In re Merlo, 58 A.3d 1

Appellant Maryesther S. Merlo, a licensed attorney, was elected magisterial district judge in Allentown, PA and began serving in 2004.
Judicial Conduct Board filed a seven-count complaint in 2010 alleging MDJ Rule violations and conduct prejudicial to the judiciary; a second complaint followed in 2011 with new factual allegations.
Trial before the Court of Judicial Discipline focused on four categories: Work Habits, Truancy Cases, Landlord/Tenant Cases, and Demeanor and Abuse of Power.
Board evidence showed chronic absenteeism, habitual lateness, and substantial pre-hearing delays, including numerous “no-shows” and continuances affecting litigants and staff.
In truancy matters, Appellant routinely arrived late, caused hearings to be continued, and delayed adjudications that impacted students’ truancy consequences.
In landlord/tenant matters, Appellant instructed staff to enter judgments or reschedule hearings when she was absent, circumventing Rule 512 and normal procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Merlo’s conduct bring the office into disrepute under 18(d)(1)?	Board contends conduct was extreme and continuous, undermining public trust.	Merlo argues isolated or mitigated misconduct; cites non-disrepute precedents.	Yes; conduct brought the office into disrepute.
Were the sanctions (removal) lawful given the proven violations?	Removal justified by egregious misconduct and public trust concerns.	Removal excessive; seeks lesser sanctions based on mitigating factors.	Removal from judicial office was lawful.
Were the factual findings supported by clear and convincing evidence?	Widespread, credible testimony established Rule violations and disrepute.	Some credibility concerns and alternative interpretations argued by Merlo.	Findings supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Did the CJD properly apply MDJ Rules 3A, 4A, 4C, and 5A to Merlo’s conduct?	Evidence showed neglect of duties, legal missteps, and abusive/undignified conduct.	Some rules had limited applicability; argues some conduct not purposefully wrongful.	CJD properly applied and found violations.

In re Merlo, 34 A.3d 932 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2011) (judicial misconduct finding and removal analysis; central to Merlo ruling)
In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2008) (extreme tardiness/disrepute standard guiding disrepute analysis)
In re Berkhimer, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (disrepute and public trust; limits on crediting character evidence)
In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2009) (discussion of public confidence and standard for disrepute)
In re Davis, 954 A.2d 118 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2007) (holding hearings as an adjudicative function; rule compliance)
In re Daghir, 657 A.2d 1032 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1995) (relevancy of conduct and context to disrepute findings)