In Re Carney, 2011 WL 2297685

Board filed a seven-count Complaint against Magisterial District Judge Thomas Carney; Counts 1 and 7 duplicative, alleging violations of Article V, §18(d)(1) and various Rules Governing Standards of Conduct.
Proceeding involved multiple media statements and public actions by Carney; Board and Carney submitted stipulations on some facts, and trial proceeded.
Nov. 25, 2007: Tyra Butler case with $50,000 bail set by Carney; Erie Times-News reported the bail and quoted Carney’s explanatory statement.
Apr. 25, 2008: TV newscasts aired excerpts of Carney’s interview regarding juvenile crime and the Fisher Bill, with Carney explaining his procedures and policy approaches.
Jan. 2009–Nov. 2009: Carney’s handgun display incident on I-79 involving two youths; police charges filed and later resolved with a plea to Disorderly Conduct; Carney possessed a handgun with a permit for security of bail funds.
Court concluded Board failed to establish violations of the asserted Rules or conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute; Complaint dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Rule 6 bar Carney’s public statements about pending cases?	Board contends statements breached Rule 6.	Carney argues statements explained procedures; within Rule 6.	No Rule 6 violation; statements were permissible public explanations.
Did Rule 8A(1) require Carney to disqualify himself from any graffiti-related matter?	Board asserts potential impartiality due to Anti-Graffiti Task Force.	No actual proceeding involved Task Force; no disqualification needed.	No Rule 8A(1) violation; no proceeding before him involved graffiti issues.
Did Rule 11 prohibit soliciting funds for the Anti-Graffiti Task Force?	Board claims statements and editorial to solicit funds.	Editorial quotations do not prove solicitation by Carney; no direct fundraising.	No Rule 11 violation; evidence did not show Carney solicited funds.
Did Rule 2A or Article V, §18(d)(1) penalize the handgun incident on I-79?	Board argues display of gun could constitute misconduct.	Carney’s possession and display were not directed at intimidation and did not impair decision-making.	No violation; conduct did not implicate decision-making and did not bring office into disrepute.

In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (reaffirms case-by-case balancing for disrepute standard)
In re Cicchetti, 560 Pa. 183, 743 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2000) (case-by-case determination of conduct bringing office into disrepute)
In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2005) (Supreme Court disapproved earlier Rule 2A reading; cites Harrington on disrepute and law compliance)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Souers, 66 Ohio St.3d 199, 611 N.E.2d 305 (Ohio 1993) (per curiam on public explanation of court procedure; supports Rule 6 interpretation)
In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1996) (establishes standard that conduct must be extreme to bring office into disrepute)