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 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, with 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.