It is PMC’s hope that Pennsylvania’s judges, no matter how selected, abide by the rules governing judicial conduct (The Code of Judicial Conduct), act impartially, adhere to governing ethics rules and obey the law. At times, unfortunately, some judges fall short of this ideal. Therefore, a strong and effective method for disciplining judges who act improperly is critical to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and the entire judicial process.
In the wake of the Luzerne County scandal and concerns about the operations of the Judicial Discipline System, PMC has prepared its Report and Recommendations for Improving the Judicial Discipline System.
The recommendations include enhancing the accountability, transparency, and independence of the Judicial Discipline System; improving service to those who complain about judicial conduct; and sufficiently funding the System. PMC focused on how to strengthen the Judicial Discipline System and enable it to better serve the public. We understand this will take resources in a time of tight budgets, but Pennsylvanians want a Judicial Discipline System that will, above all, operate in a way that protects the public from judicial misconduct.
Ideally, the Judicial Discipline System would be used rarely because judges would not engage in questionable conduct. To the extent the System must be used, PMC hopes the suggestions for improving it will be considered and adopted.
Shortly after PMC issued our Report, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility issued a Report on the Pennsylvania Judicial Discipline System. In the Judicial Conduct Board press release announcing the ABA Report, Judical Conduct Board chair Hank Abate pledged that the Board would carefully consider the ABA report and welcomed public comment:
"As we begin to study the ABA's evaluation of our current practices and recommendations on enhancing and improving our operation, we are asking the public to review the report and offer their comments. . . .Our goal is to consider any and all recommendations that will improve our operation and increase public confidence in our disciplinary system." and have pledged to "carefully study the report and receive public comment on the recommendations."
In addition, the Judicial Conduct Board press release referred to other reports that have been issued about the Discipline System: "To date, the Board has also received the reports and recommendations of several interested legal reform groups of particular note. The Board will jointly consider and review these other reports and recommendations with the report of the ABA Standing Committee in its efforts to revitalize the judicial disciplinary system in Pennsylvania."
The ABA Report echoes many recommendations made in PMC's Report. Among them are the need for the Board to provide more information and status updates to complainants; the desirability of electronic complaint filing; the need to expand public education and outreach about the Judicial Discipline System; the need for the Court of Judicial Discipline to ensure consistency in the imposition of sanctions; the value of expanding the availability of temporary suspensions to cases involving threats of harm to the public or administration of justice not just "serious crimes;" and sufficient funding for the Judicial Discipline System.
It is helpful to read and consider these reports in the context of the Report of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was tasked with studying the Luzerne County scandal.
History of Pennsylvania's Judicial Discipline System
In 1993, the Pennsylvanian Constitution was amended to reform the judicial discipline system that had been in existence since 1968. PMC supported this reform. The current system is two-tiered, comprised of the Judicial Conduct Board, which investigates and prosecutes allegations of judicial misconduct, and the Court of Judicial Discipline, which adjudicates charges of judicial misconduct. The Court of Judicial Discipline is composed of 8 members, 4 appointed by the Governor (1 judge of the Common Pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts; 1 non-lawyer; and 2 non-judge members of the bar) and 4 appointed by the Supreme Court (2 judges of the Common Pleas, Superior or Commonwealth Courts; 1 magisterial district judge and 1 non-lawyer). This two-tiered system replaced the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, which had investigated allegations of misconduct and recommended sanctions to the Supreme Court.
PMC has prepared a Citizen's Guide to the Judicial Discipline Process.
In addition, the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s (UJS) policy on non-discrimination and equal opportunity guarantees that “all individuals having business with the UJS are treated in a dignified, civil, respectful, and nondiscriminatory manner.” More information about this policy is available here. Court users doing business with UJS in a court facility who have complaints or concerns regarding discrimination should follow the procedures outlined here.
