Composition
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:

Supreme Court appointees:	2 judges of the common pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts 1 magisterial district judge 1 non-lawyer elector
Gubernatorial appointees:	1 judge of the common pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts 1 non-lawyer elector 2 non-judge members of the bar Powers and Duties

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 magisterial district judge, the Court may enter an order of removal from office, retirement, suspension or other limitations on the activities of the justice, judge or magisterial district judge 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 magisterial district judge shall be suspended or removed from office; and the salary of the justice, judge or magisterial district judge 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.

Back to The Two Tier System main page
More "General Information"