In re McFalls
Decision Date | 12 April 2002 |
Citation | 568 Pa. 228,795 A.2d 367 |
Parties | In re Assignment of Judge H. Patrick McFALLS, Jr. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert O. Lampl, Pittsburgh, for H. Patrick McFalls.
Howard M. Holmes, Philadelphia, for Judge Kelly and Judge James, et al.
Before ZAPPALA, C.J., CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.
AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2002, upon consideration of the Petition for Review, the Answer to Rule to Show Cause, the Brief on behalf of Judge H. Patrick McFalls in regard to Rule to Show Cause dated February 22, 2002, the Brief in Support of Rule to Show Cause on behalf of Petitioners, and the admissions of record, and after hearing on the matter, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent is suspended without pay for a period of thirty (30) days. The suspension is effective as of the date of this Order. It is further ordered that the medical benefits of the Respondent are not to be suspended during the thirty (30) day period.
In the exercise of this Court's discretion, it is further directed that the matter is referred to the Judicial Conduct Board pursuant to Pa. Const. Art. V, § 18.
Opinion to follow.
This opinion is filed in support of the per curiam order of this Court dated April 12, 2002. In our order, we directed that Respondent, the Honorable Judge H. Patrick McFalls, be suspended, without pay, for a period of thirty (30) days.1 Further, we referred the matter to the Judicial Conduct Board pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V, Section 18.2
This matter was commenced before our Court on February 12, 2002, by the filing of an Emergency Petition for Issuance of Rule to Show Cause, filed by Petitioners, the Honorable Robert A. Kelly, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, and the Honorable Joseph M. James, Administrative Judge of the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Specifically, in the petition, Petitioners sought issuance of a rule to show cause why a judge of a court of common pleas has repeatedly failed to comply with directives of his President Judge and Administrative Judge to meet with them to effect his return to judicial duties and to begin his judicial assignment, and is therefore a matter subject to the original and plenary jurisdiction of this Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Article V, Sections 1, 2, and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and 42 Pa. C.S. § 721 and § 726.
Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Issuance of Rule to Show Cause at 1, ¶ 1.3
By order dated February 22, 2002, this Court entered a per curiam order issuing a rule upon Respondent "to show cause for his alleged failure to comply with his judicial assignment, as well as why he should not be subject to interim suspension from his judicial duties." The rule was returnable on February 27, 2002, and, on that day, Respondent filed his Answer to Emergency Petition for Issuance of Rule to Show Cause. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated March 8, 2002, directed the parties to appear before the Court during its April argument session to consider "whether sanctions, i.e., no further action by the Court, private or public reprimand, suspension with or without pay, or removal from office, should be imposed upon the Respondent."
The relevant factual averments relating to this matter, as set forth in the parties' petition and answer, are as follows. Respondent, a duly-commissioned Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, first elected in November 1985, and subsequently retained in November 1995, was assigned to "general assignment" in the civil division, hearing jury, non-jury and equity cases. Id. ¶ ¶ 3 & 4. On November 14, 2001, Respondent fired his tipstaff, secretary and law clerk, and, thereafter, on or about December 5, 2001, Respondent's employees filed federal lawsuits against him alleging that they were fired because they had reported that Respondent abused alcohol and exhibited behavior that they believed affected his ability to perform his duties. Id. ¶ 5.4
Respondent went on administrative leave with pay on December 6, 2001, and has remained on paid administrative leave since that date. Petition at 2, ¶ 6. At Petitioners' request, Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Todd Marion, including several hours of face to face interviews and telephone interviews, beginning on December 7, 2001. Petition at 2, ¶ 7; answer at 2, ¶ 7. Based on the result of the evaluation conducted by Dr. Marion, Respondent requested that he resume judicial duties. Petitioners then attempted to meet with Respondent to discuss his judicial assignment and, in light of recent events, for them to provide him with necessary conditions under which he would return to judicial duties. Petition at 2, ¶ 8. In paragraph 9 of the petition, Petitioners set forth, in detail, the factual scenario that is at the root of the controversy pending before our Court. In this paragraph, Petitioners state the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bruno
...the Court lacks any authority to “discipline” jurists in the first instance. Board's Brief at 41–43 (citing In re Assignment of McFalls, 568 Pa. 228, 795 A.2d 367, 373 (2002) and In re Assignment of Avellino, 547 Pa. 385, 690 A.2d 1138, 1143 & n. 6 (1997) ( “Avellino I ”); Bruno Brief at 38......
-
In re Magisterial Dist. Judge Mark A. Bruno, J-59 A-2013
...that the Court lacks any authority to"discipline" jurists in the first instance. Board's Brief at 41-43 (citing In re Assignment of McFalls, 795 A.2d 367, 373 (Pa. 2002) and In re Assignment of Avellino, 690 A.2d 1138, 1143 & n.6 (Pa. 1997) ("Avellino I"); Bruno Brief at 38-39 (quoting In r......
-
Bruno v. Supreme Court of Pa.
...for the purpose of vacating or modifying this Order. In re: Avellino, 547 Pa. 385, 690 A.2d 1138 (1997); and see In re: McFalls, 568 Pa. 228, 795 A.2d 367 (2002).Compl. Ex. B. Since the February 1, 2013 Order, Bruno has not received any pay. He still receives medical benefits, but has to pa......
-
In re Bruno
...Court has expressed its disagreement in a few opinions since 1993: In re Avellino, 547 Pa. 385, 690 A.2d 1138 (1997); In re McFalls, 568 Pa. 228, 795 A.2d 367 (2002); and In re Merlo, 609 Pa. 598, 17 A.3d 869 (2011); and in a number of orders (without opinion): In re Joyce, 304 JAD (orders ......