XYP, Matter of
| Decision Date | 27 December 1989 |
| Citation | 523 Pa. 411,567 A.2d 1036 |
| Parties | In the Matter of XYP. 140 JIRB |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert Keuch, Executive Director, for Judicial Inquiry and Review Bd.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
This case involves a petition for review and for declaratory relief filed by a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, seeking review of disciplinary action taken by the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board (JIRB). The judge in question, to be referred to herein as XYP for purposes of confidentiality, received a letter from the JIRB informing him that he was being admonished for a violation of Canon 3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a result of comments which he made in two opinions filed in one case. XYP was unaware that such a letter might be forthcoming, for he had not been afforded any notice by the JIRB that his opinions were under review. The letter, dated May 12, 1989, and signed by the Executive Director and General Counsel for the JIRB, stated the following:
Following a review of the opinions written by you in [case name deleted], the Board has determined that its inquiries into this matter should be closed without any formal action being taken.
However, the Board has directed me to inform you that, in their view, the license taken by you in the opinions constitutes a violation of Canon 3(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which require[s] that a judge must be unswayed by partisan interest, public clamor, or fear of criticism and, most importantly, requires that a judge be patient, dignified, and courteous to lawyers and others with whom he deals in his official capacity. They have, therefore, directed me to admonish you that such conduct does not meet the standards required of the members of our judiciary by the Canons. The Board did consider all of the circumstances in this matter and, while they may understand the reasons behind your reactions, the Board concluded that the judicial immunity which a judge enjoys is a solemn and sacred trust that should not be used as a license for the types of opinions issued by you in this matter.
This admonishment will remain part of the permanent confidential records of the Board and should there be similar conduct on your part in the future or any other conduct which the Board finds to be misconduct, this admonishment will be given appropriate consideration in determining the Board's response to that misconduct.
The opinions referred to in the letter were those filed by XYP in response to motions for recusal lodged by the defendants in the relevant case. The relevant case was a class action involving damage claims against manufacturers of lead-based products which purportedly caused health-related injuries to a number of individuals. XYP denied the motions for recusal, but then recused himself sua sponte on the ground that defense counsel had engaged in what XYP perceived as vicious and obstructive conduct designed to prevent him from presiding over the case.
The opinions in question, which addressed only the motions for recusal, consisted of a sixty-two page opinion and a supplemental twelve page opinion. In these opinions XYP discussed at length the grounds asserted for recusal, and, in the course of rejecting these grounds, made numerous comments about defense counsel. 1 As stated in the letter from the JIRB supra, the JIRB regarded these comments as inappropriate and as a violation of Canon 3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3(A) provides, in pertinent part, that a judge "should be unswayed by partisan interests" and "be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity...."
The issue presented in this case is not, however, whether a violation of Canon 3(A) in fact occurred, but rather whether the JIRB had authority to issue a letter of admonition to XYP. Under Art. V, § 18(e)-(h) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is clear that the JIRB lacked the necessary authority. Our Constitution provides:
(e) The board [JIRB] shall keep informed as to matters relating to grounds for suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement of justices or judges. It shall receive complaints or reports, formal or informal, from any source pertaining to such matters, and shall make such preliminary investigations as it deems necessary.
(f) The board, after such investigation, may order a hearing concerning the suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement of the justice or judge....
(g) If, after hearing, the board finds good cause therefor, it shall recommend to the Supreme Court the suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement of the justice or judge.
(h) The Supreme Court shall review the record of the board's proceedings on the law and facts and may permit the introduction of additional evidence. It shall order suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement, or wholly reject the recommendation, as it finds just and proper.
(Emphasis added).
The formal powers of the JIRB, under these constitutional provisions, are plainly limited to investigating the conduct of the judiciary and making recommendations to this Court regarding disciplinary sanctions. This Court, rather than the JIRB, has the exclusive constitutional power to impose sanctions. See also Matter of Glancy, 515 Pa. 201, 217, 527 A.2d 997, 1005 (1987). By administering an admonition to XYP, thereby imposing a form of disciplinary sanction, the JIRB exceeded the scope of its authority. The admonition must, therefore, be expunged from records maintained by the JIRB.
The Rules governing the JIRB specify that the JIRB can, of its own volition, or in response to allegations by a complainant, institute an investigation of alleged judicial improprieties. See Rule 1, "Preliminary Investigation." We believe, however, that it is necessary to limit the investigatory power of the JIRB in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen, Matter of
...Matter of Chiovero, 524 Pa. 181, 184, 570 A.2d 57, 58 (1990) (per Papadakos; McDermott and Zappala, JJ., join); Matter of XYP, 523 Pa. 411, 416, 567 A.2d 1036, 1038 (1989); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 521 Pa. 264, 267-68, 555 A.2d 883, 885 (1989); First Amendment Coalition v.......
-
Chiovero, Matter of
...as the occasion may appeal to the private judgment of the JIRB or its members in unreported cases is enormous. In the Matter of XYP, --- Pa. ----, 567 A.2d 1036 (1989). The more so, because their jurisdiction is as wide as it is vague. Such phrases as "high standards" "tend to" "conduct him......
-
Matter of Chiovero
... ... to the existence of an independent judiciary. That is to say ... that the possibility to harass, [524 Pa. 190] intimidate, ... raise or lower standards as the occasion may appeal to the ... private judgment of the JIRB or its members in unreported ... cases is enormous. In the Matter of XYP, 523Pa. 411, ... 567 A.2d 1036 (1989). The more so, because their jurisdiction ... is as wide as it is vague. Such phrases as "high ... standards" "tend to" "conduct himself in ... a manner" can create areas for private judgment, however ... salutary or designedly virtuous their intention ... ...
-
Z.F.1 by and through Parent v. Bethanna, No. 1425 EDA 2019
...). It also suggests that its claim is for absolute immunity and therefore not subject to waiver. See id. (citing In re XYP , 523 Pa. 411, 567 A.2d 1036, 1039 (1989) ; Guarrasi v. Scott , 25 A.3d 394, 405 n.11 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011).We do not need to reach the question of waiver because the Defen......