In re Jennings, 200 A.3d 653

Background

Former Magisterial District Judge Robert Jennings, III pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor convictions for criminal coercion and demanding property to secure employment related to demanding 10% of state constables' earnings for his re-election fund.
The Judicial Conduct Board alleged violations of Old Rule 2 (impropriety), Old Rule 12 (incompatible practices), and Pennsylvania Constitution Article V §§ 17(b) and 18(d)(1) (discipline for prejudicing administration of justice and bringing office into disrepute).
The court previously found those ethical and constitutional violations in its July 18, 2018 opinion; this opinion addresses the appropriate sanction.
The court applied ten disciplinary ("Deming") factors to assess sanction, finding the misconduct: isolated in time but tied to Jennings’s re-election campaign, carried out in his official capacity, resulted in over $3,000 restitution, and exploited his office for personal/financial gain.
Jennings resigned after his suspension was changed to suspension without pay; he presented character witnesses and letters but did not admit fault at the sanction hearing, attributing his plea to poor legal advice.
Applying precedent and the Deming factors, the court concluded removal and a bar on future judicial office were warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jennings’ conduct warranted disciplinary sanction for violating MDJ rules and PA Constitution	Board: Jennings used office to demand campaign funds, corrupting office and prejudicing administration of justice; removal appropriate	Jennings: Misconduct isolated; long public service and community work mitigate; attributed plea to poor counsel; resigned so unlikely to reoffend	Court: Violations proven; misconduct exploited office for personal gain; mitigation insufficient; removal ordered and future judicial service barred
Whether resignation and restitution mitigate sanction	Board: Resignation and restitution relevant but do not outweigh corruption and exploitation	Jennings: Resignation shows remediation; restitution and community service warrant leniency	Court: Resignation reduces risk of reoffense but does not obviate need for removal to protect public trust
Whether lack of contrition affects sanction	Board: Lack of genuine acceptance aggravates sanction	Jennings: Maintains claim of innocence/poor counsel; offered character evidence	Court: Failure to accept responsibility is troubling and diminishes mitigating weight of character evidence
Appropriate sanction consistent with precedent	Board: Precedent supports removal when judges use office for personal gain, even without felony conviction	Jennings: Calls for proportionality and consideration of service record	Court: Cites multiple precedents imposing removal for similar corruption; imposes removal and bar from judicial office

Key Cases Cited

In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (adopting Deming factors for sanction analysis)
In re Toczydlowski, 853 A.2d 24 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2004) (disciplinary standards and precedent on sanctions)
In re Deming, 736 P.2d 639 (Wash. 1987) (origin of the ten-factor sanction framework)
In re David W. Tidd, 181 A.3d 14 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2018) (emphasizing proportionality and consistency in sanctions)
In re Melograne, 888 A.2d 753 (Pa. 2005) (good character evidence does not negate sanctionable misconduct)
In re Berkhimer, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (sanctions serve to repair public trust and guide judiciary)
In re Jeffrey Joy, 148 A.3d 162 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (removal for judges using office for personal gain)
In re Thomasine Tynes, 149 A.3d 452 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2017) (removal for corrupt misuse of office)
In re Angeles Roca, 151 A.3d 739 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (affirming removal for similar misconduct)
In re Dawn Segal, 151 A.3d 734 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (removal affirmed for misuse of judicial position)
In re Michael Sullivan, 135 A.3d 1164 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (discipline for corruption-related conduct)
In re Eagen, 814 A.2d 304 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2002) (misdemeanor convictions supporting removal)
In re Pazuhanich, 858 A.2d 231 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2004) (nolo contendere pleas leading to removal)