violation of Board’s Rule 31, and the actual prejudice to Respondent shown to have resulted from the passage of such a long time, the Board’s Complaint was dismissed.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Magisterial District Judge Maynard A. Hamilton alleging that Respondent punched an off-duty police officer at a golf club and then told the officer’s wife she could go pick him up off the floor. The Board alleged that this was conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, a violation of Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Board also alleged that this conduct was a violation of Rule 2(A) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court dismissed the Count alleging that Respondent’s conduct was a violation of Rule 2(A) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court did conclude that Respondent’s conduct constituted conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, thus a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court (1) suspended Respondent from office for a period of nine (9) months without pay but provided that Respondent’s medical benefits were not to be affected during the suspension; and (2) placed Respondent on probation for one year following the suspension.

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a Complaint against Magisterial District Judge Donald L. Whittaker charging that he was subject to the imposition of sanctions because (1) he used inappropriate and offensive language toward female employees who worked in the building where his office was located, asserting that such conduct was such that brings the judicial office into disrepute and was a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges; and (2) he worked as a paid fire truck driver for the Township Fire Department asserting that this was a violation of Rule 15A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Court concluded that the Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct averred in (1) above had taken place, and that the Board had failed to establish that the conduct averred in (2) above was a violation of Rule 15A. The Court also held that the conduct averred in (1) above, even if it had occurred, was not a violation of Rule 4C. Consequently, the Complaint was dismissed.