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.

Full details of decision:

Opinion (Sweeney, J. - September 26, 2000)

Per Curiam Order (September 26, 2000)

View all decisions
View all decisions with Summaries