In re DiClaudio
| Decision Date | 09 December 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 |
On December 1, 2020, this Honorable Court issued its Opinion and Findings of Rule Violations in the captioned case. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" is the Opinion and Order of this Honorable Court, which found the Respondent, Judge Scott DiClaudio, in violation of Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that the Respondent brought the "judicial office into disrepute." It is from this finding that the main Objections and Exceptions are filed by the Respondent, Judge Scott DiClaudio, to the decision of the Judicial Conduct Board. The other rule violations are not being challenged. This is also a brief exception to the comments in footnote 1 on page 24 of Exhibit "A".
In support of the Exceptions, the Respondent has attached and marked as Exhibit "B" his Brief originally filed, which outlines in great detail the pertinent cases for a finding of disrepute. The Respondent respectfully contends that the universality required for a finding of disrepute is not present here.
The Respondent contends that the factual basis for a finding of disrepute involved one civil case where the Respondent, unfortunately, ignored numerous court orders over a period of time. The Respondent finally appeared and settled the case for a much larger figure than originally sought. There were contempt findings and sanctions for his prior non-appearances. There was no deceitful or dishonest conduct.
The main basis for the Objections is this Honorable Court relied primarily on two cases for the finding of disrepute, which are clearly distinguishable from the conduct of Judge DiClaudio. First, this Honorable Court relied on the case of In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2005). In that case, District Judge Harrington was found in disrepute since she, over a period of time, put parking tickets on her windshield to avoid having to put money in parking meters and to avoid being ticketed. As a result, her car was not ticketed. The Court of Judicial Discipline noted, "It is obvious the purpose was to enable her to park without paying the trifling amount required and to deceive the enforcing officers, thereby escaping the small fine imposed for overtime parking." Id 576. The Courtnoted, "The Respondent's determination to defeat its application to her is so unbecoming a judicial officer." Id 576. The Court noted the reasonable expectation of the public would include the expectation that a judicial officer would obey a common ordinance and not devise a scheme to fool the enforcement officer in order to defeat the enforcement of the law." Id 575.
As noted by the Court of Judicial Discipline, District Judge Harrington was involved in deceitful and dishonest conduct. First, she was "intentionally disobeying the law," and then she invented a "devious strategy to avoid payment of the statutory fine." Id 576, 577.
It was Judge Harrington's the dishonest conduct that resulted in the Court of Judicial Discipline's finding of "disrepute." In Judge DiClaudio's misconduct, there was no dishonest conduct. There was just neglect and irresponsible conduct in not dealing with his pending lawsuit filed by a sports club for his daughter's membership fee. As said in the original brief, the Respondent, Judge DiClaudio, represented himself during that time and was the classic example of the old maxim that only a fool would represent themselves. A review of the agreed to and admitted Stipulations does not show dishonesty or deceit. Instead, there was only total avoidance, neglect and failure to appear at hearings.
The other case relied upon almost exclusively by this Honorable Court in the Opinion is the case of In re Nocella, 79 A.3d 766 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2013). In the Nocella case, Judge Nocella was found in disrepute and ultimately removed from the bench. This case was the main case argued by the Judicial Conduct Board in their submitted brief. This Honorable Court in its Opinion (Exhibit "A") relied heavily on Nocella for the finding of disrepute.
But the facts in Nocella are not applicable to the facts of Judge DiClaudio's case. Present counsel represented then-Judge Nocella, and knows the case very well. The Nocella case did have findings of contempt when Judge Nocella delayed providing discovery and appearing, but the essence of Judge Nocella's case and the finding of disrepute was his deceit and lying. the disrepute was based on his lying and deceit. There are several aspects to the Nocella case. The first part involved his representation of a political PAC, which ultimately, he used to pay off a campaign debt for Democratic Party Chairman Brady. The problem was, that money was supposed to be used to pay the fines of the PAC to the Philadelphia Ethics Board. The misconduct was compounded by Judge Nocella then devising a scheme to further reduce the amount by taking out the remaining PAC money of $2,500.00 to pay his legal fee. Originally, he had agreed to pro bono representation, but then apparently fabricated the legalbill. Judge Nocella then misled the Philadelphia Ethics Board about these payments, and delayed providing discovery. His conduct involved deceit to avoid paying the fines of the Philadelphia Ethics Board and to pay debts incurred by Philadelphia Democratic Chairman Brady.
Judge Nocella then lied about his qualification to be a judge to the Philadelphia Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Committee. That committee reviews judicial candidates and makes recommendations as to whether they are recommended or not recommended for judicial office. Judge Nocella did not list the numerous lawsuits against him, and particularly failed to list a lawsuit involving the sale of property owned by the American Legion. There, Judge Nocella had taken an excessive fee of $60,000.00 fee and lied that he was the Secretary of the local American Legion Post at the time that occurred and had authority to do the same. None of this information was provided on a timely basis to the Philadelphia Bar Association's Judicial Committee. In fact, Judge Nocella misled and did not include the information on his 2011 questionnaire when he ran and won the judicial office. This became particularly pertinent in 2011 when he was appointed to be part of the judicial ticket after a judge retired early, Judge Nocella again did not provide this information to the panel, thus keeping his recommended status.
The Court of Judicial Discipline in Nocella, noted the massive deceit as follows:
"We believe it to be beyond dispute that a judge or one who would be a judge - who is willing to lie- and in official documents and repeatedly, as described in Part A of the Board's Complaint...is not one who can be expected to encourage, in deed to insist that truth be spoken in his Courtroom." Id 784.
The Court of Judicial Discipline then noted as follows:
"In this case, the Respondent's relationship with the truth and his regard for its importance in everyday professional life is gruelingly illustrated in the description of his conduct as counsel for the Appreciation Fund, a Political Action Committee..." Id 487.
The Court of Judicial Discipline noted that Judge Nocella "deliberately and systematically dissipated the assets in the Fund's bank account to avoid paying the fines." Id 785, 7876.
In making the recommendation of a finding of disrepute, the Court of Judicial Discipline then stated the following about Judge Nocella:
"While draining the Fund's assets, the Respondent engaged in a pattern of delay and deceit to prevent the Ethics Board from gaining information about the Fund's assets." Id 789.
The Court of Judicial Discipline then noted about Judge Nocella the following:
Id 791.
Mr. Stretton did not cite this case in his original Brief to this Honorable Court since the Nocella case was a disrepute finding because of dishonesty, deceit and a scheme of deceit. Yes, Judge Nocella did have findings of contempt, but it was all structured around his deceit to the Ethics Board and his deceit to the Philadelphia Bar Association's Judicial Committee and his deceit in the American Legion case and his delaying discovery to avoid the finding of his deceit. Judge Nocella misled the Committee as to this legal fee, his taking of the PAC funds and his background and qualifications for the bench.
Since both the Harrington case and the Nocella case were heavily relied on, Mr. Stretton is taking Exceptions to the disrepute finding since this Court erred as a matter of law since the Harrington case and the Nocella case involved patterns of deceit. Judge DiClaudio's case does not involve the lying or deceit found in the above. Obviously, Judge DiClaudio's conduct in not appearing for the District Court hearing, filing an appeal, not appearing at any hearings at the Court of Common Pleas until almost eighteen months later when ultimately the case was resolved, resulting in sanctions and contempt, are examples of misconduct. But Judge DiClaudio's facts do not involve the element of deceit and dishonesty found in theaforementioned Harrington case and the Nocella case. This Honorable Court erred in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial