In re Shaw, 192 A.3d 350

Background

Magisterial District Judge Michael G. Shaw (Respondent Shaw) was investigated and charged by the Judicial Conduct Board; parties submitted joint stipulations and waived trial. Discovery and pretrial conferences occurred; the Court accepted the stipulated facts.
While Presiding Judge of Bradford County Treatment Court (circa 2006–2014), Shaw engaged in frequent private texting and "sexting" with D.A., the girlfriend of a Treatment Court participant (J.L.), and thereafter met and had sexual relations with D.A.; participants learned of the conduct, and President Judge Beirne removed Shaw as Presiding Judge of Treatment Court.
Shaw admitted to similar sexting with a probation officer (R.K.) and to communicating directly with Treatment Court participants about urgent matters despite a policy requiring contact with probation staff.
Shaw exchanged texts with litigants and relatives of litigants who had matters before him (e.g., truancy and traffic matters) and in at least one case dismissed a truancy charge after such contact.
Shaw had attorney-client relationship with Rinaldo DePaola (who represented Shaw in disciplinary matters) while DePaola and his firm filed many cases in Shaw’s court; Shaw did not disclose that relationship to opposing parties and did not initially recuse; later he sought recusal after being told to do so.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sexting and sexual relations with girlfriend of a Treatment Court participant	Shaw’s secret sexual relationship and salacious texts with a participant’s girlfriend constitute conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute and violate judicial conduct rules	Shaw minimized or downplayed language/content and context; some contacts occurred outside court setting	Court found Shaw violated Disrepute Clause and multiple judicial conduct rules based on sexting and sexual encounter with a participant’s girlfriend
Sexting with a probation officer and informal contact with Treatment Court participants	Sexting with court personnel and direct extra‑procedural communications with participants breached ethical rules and Treatment Court policies, undermining impartiality and court administration	Shaw characterized contacts as personal friendships, informal encouragement, or procedural assistance	Court found violations of rules governing special consideration and communications with participants (old and new rules)
Ex parte communications with litigants/relatives (truancy, traffic, juvenile matters)	Texts and advice to litigants/relatives constituted improper ex parte contacts and created appearance of favoritism or undue influence	Shaw contended messages were procedural guidance or benign assistance and did not require disclosure/recusal	Court treated these contacts as problematic; relied on more serious findings and did not separately decide every minor charge, but included them in broader misconduct assessment
Failure to disclose attorney-client relationship with DePaola / failure to recuse earlier	Shaw’s failure to inform opposing parties that DePaola (and firm associates) who filed many cases in his court represented him in a disciplinary matter created an undisclosed conflict and required recusal or disclosure	Shaw did not disclose but later recused in certain cases after being told to do so; argued letters/requested transfers once aware	Court found that Shaw violated duties by not notifying opposing counsel/parties and that recusal would have been the sensible course; violations of disclosure/recusal rules were sustained

Key Cases Cited

In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1997) (disrepute determinations are case‑specific and fact‑intensive)
In re Sullivan, 135 A.3d 1164 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2016) (ex parte contacts can violate Disrepute Clause)
In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2016) (ex parte communications and favoritism found problematic)
In re Segal, 151 A.3d 734 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2016) (similar treatment of ex parte and related misconduct)
In re Ballentine, 121 A.3d 611 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2015) (personal misconduct can bring judicial office into disrepute)
In re Liberace, 118 A.3d 497 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2014) (sexual misconduct with a minor found to violate Disrepute Clause)
In re Nocella, 79 A.3d 766 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2013) (dishonesty in candidate statements violates Disrepute Clause)
In re Singletary, 61 A.3d 402 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2012) (displaying genital photograph to an uninterested person violated Disrepute Clause)
In re Cioppa, 51 A.3d 923 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2012) (conditioning favorable treatment on sexual favors violated judicial ethics)
In re Murphy, 10 A.3d 932 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2010) (sanctions guided by nature of conduct and mitigating/aggravating factors)