79 A.3d 766
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa2013Background
- Judge Thomas M. Nocella, a Philadelphia judge and multiple-time judicial candidate, was investigated by the Judicial Conduct Board based on (A) false or incomplete responses to the Philadelphia Bar Association Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention questionnaires (2001–2011) and (B) his role as counsel to The Appreciation Fund PAC, including actions that dissipated the PAC’s assets after court orders..
- Commission questionnaires (2009 and 2011) contained certifications; Nocella omitted or misrepresented dozens of matters (e.g., numerous cases listing him as a defendant, a Board of Ethics contempt petition, large judgments, IRS liens, and a bankruptcy filing).
- The Philadelphia Board of Ethics sued the Appreciation Fund for failing to file required electronic campaign reports; court orders and contempt findings followed. Nocella, as counsel to the Fund, arranged and facilitated payments that depleted the Fund and personally accepted a $2,500 payment billed as legal fees despite previously representing the Fund pro bono.
- The Disciplinary Board later issued an informal admonition to Nocella for misrepresenting the Fund’s assets and assisting DeNofa in violating court orders; the Judicial Conduct Board filed the present Complaint alleging multiple judicial ethics and constitutional violations.
- The Court of Judicial Discipline found Nocella violated Canon 7B(1)(c) (misrepresentation as a candidate), Article V, § 17(b) (violating a judicial canon), and Article V, § 18(d)(1) (conduct bringing judicial office into disrepute); it rejected the Canon 2A charge and collateral-estoppel/jurisdiction defenses.
- Following a sanctions hearing, the court ordered removal from office and ineligibility to hold judicial office; one judge dissented as to the severity of the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nocella’s questionnaire omissions/misrepresentations violated Canon 7B(1)(c) (candidate must not misrepresent qualifications/facts) | Nocella repeatedly misrepresented or omitted material facts on Commission questionnaires and update forms, certifying their truthfulness. | Nocella’s counsel argued some misstatements were inadvertent and not knowing lies. | Held: Violations established; repeated, material misrepresentations breached Canon 7B(1)(c). |
| Whether Nocella’s conduct with the Appreciation Fund violated Canon 2A (judge must respect law and promote public confidence) | Board: Nocella’s dissipation of PAC assets, misrepresentations to Ethics counsel, and contempt adjudication undermine public confidence and violate Canon 2A. | Nocella: Conduct arose outside judicial decision-making and therefore falls outside Canon 2A’s scope. | Held: Conduct did not implicate the decision-making process; not a violation of Canon 2A. |
| Whether violations of a judicial canon and related misconduct trigger Article V, § 17(b) and § 18(d)(1) (discipline for violating canons or conduct bringing office into disrepute) | Board: Canon violations and conduct (lying, contempt, asset dissipation) automatically violate § 17(b) and independently bring the office into disrepute under § 18(d)(1). | Nocella: Argued collateral estoppel from Disciplinary Board’s prior disposition and challenged Court’s jurisdiction over pre-bench conduct. | Held: Violations of Canon 7B(1)(c) meant § 17(b) violation; independent factual findings supported § 18(d)(1) — conduct brought the judicial office into disrepute. Jurisdiction over pre-bench conduct upheld. Collateral estoppel rejected. |
| Whether the Disciplinary Board’s prior admonition precluded further discipline here (collateral estoppel) | Nocella: Prior Disciplinary Board action should bar relitigation of same issues before the Court of Judicial Discipline. | Board: Dual tribunals may each discipline judicial officers; prior proceeding differs in parties, scope, and issues, so estoppel does not apply. | Held: Collateral estoppel inapplicable — issues and parties differ; five-factor test not satisfied; prior discipline does not preclude Court of Judicial Discipline action. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1997) (Canon 2 and appearance-of-influence analysis)
- In re Cicchetti, 743 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2000) (Supreme Court affirmation limiting Canon 2 to decision-making context)
- In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2005) (discussion of Canon 2 and interplay with Supreme Court guidance)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jepsen, 787 A.2d 420 (Pa. 2002) (both disciplinary tribunals may act on lawyer-conduct by judges)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiesewetter, 889 A.2d 47 (Pa. 2005) (standards for collateral estoppel in disciplinary context)
- In re Merlo, 58 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2012) (examples of conduct bringing judicial office into disrepute affirmed)
- In re Berkhimer, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (judicial discipline principles affirmed)
- In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2003) (public misconduct as basis for discipline)