In re Shaw, 207 A.3d 442

Respondent Magisterial District Judge Shaw engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship with the girlfriend of a defendant he supervised in Treatment Court and exchanged salacious texts with her.
Shaw repeatedly allowed conflicts to persist by appearing on matters involving counsel connected to that relationship, creating a conflict of interest between his official duties and personal conduct.
The relationship began from Shaw’s role in Treatment Court and, while physical acts occurred outside the courtroom, his conflicted participation occurred in court proceedings.
Shaw admitted the misconduct, accepted responsibility, did not seek re-election, and presented contrition; numerous witnesses and letters attested to his prior good character and community service.
The Court found the conduct violated the Disrepute Clause, harmed the judiciary’s reputation, and involved exploitation of judicial position for personal gratification.
As sanction, the Court imposed a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine payable within six months, with Shaw remaining under court supervision until paid; concurring judges agreed on the sanction but one argued for a higher fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shaw’s actions constituted judicial misconduct	Shaw’s romantic relationship, texts, and failure to avoid conflicts breached judicial ethics and brought disrepute	Shaw acknowledged misconduct, argued it was noncriminal, was contrite, and served honorably for decades	Court held Shaw committed judicial misconduct violating the Disrepute Clause
Whether the conduct was criminal or noncriminal	Plaintiff emphasized ethical breach regardless of criminal charges	Shaw (and majority) noted conduct was not charged as criminal and is noncriminal conduct	Court treated absence of criminal charges as a minor factor; still imposed sanction
Whether misconduct exploited official position/conflicted with duties	Plaintiff argued Shaw exploited his Treatment Court role and repeatedly ignored conflicts	Shaw contended role in Treatment Court was less formal/committee-like, and he may have misunderstood boundaries	Court found Shaw exploited his position and that the relationship grew from his official role
Appropriate sanction given facts and precedent	Plaintiff sought sanction reflecting harm to public confidence and exploitation of office	Shaw’s contrition, retirement, good character, and lack of prior complaints argued for leniency	Court imposed severe reprimand and $5,000 fine; concurrences agreed on reprimand but one urged a substantially larger fine

In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1997) (president judge coerced sexual relations; severe reprimand and censure)
In re Berkhimer, 877 A.2d 579 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2005) (magisterial judge sexually harassed staff and exploited office; removal)
In re Alonge, 3 A.3d 771 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2010) (magisterial judge sexually harassed staff and lied; suspension and probation)