Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko was criticized by a panel of Superior Court judges for not disclosing that his wife worked for the law firm that represented a defendant in a case that he was hearing. Judge Tereshko granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Superior Court. The Superior Court reversed the decision to grant summary judgment finding that “there are genuine issues of fact that preclude summary judgment.”
 
The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required) quoted Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus’s concurring opinion, “Where a court has specific knowledge of a private matter or situation in which his or her impartiality may reasonably be questioned, it is his duty to disclose that information to the parties.” While Judge Tereshko’s connection to the defendant’s counsel did not necessarily disqualify him from hearing the case, he did have an affirmative duty to disclose the association to the parties.
 
Lynn Marks, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, noted the larger issues raised by Judge Tereshko’s failure to disclose.
 
"The nondisclosure by Judge Tereshko raises the broader issue of nondisclosure and recusal across all courts. It shines a light on the need for Pennsylvania to take a hard look at the current rules. Clear rules help ensure that people who come before the courts have access to fair and impartial judges — the perception as well as reality. We are glad that the Supreme Court has convened a committee chaired by Judge Lazarus to take a fresh look at the judicial canons and we look forward to seeing their recommendations as soon as possible."
 
UPDATE: Judge Tereshko announced on Friday that he will be resigning as Supervising Judge. Judge Arnold L. New was appointed as the new Supervising Judge.
 
The Appellant’s brief, including the underlying trial court opinion is available here. The Superior Court opinion is available here.