In re DiClaudio
| Decision Date | 08 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. 3 JD 2019 |
| Parties | IN RE: JUDGE SCOTT DiCLAUDIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA COUNTY |
| Court | Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline |
Judge Scott DiClaudio, who is a duly elected judge sitting on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, was charged in a judicial complaint before the Court of Judicial Discipline on December 20, 2019. The complaint, in essence, consisted of two sets of factual allegations. The first set involved a civil suit against Judge Scot DiClaudio by a fitness club called Cynwyd for a bill for his daughter's use of the club. His then thirteen-year-old daughter injured her back and was no longer able to use the club. The initial amount due was approximately $2,000.00.
Unfortunately, Judge DiClaudio ignored the complaint, which was originally filed in a Magisterial District Court. A default judgment was entered against him. Judge DiClaudio then filed an appeal to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. He then ignored a number of hearings that were set in the Court of Common Pleas. The original Magisterial District Court Complaint was filed on August 20, 2015. 2018 was the time for most of the failures to appear in the Court of Common Pleas. There were several sanctions hearings and a contempt hearing. Ultimately, on October 24, 2019, Judge DiClaudio appeared, resolved the issues and paid $9,500.00 to settle the case with the fitness club. These factual matters are found in paragraphs 3 through 51 of the Complaint for Discipline and have been stipulated to by Judge DiClaudio. In the Joint Stipulations.
The second matter involved Judge DiClaudio's Statements of Financial Interest. Judge DiClaudio had several tax liens from the Department of Revenue, and the I.R.S. filed against him, most due to a prior business he had involving his former ticket agency when he was an attorney. Judge DiClaudio failed to list these tax liens on his Statement of Financial Interest after he was elected as a judicial officer. The failures occurred for the April of 2016 report, the April of 2017 report, the April of 2018 report and April of 2019 report. Judge DiClaudio has now corrected that error and currently has listed the liens.
Judge DiClaudio and the Judicial Conduct Board have now reached a series of stipulations. Judge DiClaudio did not file an answer to the Complaint and none is required since under Rule 413 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Judicial Discipline, "the failure to file an answer shall be deemed adenial of all factual allegations contained in the Board Complaint."
Judge DiClaudio recently hired present counsel, Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire. Before that, Judge DiClaudio was unfortunately representing himself.
Mr. Stretton filed a Pre-Trial Memorandum with the Court of Judicial Discipline, in essence admitting the Factual Proposed Stipulations. Mr. Stretton also in the Pre-Trial Memorandum (although clearly recognizing that the final decision on any rule violation is that solely of the Court of Judicial Discipline) admitted the following Rule violations:
A.) Count One - Rule 1.1, a judge shall comply with the law. The violation occurred when Judge DiClaudio failed to comply with the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Orders to produce and appear.
B.) Count Two - Rule 1.1 The violation occurred when Judge DiClaudio failed to accurately submit his Statement of Financial Interest from 2016 through 2019 when he failed to list the liens of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and Internal Revenue Service.
C.) Count Three - Rule 1.2, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. That violation occurred when Judge DiClaudio failed to comply with the Ordersof the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in his civil litigation with the athletic club.
D.) Count Four - A constitutional violation of Article V, Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states in essence that a judge shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law and should not violate any Canons of Legal or Judicial Ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court. Judge DiClaudio, through Mr. Stretton, has admitted violating Rules 1.1 and 1.2. Mr. Stretton, on Mr. DiClaudio's behalf, now has admitted the constitutional violation in Count Four because of his above admitted Code of Judicial Conduct violations.
Mr. Stretton, on behalf of Judge DiClaudio, will not make any argument on these four rule violations, which Judge DiClaudio is suggesting to this Honorable Court have been violated. This Honorable Court has the sole responsibility to make the determination of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the related constitutional provisions.
Mr. Stretton does not admit, on behalf of Judge DiClaudio, a violation of Count Five, which alleges a violation of Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. That count is found at paragraphs 89 through 92 of the Complaint. In paragraph 89, it states the disrepute violations are for the facts alleged in paragraphs 3 through 51, i.e., the athletic club civil dispute, and it is alleged that Judge DiClaudiobrought the judicial office into disrepute, as set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution under Article V, Section 18(d)(1). Paragraph 92 then seems to broaden the allegations since it now cites paragraphs 3 through 63, which would also include the failure to list the Pennsylvania revenue and I.R.S. liens in the annual Statement of Financial Interest required by judicial officers. The issue of whether there is a violation of Count Five, bringing the judiciary into disrepute, is the subject of this brief.
Submitted under separate cover is a Joint Stipulation where Mr. Stretton and the Judicial Conduct Board have reached stipulations on all the factual allegations as set forth in the Complaint.
By his stipulations and current cooperation, Judge DiClaudio accepts full and complete responsibility for his misconduct in this private civil suit he had with the athletic club, and his failure to comply with court appearances and orders. Judge DiClaudio further accepts responsibility for not properly listing the tax liens on his Statements of Financial Interest. Those tax lien issues have been corrected now.
A.) Despite his admitted to misconduct involving the failure to properly proceed on the athletic club litigation and not listing the I.R.S. and Pennsylvania revenue liens on hisStatements of Financial interest, Judge DiClaudio respectfully contends he did not violate Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and argues his conduct did not bring the judicial office into disrepute.
Mr. Stretton, on behalf of Judge DiClaudio, has argued in this Brief that Judge DiClaudio's conduct, although wrong, did not violate the disrepute prohibition in Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. During the sanction hearing, Mr. Stretton intends to present strong evidence as to Judge DiClaudio's excellent conduct as a judicial officer in hand-ling thousands of cases on a timely basis during his five years on the bench in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and the high respect and regard in which he is held by members of the bench and bar in Philadelphia. In other words, despite his bad conduct here, Judge DiClaudio is a very respected and competent judicial officer in Philadelphia County. Mr. Stretton has known Judge DiClaudio since Judge DiClaudio was a young Assistant District Attorney and later when he and Judge DiClaudio represented co-defendants in a capital murder trial in 1996 in Bucks County. Mr. Stretton has also appeared many times before Judge DiClaudio over the last five years. It is important for this Honorable Court to know when evaluating the disrepute issue, that Judge DiClaudio is a very competent judge despite his disappointing failures to act properly in this private civilsuit he had with the athletic club over membership fees owed. As to the Internal Revenue and Pennsylvania Revenue lien issues, they have been corrected now.
The charge of bringing the judicial office into disrepute is probably the most serious charge that can be brought against a judicial officer. The charge is found in Article V, Section 18 (d)(3) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and reads as follows:
"A justice, judge or justice of the peace may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for ...neglect or failure to perform the duties of office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or as prohibited by law;..." [Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution].
The provision at issue is "brings the judicial office into disrepute." Judge DiClaudio was not charged with "prejudices the proper administration of justice." The issue of "disrepute" is the issue before this Honorable Court.
The finding of disrepute can have very serious consequences for a judicial officer since under the Pennsylvania Constitution, under Article V, Section 16(b), such a finding could require a loss of salary or pension or benefits for conduct which "brings the judicial office into disrepute." [Article V, Section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution]. The Judicial Conduct Board must prove the constitutional disrepute violation by clear and convincing evidence.
The seminal case on disrepute is In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Ct. Judicial Discipline, 1996). In that case, Judge Smith from Bradford County was disciplined for lengthy delays in deciding 61 cases. Some of the cases were not decided for over a three-year time period. He received a reprimand, but the Court made no finding of disrepute, although it was requested by the Judicial Conduct Board. The Court of Judicial Discipline...
To continue reading
Request your trial