Beyond the Bench: How Do Judges Balance Law, Ethics, and Public Scrutiny?

Sophia Rogovoy

Judicial Analyst, Co-op at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts

Rising Senior @ Drexel University 

When people hear the word “judge,” they often picture a serious figure in a black robe, seated at the front of a courtroom in quiet authority. But behind that robe is a person whose responsibilities are far more complex. Judges are tasked with interpreting and applying the law while upholding fairness, integrity, and public trust. As members of the judiciary, they carry a profound responsibility. Their decisions impact lives, often without attention or applause, and they are held to the highest ethical standards both inside and outside the courtroom.

That quiet but profound responsibility was the focus of a conversation led by the Honorable Cynthia A. Baldwin (Ret.), former PA Supreme Court Justice, and Attorney Lourdes Sánchez Ridge during the “Judicial Ethics & Discipline” workshop held at the Allegheny County Law Library in Pittsburgh on June 18th, 2025. The program was presented by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC), a nonpartisan, statewide organization committed to strengthening public trust in Pennsylvania’s judiciary by educating residents on how to navigate the courts and advocating for fair, impartial, accessible, and respectful judicial processes. The Allegheny County Law Library hosts workshops like this monthly, offering regular opportunities for community members to engage with legal experts, deepen their understanding of the judiciary, and stay informed about important issues affecting the justice system.

During the workshop, the importance of the Judicial Code of Conduct was emphasized, particularly regarding recusal. Judge Baldwin highlighted that judges must step aside when personal interests like family ties, financial stakes, or previous involvement in a case could compromise fairness. The code ensures that judges remain neutral and independent, reinforcing that any hint of bias or external influence undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary.

This responsibility can be especially challenging for state court judges who, unlike federal judges who are appointed for life, may have to run for election (as they do in Pennsylvania). This brings them into the political realm where they must raise money, earn endorsements, and appeal to voters, all while committing to impartiality. These elections place judges in a difficult position, as they must remain neutral and ethical while participating in political processes that can be highly charged.

Despite these differences, judges at every level are expected to meet the same core expectations: to be impartial, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to remain committed to justice under the gaze of the public. Judge Baldwin stressed that a judge must accept being constantly observed by the public and recognize the importance of remaining unbiased. This expectation does not end when the court is dismissed. It reaches into a judge’s personal life as well, requiring careful choices about finances, relationships, and social interactions that could cast doubt on their objectivity. As Judge Baldwin put it, “When you become a judge, you give up a lot.” She compared the experience to joining a monastery, describing it as a life defined by discipline, isolation, and public scrutiny, where even attending events or expressing opinions in casual settings can carry ethical implications.

It can be difficult for many voters to fully understand what judges do. Because judicial candidates are restricted in what they can say during elections, and sitting judges rarely speak publicly about their decisions, the public can turn to trusted sources for guidance. These may include evaluations by bar associations, insight from local attorneys, or a judge’s overall reputation. However, some still worry that these trusted sources could be biased. Sánchez Ridge explains that although these assessments are not perfect, they make the process more transparent and offer deeper insight than traditional campaign advertising.

Even with all of the constraints, most judges perform their duties with commitment and quiet strength. They show up each day prepared to listen carefully, to weigh complex issues, and to make decisions that can deeply affect people’s lives. Judge Baldwin described it as a role that demands humility, wisdom, and a strong moral compass.

Ultimately, serving as a judge is not merely a profession. It is a public trust that demands unwavering integrity, personal discipline, and a deep belief in the principles of justice. When the public is able to see the human side of those who serve on the bench, it becomes easier to understand the broader system they represent. Every decision reflects the effort of an individual striving to uphold not only the letter of the law, but also the dignity and rights of the people it is designed to protect.