A column in the PA Law Weekly by legal ethics expert Samuel C. Stretton argues that “judge-itis” or “black robe disease” undermines the integrity of the judicial system by eroding the mutual trust between lawyers, litigants, and judges.
 
Stretton defines a judge suffering from judge-itis as one “who thinks he or she is so important that he or she can act unilaterally and arbitrarily”. Symptoms include tardiness in taking the bench, rudeness to lawyers and litigants appearing in front of them, proselytizing from the bench and socializing with members of the bar in such a way as to compromise their judicial integrity.  A good rule of thumb to determine whether a judge is suffering from “judge-itis” is whether the judge would have engaged in the same behavior before they took the bench. If so, the behavior may likely be acceptable, but if not, it could be a warning sign.
 
In order to avoid these issues, Stretton argues that judges should be required to have significant experience practicing law, including trying jury trials and arguing appeals. Along with this experience comes wisdom and maturity which make it less likely for judges to fall victim to judge-itis.  
 
Finally, Stretton suggests that members of the bar take special care to avoid antagonizing judges who appear to be suffering from the symptoms of judge-itis.