In re Tidd, 181 A.3d 14

The Judicial Conduct Board filed a Complaint against Magisterial District Judge David W. Tidd; after a seven-day trial the Court found a violation of MDJ Rule 2.16(B) (anti-retaliation).
The Court held MDJ Rule 2.16(B) is violated when a judge’s conduct would deter a reasonable person from cooperating with an investigation; the standard is objective and intent to interfere is not required.
The retaliatory incident was a single, videotaped April 23, 2015 confrontation between Tidd and his court staff inside the courthouse but outside the courtroom.
Tidd acknowledged the conduct, testified about medical and other contributing factors, apologized, and resigned his commission after re-election and before final sanction.
The Court considered ten nonexclusive sanction factors (from In re Roca) and found mitigating factors (resignation, lack of intent, credible testimony, political context) outweighed aggravation.
The Court imposed a reprimand as the sanction for the MDJ Rule 2.16(B) violation (and derivative Constitutional violation under Article V, § 17(b)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tidd’s confrontation violated MDJ Rule 2.16(B) (anti-retaliation)	Board: Tidd’s angry confrontation would deter a reasonable person from cooperating and thus constituted retaliation	Tidd: Conduct lacked intent to interfere and was influenced by medical and political-staff issues; not intended to dissuade cooperation	Court: Violation — objective standard; intent not required
Whether intent to dissuade cooperation is required for an anti-retaliation violation	Board: Not required; focus on objective deterrent effect	Tidd: Argued absence of intent is exculpatory and mitigating	Court: No intent element for liability, but lack of intent is mitigating for sanction
Appropriate sanction for the violation	Board: Retaliation is serious misconduct; appropriate sanction greater than a reprimand implied	Tidd: Reprimand sufficient given single incident, resignation, mitigation	Court: Reprimand imposed after weighing ten sanction factors and mitigating evidence
Whether resignation defeats jurisdiction or punishment	Board: Jurisdiction remains; sanction still appropriate	Tidd: Resignation reduces need for severe sanction	Court: Resignation does not divest jurisdiction but is mitigating in sanction analysis

In re David W. Tidd, 175 A.3d 1151 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2017) (court’s merits decision establishing objective anti-retaliation standard)
In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (adoption of ten nonexclusive factors for sanction analysis)
In re Berkhimer, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (sanctioning purpose: punish, repair public trust, guide judiciary)
In re Melograne, 888 A.2d 753 (Pa. 2005) (disciplinary sanctions provide guidance and protect public confidence)
In re Miller, 171 A.3d 367 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (resignation does not deprive disciplinary court of jurisdiction)