In re Segal, 151 A.3d 734

Dawn A. Segal, a Philadelphia Municipal Court judge, was charged by the Judicial Conduct Board with multiple violations based on repeated ex parte communications with former Judge Joseph C. Waters, Jr. about three pending cases (Houdini v. Donegal; City of Philadelphia v. Rexach; Commonwealth v. Khoury).
The Board alleged violations of former Canons 2B, 3A(4), 3B(3), 3C(1) of the former Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V §§17(b) and 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Evidence included wiretapped conversations showing repeated improper contacts and assurances by Segal to Waters that she would act on his requests; contacts occurred in courthouse chambers and used government equipment.
Segal initially defended her actions but later acknowledged wrongdoing and expressed remorse at the sanctions hearing; she reported the contacts only after being confronted by the FBI about the wiretap.
The Court found Segal’s conduct was knowing and intentional, prejudiced administration of justice, brought the judiciary into disrepute, and constituted willful misconduct.
After a sanctions hearing, the Court ordered Segal removed from office and declared her ineligible to hold judicial office in the future.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ex parte communications violated judicial canons	Ex parte contacts with Waters about pending cases conveyed improper influence and breached Canons 2B and 3A(4)	Segal argued she could decide fairly despite contacts and initially minimized canon violations	Court held repeated ex parte contacts violated Canons 2B and 3A(4) and affected deliberations
Whether failure to report constituted misconduct	Failure to report Waters’ misconduct and her own contacts violated Canon 3B(3)	Segal eventually reported after FBI confrontation; argued mitigation and remorse	Court held failure to report sustained as a violation of Canon 3B(3)
Whether Segal should have recused/disclosed contacts	Ex parte contacts and promises to treat litigants specially required recusal; nondisclosure undermined impartiality (Canon 3C(1))	Segal did not disclose and did not recuse, claiming ability to be impartial	Court held Segal’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned and nondisclosure violated Canon 3C(1)
Appropriate sanction for constitutional and canonical violations	Board sought removal based on prejudice to administration of justice and disrepute	Segal urged mitigation: remorse, character witnesses, lack of prior complaints	Court found misconduct knowing/intended to prejudice administration of justice, brought judiciary into disrepute, and ordered removal and ineligibility for future judicial office

In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366, 930 A.2d 1255 (2007) (scope of review and purpose of disciplinary sanctions)
In re Melograne, 585 Pa. 357, 888 A.2d 753 (2005) (character evidence does not negate sanction and disciplinary purpose)
In re Melograne, 571 Pa. 490, 812 A.2d 1164 (2002) (discipline repairs public trust and guides judiciary)
In re Toczydlowski, 853 A.2d 24 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2004) (adoption of nonexclusive sanctioning factors)
Denting, 108 Wash.2d 82, 736 P.2d 639 (1987) (sanctioning factors adopted by Toczydlowski)
In re Cioppa, 51 A.3d 923 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2012) (prejudice to administration of justice as particularly serious)
In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1996) (knowing conduct that affects outcomes supports constitutional violation)
In re Zupsic, 893 A.2d 875 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2005) (fixing cases can lead to removal)