In re Liberace, 2014 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 5

Gerald Carl Liberace, a magisterial district judge, was criminally convicted of two first‑degree misdemeanors (endangering the welfare of children and corruption of minors) for sexually touching his 12‑year‑old stepdaughter in 2004.
The criminal convictions followed a trial in 2010; evidence included intercepted telephone calls in which Liberace apologized for "inappropriate touching."
The convictions were upheld on appeal and collateral review.
The Judicial Conduct Board charged Liberace under Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution for conduct bringing the judicial office into disrepute.
The Court of Judicial Discipline compared Liberace’s conduct to prior judicial‑misconduct precedents involving sexually‑charged or coercive conduct and concluded the acts were extreme enough to lower public esteem for the judiciary.
The court ordered Liberace removed from office and barred him from holding any judicial office in Pennsylvania; a sanction hearing had been scheduled (procedural timing noted in the opinion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Liberace’s criminal conduct while commissioned as a judge brought the judicial office into disrepute	The Judicial Conduct Board: convictions for sexual misconduct with a minor by a sitting judge are extreme and erode public esteem for the judiciary	Liberace: conduct was private, occurred before public disclosure; trial defense argued allegations were fabricated and offered mitigating facts (e.g., affectionate cards after the event)	The court held the convictions constituted conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute under Art. V, § 18(d)(1)
Appropriate disciplinary consequence	The Board: removal and prohibition from future judicial office appropriate given the seriousness and criminal convictions	Liberace: (implicit) mitigation and factual disputes do not negate due process; argued against severity	The court ordered removal from office and a prohibition on holding judicial office in Pennsylvania

In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1996) (sets two‑part disrepute standard: extreme conduct that results in declining public esteem)
In re Singletary, 61 A.3d 402 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2012) (judge’s sexually explicit conduct toward women found to bring judiciary into disrepute)
In re Alonge, 3 A.3d 771 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2010) (stalking/sexually motivated conduct by judge found disreputable)
In re Cioppa, 51 A.3d 923 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2012) ("tawdry, coercive" pursuit of litigants and related convictions justified removal)
In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2009) (courts evaluate misconduct "as if" the public had known of it when committed)