In Re Larsen

requirement parking un- modification 909.06(d)(1).

der Id. at 13a. section evidence means such evidence

Substantial might accept

as a reasonable mind as ade

quate Valley conclusion. View Zoning Adjust Civic Association 550, 462

ment, 501 Pa. A.2d 637 With believe, mind, principle contrary I determination, majority’s that there presented evidence the form of

substantial

testimony park that the modification necessary in

ing requirement was order to subject parcel

appropriately develop whole, Caliguiri’s

land. taken Mr. When testimony supports finding

entire requirement parking

modification

necessary appropriately develop in order to subject property because of the land’s

unique geographical location. This is all the requires.

Code

Therefore, specific in the absence of find- board,

ings I remand for addi- findings respect Pittsburgh

tional Company’s request

Deli for modification of parking requirements under section

909.06(d)(1)of the Code. LARSEN,

In re Rolf Former Justice Court.

No. 4 JD 94. Pennsylvania.

Aug.

40 903; acquitted § he was of 12

Cons.Stat. of the counts under Section 13 Controlled Act, Substance, Drug, Device Cosmetic 780-113(a)(12). § 35 The Pa.Stat. 18, April on Application, then filed a second 1994, requested suspension without which jury the information and ver pay based on 25, hearing May A held on dict. was 3, 1994, petition granted we On June pay Respondent suspended without was immediately. effective In re Justice Rolf (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1994). Larsen, 655 A.2d 239 conviction, Following the Board Larsen’s 5, Complaint filed a with this Court June 1994, 4 to Number JD 94. The docketed Complaint consists of 27 Counts divided into requests separate parts. Part A disci- six felony the aforesaid plinary action because of MESSA, SYLVESTER, MAGARO, Before (Counts 1-5); alleges B Part BYER, convictions SWEENEY, PANELLA and JJ. underlying which the convic- facts tions, i.e., conspired Respondent with THE COURT OPINION OF unlawfully a Schedule IV others to obtain PANELLA, Judge. (Counts 6-9); Part C substance controlled Before the is the Amended Omnibus knowing- charges made contains that Larsen Respondent, former Pretrial Motion ly a Grand false material statements before An Rolf Larsen. en Court Justice (Counts 10-14); requests D disci- Jury Part 27, May argument banc was held on Respondent filed plinary action because the docu- Pennsylvania Supreme Court with the I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY which were containing averments ments reckless disre- knowingly or made with false beleag- complicated This case has (Counts 15-18); Part E gard for the truth history. Proceedings against the Re- uered failing with to re- charges spondent Con- were instituted involving potential claims of in matters cuse 1994, March when the duct Board on prior his rela- partiality because of bias and Application Board filed an with this Court with tionship, personal professional, both suspend the Re- requested that we (Counts 19-23); F Part al- attorney Application, which spondent pay.1 The ex-parte conversations leges that Larsen had pri- was was docketed to Number JD petitions for attorney regarding two with an marily filing on the of a criminal infor- based appeal pending before Su- allowance of counts, mation, felony which included (Counts 24-27). preme Court initially against Respondent.2 hearing was 24, 1994, March after which we de- held on 24, 1994, Pennsylvania House On Application opinion. without nied the articles of adopted seven Representatives Larsen, accusing him against impeachment April On to Article pursuant Pleas of “misbehavior office” guilty, in the Court of Common found CC9313844, Pennsylvania § 4 Constitution. Allegheny County, at No. were exhibited to impeachment Pa. articles of Conspiracy, two counts Criminal See, 18(b)(5) general § Constitution. Application under the 1. The was filed 18(d)(2) authority granted Chapter Rules of in Article Court of Judicial Since the time of the Constitution. Procedure. adopted filing Application, this Court has procedure whenever the rules which address trial, 11 were dismissed. 2. Prior to counts filing than Board seeks relief other pursuant complaint formal requested recusal attorney VI incor fees. Section and were on June Senate closely were affil- Impeachment any members who porated the Senate’s Writ in to be sought preliminary intended Larsen witnesses Summons. iated with enjoin and Senate junction to the Senate Board. called conduct impeachment trial committee from 25, July way issued on By of an Order application ing impeachment trial. The the 1994, Joseph F. McClos Honorable per the of by Court was denied the Commonwealth Judge, Section key, we denied Conference Pennsyl Pennsylvania, v. Larsen Senate of motion; IV without III denied Section of the 472, vania, al., 166 Pa.Commw. et discovery requests; specific prejudice to file 694 VI, V; and denied Section denied Section 13, 1994, Respondent the On June premature. it prejudice because was without Honorable W. Terrence sentenced parties to file briefs The Court ordered year probation for each of to one O’Brien II. respect I and Sections Conspiracy. In counts of Criminal the two 4, 1994, following impeach- an On October addition, O’Brien, upon finding that Judge Senate, Respondent ment trial before committed an “infamous crime” Larsen had II Articles of the guilty was found 2, under Article 7 of the result, As a the Senate Impeachment. Constitution3, Order'removing entered 163, which No. adopted Senate Resolution Respondent from office.4 from office again removed the and The sentence was remanded vacated public ineligible him to hold and declared 1996, 5, Superior August on Com Resolution, perti- future. The Larsen, 508, Pa.Super. 682 monwealth part, nent states: denied, (1996), A.2d 783 alloc. (1997), Respondent Rolf Larsen re- Respon Adjudging held the 692 A.2d 564 disqualified from office and on moved from dent “should have been sentenced holding any public office. single charge conspiracy.” criminal Pa.Super. A.2d at 798. On WHEREAS, the of the Common- Senate 27, 1997, Judge the Re O’Brien resentenced Pennsylvania having tried Rolf wealth of including spondent to similar conditions Larsen, Justice of from removal office. Im- Articles of seven 5, 1994, July Respondent filed an On against him peachment exhibited case, re- Omnibus Pretrial Motion two-thirds Representatives, and House of questing Complaint dismissed for be having him found present of the Senators I, Respon- several reasons. Section in Article charges guilty of the contained jurisdic- argued dent that this Court lacked therefore, II: It is longer a tion because he was no by way Judge removal O’Brien’s ORDERED 13, 1994 in the criminal case. Order of June October, now, DAY THIS 4TH OF And II, that he was Larsen contended Section Pennsylvania does the Senate of jeopardy” exposed “triple hereby and it is hereby order and decree case, im- pending Senate concurrent criminal Lar- Respondent Rolf adjudged that trial, judicial disciplinary pro- peachment sen, of Penn- Justice therefore, requested the ceeding; Larsen be, hereby, he is removed sylvania triple jeopardy Complaint be “dismissed office; hereby he be and is and that challenged III the suffi- grounds.” Section any office of hold disqualified to forever brought by the ciency of the violations profit under this Commonwealth Board, discovery, trust or IV was for Section it further Pennsylvania; and be request for defense V included Section course, Supreme Court Order person 4. Of § 7 that no "convicted 3. Article states moneys, bribery, per- had been Larsen Justice of embezzlement dated October crime, eligible jury other infamous shall or all duties. earlier relieved of holding any capable Assembly, or General profit trust or in this Commonwealth.” office of RESOLVED, Appeals, That the Third Circuit Court of at Nos. the President 97-7153, 97-7451, Secretary be directed to communicate to 97-7296 and on review of Commonwealth, granting the Governor of District orders of the Chief Justice of the denying numerous motions to dismiss. Commonwealth, Treasurer March the Board filed a mo On Representatives, Respondent House of dispose pre of the amended omnibus Secretary Rolf Larsen and the of the Com- Basically, trial motion. the Board contended foregoing judg- monwealth the order and general original for the con reason ment of the Senate and transmit certified tinuance, i.e., awaiting disposition of the copy of the same to each. pending appeal of Larsen’s criminal convic filed an Amended Omni tion, light of the exhaus longer existed in bus Pretrial Motion 10, this case on November answer to appeals. tion of direct Larsen’s reply Board was filed 1994. April 1998. In the motion was filed on on November 1994. Briefs were filed answer, that the criminal Larsen denied and the Board on November final, “(t)o contrary, Respon conviction is 30, 1994 12, 1994,respectively. and December to file before preparing dent is and intends accordance with Order issued De July petition under the 1998-a 16, 1994, per Judge McCloskey, cember in the Post-Conviction Relief Act argument following Court scheduled on the Pleas, County, Allegheny Pennsyl Common issues: Thus, argued that the lack of vania.” Larsen 1) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for finality underlying criminal conviction subject jurisdiction lack of matter light continues to exist in “soon-to-be jeopardy; former Answer, Respondent’s petition.” filed PCRA 2) Respondent’s Motion to Limit this 22, 1998, we ordered paras. April & 3. On jurisdiction the Re- to affect stay 1994 was that the entered on June spondent’s practice in license to law vacated, granted an parties were and the Commonwealth; and this in re opportunity supplement their briefs 3) Respondent’s assertion that this case Mo Pretrial lation Amended Omnibus is moot. Agument before tion. was heard 27, 1998. en banc on The Court did not address the amended presented joint parties motion because the filed a motion the Board On June January motion for continuance on 1995. withdraw, prejudice, parts B without motion, Court, joint Based with Athough through Complaint. F Burns, dissenting, Donohue and Johnson con- judicial disciplinary requested that the Board pending disposition tinued all matters part A proceeding respect continue with in appeal direct the criminal case which was concluded Complaint, the Board’s the Board Superior pending before the Court. Addi- scope in limited this ease be tionally, the Court ordered that the continu- by Judge removal entered “the Order automatically to be vacated in the ance was trial, O’Brien, impeachment the verdict in the event that Larsen filed notice with the Ad- 163, are in full No. and Senate Resolution ministrative Office of Courts to of this motion Disposition force and effect.” reinstate the active status of his law license. pending. is still suspension The Court’s interim Order of pay without was continued. II. DISCUSSION September Larsen filed Com- Pretrial Motion In his Amended Omnibus plaint, at No. 95-CV-01540 the United Complaint of Respondent contends for the District States District Court Middle dis- Board should be the Judicial Conduct Senate, Pennsylvania, against as well reasons: missed for three among as the alia, subject juris- others, matter requesting, that his im- 1. This Court lacks inter longer a Respondent is no peachment and all diction since be set aside currently having been removed stayed. The is action be case (a) Snyder, 523 we a final order”. office the sen- when issue from his at imposed tence Court of Common A.2d 299. (b) County, Allegheny Pleas of also, Chesna, In re n. See impeached which him .5 the Senate (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1995) (resigna- 659 A.2d 1091 authority lacks to enter an This Court judge institution of tion of (cid:127) Respondent’s affecting order juris- court of deprive jurisdiction over which re- diction). Disciplinary with the Board of sides Court. Disbarment question Respondent’s removal issue,8 we Turning the second con ineligibility hold clude the Court Judicial the future is moot.6 jurisdiction to consider and has exclusive Respondent’s with fitness deal Subject Matter Jurisdiction law because all the misconduct clearly subject This has mat judi he held charged place he is while took jurisdiction.7 ruling ter on the Our based Support cial office. for this decision found Pennsyl Court of decisions Anonymous At Counsel Inquiry

vania in Review (1991). 83, torneys, 528 595 A.2d 42 In Pa. (1987) 142, Snyder, Pa. 523 514 A.2d 294 question presented case the was couched that 276, Glancey, Pa. Matter 518 542 A.2d follows: (1988). Snyder, Supreme 1350 the (W)hether Inquiry and the Judicial Review recognized “responsibility main for (JIRB) jurisdiction to Board has exclusive integrity taining the administra misconduct; discipline officers for Judicial uphold public respect tion so as to for the preclude Disciplinary so as to action continuing jurisdiction rule required of law” against those same Judicial officers although jurist over disciplinary matters attorneys registered prac- are who also 151, question Id. had left office. at 523 Pennsyl- tice law in the Commonwealth Cicchetti, A.2d at 298-99. In In re A.2d 697 vania. (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997), 297 we stated: (footnotes 85-86, at omit Id at 595 A.2d 43 cases, It in other has been contended that ted). that Supreme The Court held exclusive jurisdiction Supreme Court to handle jurisdiction with disci vested JIRB discipline judge judge’s ends when the plinary proceedings regarding a offi See, judicial service ends. Matter Glan cer, determine wheth and it was for JIRB to 276, (1988); cey, Pa. 542 A.2d 518 1350 (1) suspension or er sanctions of removal Inquiry and Review Board v. Judicial (2) against or limitations from (1987). 142, Snyder, Pa. 523 A.2d right to officer’s rejected Supreme argu The 98, 595 A.2d imposed. should be Id. at at for the ment both eases reason that instituted, jurisdiction The to the “once our over disci 1993 Amendment system existing plinary proceedings only changed is thus an end Constitution competent Respondent hearing of a longer is no and determination We note that Upholsterers' controversy officer for the additional reason that his term has character.” of such expired. approach alters neither our nor This North America v. United International Union of our in this matter. decision Workers, Furniture 356 Pa. (1947). initially pro- contended that ("tri- ceedings in this Court constituted double response July 8. On in its Larsen’s ple”) posi- jeopardy he has abandoned that but motion, pretrial first the Board raised omnibus argument, then tion. At the time of oral Larsen's discipline included its contention that available comments to restricted his the issues counsel question "the disbarment of jurisdiction Tran- and available sanctions. See See, Judicial Conduct of law.” script, Argument, 5-27-98 at 2. Oral motion, pretrial response omnibus Board’s jurisdiction "subject 7. A matter” court has para. 8. empowered inquiry if it "enter for judicial discipline. Supreme the framework in The Court described the Under broad complaints place investigated authority granted JIRB to JIRB under the Consti- Supreme and made recommendations to the tution: system, the new dual Court. Under empowers only This Constitutional scheme investigation prosecution responsibilities bring against JIRB to actions offi- lie the Judicial Conduct Board while the any allegations cers for of misconduct adjudication proceedings are before the during which arise tenure in officer’s Discipline. Although of Judicial judiciary.

Anonymous Attorneys un- case was decided scope Id. The Court concluded that pre-1993 system, Supreme der review JIRB covered not the conduct analysis equally applicable judge capacity, of a in official but “all conduct system. current also, judge of a ....” Id. See Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, Dalessandro, 397 A.2d 743 jurisdiction Court found that the sole for the Justices, of all Commonwealth The constitutional scheme was not altered Judges and District Justices rested Amendment; changed the 1993 what Inquiry Judicial and Review Board and the identity investigative was the Supreme Court. Id. at 595 A.2d at 46. prosecutorial the Judicial agency, now Con- By virtue of the 1993 Amendment to the Board, adjudicatory body, duct and the now Constitution, jurisdic the “sole accom- this Court. The 1993 Amendment tion” now resides in this with review functions, plished all of separation of these Const., Court.9 Pa. Art. Thus, formerly in JIRB. we resided (c) (d). 18(b), Board, Conduct hold type also looked to the of conduct which Board, has the constitu- not the compels judicial discipline proceedings: against bring actions prerogative tional 18(d) types specific Section sets forth six of judicial upon allegations of miscon- officers trigger pro- conduct which would a JIRB during duct which arise that officer’s tenure very ceeding. type activity The first of judiciary. prohibited is a “violation of section seven- We are aware that the 1993 Amendment teen of this article.” 17 of the Section by Constitution, Activities, changed to be exercised the the review entitled Prohibited (b): judicial disciplinary in mat- Supreme Court expressly provides in subsection “Jus- ters; of JIRB’s determi- judges engage any tices in whereas its review shall not novo,11 formerly under the activity by was de prohibited law and shall not nations legal judicial the Su- violate canon of or 1993 Amendment to the Constitution deci- prescribed by Supreme preme ethics Court’s review of this Court’s the Court.” (emphasis original) in now is as follows: sions has been refined and law, plenary; scope review is “on the the of Id. at 595 A.2d at 47. Under the 1993 facts, clearly is scope on the of review prohibit- Amendment the Constitution the sanctions, erroneous; and, scope of as to 18(d)(1) V, § in ed conduct is set out Article imposed review is whether the sanctions and a “violation of section 17 of this article” 18(c)(2). Const., § were lawful.” Pa. Art. place continues to hold its as conduct which pro- Supreme clarified this review in trigger can Hasay, cess in In re 686 A.2d 17(b) Court. Section was not amended (1996): proscribe, justices so it continues to for judicial officer from an judges, “any appeal by conduct which violates can- In an judicial discipline, of legal imposing on of order the standard or ethics.” justice, provided 10. "recommendations”. For- 9. In the case of a the review is JIRB made Constitution, 18(g), §mer Article V of the Pa. special composed judges tribunal of seven May Amended Superior from the Court and Commonwealth Const., V, 18(c)(1). § Court. Pa. Art. 18(h), § V Pa. Constitu- 11. Former Article of the 18, tion, amended Melo questions clearly for is the 1993 Amendment. In In re Jules C. review factual (Pa. V, grane, filed erroneous standard. Pa. Const. Art. No. 0096 M.D.Misc.Dkt.1996 18(c)(2). appeal 27, 1996), § September Supreme In an of board a complaint, application from the dismissal of there is filed addressed questions, no standard of review for factual Board that Court the Judicial Conduct beyond fact alia, judicial because issues of are our requesting, inter that the review, scope of which “shall be limited to averred be disbarred.13 The Board issue questions of law.” Pa. Const. Art. respondent that had violated various 18(c)(3). requested Rules Professional Conduct and of disbarring that “enter an Order (footnote the Court 485-86, Id. at omit- right ted) respondent, temporarily suspending his practice granting or such relief other change The 1993 Amendment not our does also may appropriate.” The Board obligation Anonymous Attorneys. to follow requested Supreme declare that Although Supreme ju- Court’s review of his of respondent that had forfeited modified, disciplinary matters dicial expla September fice. without On Supreme Anonymous Court’s decision in At- nation, mat Court referred torneys product is not the of such narrow Discipline. ter to We the Court qua focus. We do not believe that the sine regard as a this action opinion non of Anon- Anony holding reliable statement ymous Attorneys was its novo de review of Attorneys discipline governs mous still recommendations, opinion JIRB’s rather officers, rests that action primarily reliant on the broad constitution- jurisdiction of within the exclusive the Judi al scheme for the offi- cial Conduct and this The Supreme cers. Court stated that dis specifically an available sanction includes investigation prosecution offi- law. barment from alleged for cers conduct to have occurred during their tenure as officers was Lastly, a further indication that disbar- JIRB, province within the exclusive ment of a officer from noted, with Board. As properly law is the function of this Court system significantly changed has not 18(d)(3) V, § provides: found in Article replacement with JIRB JCB. (3) justice, justice peace judge or Therefore, we are inclined to follow the di- by in a convicted of misbehavior office Supreme of rective our Court absent forceful court, member of bar of disbarred as a the justification contrary for a course. the removed under this Supreme Court or Supreme provided automatically judi- The Court itself has us section shall forfeit his ineligible with an that for indication the framework estab- cial office and thereafter be judicial in Anonymous Attorneys lished office.14 survives the Supreme yet by We note to Court has not be Court from office seems removed 12. anticipate the occur in that disbarment would addressed its standard review if this Court proceeding, some other before another tribunal.” were to invoke the sanction of disbarment. Concurring Opinion, 50. light Supreme the inherent and exclu- p. language power Initially, we does not supervise attorneys the observe that the sive to conduct of V, provide judicial 10(c) a who disbarred officer is under Section the Article Constitu- Court”; provides tion, by removed it “shall be Supreme may choose to conduct that, case, judicial shall in such such officer regarding de novo review record automatically” judicial issue, "forfeit his office. disbarment or a review under more Next, anticipate” language does not "seem to pursuant to the restrictive standards occur another disbarment would "before Amendment. language readily analysis An of this tribunal.” opposite as to the conclusion follows: judicial leads had 13. The officer been convicted of 18(d)(3) provide § to The raison d'etre is felony. judicial office for automatic forfeiture upon concurring opinion, Judge Byer his re- of three events. occurrence V, 18(d)(3), by pro- marks that "Article 2. The three events are stated be: Section (a) by a viding judicial of misbehavior in office that a who is ‘disbarred as conviction officer court, the bar of the Court’ shall a member of language purpose This is identical to that of former continuing useful is served 18(d) V, Constitution, § proceedings against Respon- Article dent, recognizing the 1993Amendment and which that he has been removed effect from the bench as result of both the crimi- Anony- when the Court decided prosecution nal proceedings, the Senate Attorneys. mous The permanently disqualified holding from Anonymous Attorneys stated: public by way of Senate Resolution No. 18(d) V, Article Section of the Constitution 13, as well as his conviction of an “infamous provides for removal of a crime.”15 disbarment, thus, impliedly confer- ring authority to JIRB recommend such Initially, we note that mootness a sanction appropriate. to this Court when argument applicable imposition is only. question sanctions Anonymous Attorneys, supra The whether the n. subjects charged by conduct the Board By 595 A.2d at n. lifting language discipline Pennsyl 18(d) under placing of former Section in toto and it 18(d)(1)(2) Constitution, V, § vania Article or Amendment, unmodified in the 1993 (3) is not moot.16 making drafters were disciplin disbarment a 18(d)(1) ary option pro under Section which The 1993 Amendment to the vides that: Constitution, 18, specified § cer-

(1) justice, justice A tain which judge peace or conduct of officers subject may discipline, them and created suspended, be removed from office or Judicial disciplined. Conduct Board and Court of otherwise (emphasis ... added) implement provi- its sions. For these reasons we hold that the Judicial justice, justice peace may judge or authority Conduct Board has exclusive suspended, be removed from office or oth- action, seek including disbarment disciplined erwise conviction of a felo- for against judicial offi- article; ny; violation of section 17 of this occurring during cers for misconduct their office; neglect misconduct in or failure to service and that can perform of office or conduct the duties imposed subject this Court to review prejudices proper administration provided by as Constitution Article justice brings or office into 18(c). disrepute, whether or not the conduct oc- acting capacity curred in a while or

Mootness law; prohibited or conduct viola- We must now Respondent’s consider the prescribed tion of a canon or rule contention, last whether the Board’s Com- Supreme Court. plaint should be dismissed as moot inasmuch 18(d)(1). V, § Pa. Const. Art. has been removed from office ineligible and is to hold office. The disciplinary system question generis entirely indepen- issue is therefore a of operates whether sui and disbarment, (b) Court”) (c) ("removed or and under this sec- (c) tion”). removal under this section. (a) only acting 3. Event is the one where the i.e., designated, tribunal is the "a court” and 3, supra. 15. See footnote implication is that clear it is a court Discipline. other than the Court of Judicial adjudication phase, In the the of Judi- language specifies 4. The of the section Discipline findings cial must file of fact and (b) (c), referring court when to events and conclusions of law in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. but the Court of Judicial is the sanctions, 503(A). No. If the Court addresses authority court with to order remov- scheduled, public hearing by followed a writ- is als "under this section” and since events imposed. supporting ten decision the sanction (b) (c) conjunctive and are described in 504(A) (B). C.J.D.R.P. & The sanction deci- No. phrases, logical the conclusion is that the discipline pursu- sion constitutes a final order of court, viz., same cipline, the Court of Judicial Dis- § ant to Article the Consti- 18 of contemplated imposing the (b) ("disbarred tution. discipline described in both as a member of the bar of the

47 offender, remedy system justice punish of the criminal or the the and the other dent legislative impeachment process. Disciplin injury integrity the the ary though civil “the obser- proceedings, system cases are caused conduct. These may imposed apply sanctions which have severe our vations [they] led to the observation that ... are heightened, poignancy to equal, if not ” Hasay, ‘quasi-criminal nature.’ In re su proceedings. disciplinary (1996). pra at This is at 815 responsibility Conduct Judicial however, say, panoply not to that the full constitutionally mandated: Board is rights granted respon to a constitutional are investigate The board shall receive and dent in a In re Dan action. complaints regarding judicial conduct filed 885, 888, dridge, 462 Pa. n. A.2d 337 board; or by individuals initiated (1975). 4n. testimony under subpoenas compel issue meaningful approach A the determina- witnesses, subject of including oath proceedings tion the character of these pro- investigation, compel and Pennsylvania Supreme taken documents, books, and accounts duction Court in Counsel Office investigation; other records relevant to the (1975) Campbell, 463 Pa. A.2d 616 345 probable whether there cause determine Berlant, and In re A.2d 471 justice, charges against a to file formal Campbell, adopted the Court justice of for conduct judge peace or reasoning of the Seventh Circuit Court section; proscribed by present Echeles, Appeals in In re 349- 430 F.2d charges ease in (7th Cir.1970), quoted from Cir- Discipline. of Judicial opinion: cuit Court’s 18(a)(7). also, V, § Pa. Art. See Const. (D)isbarment suspension proceedings § 2105. Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. are neither civil nor in nature but criminal Thus, the Board Judicial Conduct special are ... proceedings, generis, sui excep obligation, has a constitutional without they purpose punish- are not for the tion, discipline if, judgment, to seek its ment, protect but rather ... the courts Upon constitutionally proscribed. conduct is public and the from ministra- the official filing charges, of formal the Court of persons practice. tion of unfit to Discipline must “determine whether 478-79, Pa. at 345 A.2d at 619-20. Pa. imposed_” a sanction should be Const. Berlant, similarly ob- 18(b)(5). prior prosecu- criminal Art. served: bar a action tion does not later Disciplinary proceedings are not criminal Board,17 impeach- sought by the nor does hence, nature; the reasonable doubt jurisdiction proceeding usurp ment Moreover, apply. standard need not Therefore, we hold or this Court.18 arising proceedings— sanctions from such moot, even these are not censure, suspension, or disbarment —are subject though Respondent prior of a was the primarily designed punitive for their pro- prosecution impeachment criminal effects, positive pro- but for their effect of ceeding. tecting integrity and the .... courts Moreover, if the available to this sanctions prohibi- limited to Campbell Court were removal 458 Pa. at 328 A.2d at 473. office, question we of whether highlight that it and Berlant what is obvious: should, system consider these necessary phase, have one in the sanction is more than conduct, scrutiny of close dealing type penalties with the same one would necessitate Indeed, felony § "This of the 18 concludes as follows: conviction of a is one imposition enumerated occasions for the of disci- addition in substitution section is in to and not Discipline, pline the Court thus of Judicial impeachment con- for in office for misbehavior demonstrating authority that the constitutional VI.” tained in Article granted prior proceedings this Court subsumes court. Pa. Const. Art. criminal See 18(d)(1). See, proceedings. regard to e.g., the mootness doctrine. the Senate Without actions, Inquiry Snyder, supra they and Review Board v. the merits of these stand as However, ques- A.2d at validity at upon attack of his removal from disbarment, Respondent’s tion of and the long they pending, are office. As ability continued are issues proceeding is not moot. before this Court currently remain unanswered. Indeed, Respondent has not surrendered light position pre- current Board’s very positions, but instead is much his serve disbarment as an form of available time, it litigating. alive and At this is best to phase,19 in the sanction we cannot of our Court: recall the words judicial disciplinary proceeding find that the seek to do is to maintain the What we present is moot time. judge to end integrity the office of proceedings We hold these are not moot office, through that that it the admin- that, although for the additional reason Re justice, istration of will deserve receive spondent’s already service has been termi litigants and law- not nated, currently he seeks collateral attacks yers but of the as well. on both the criminal im sentence and his Anonymous Attorneys, supra at peachment. underlying theory The behind at 47. Respondent’s argument regard in this is the herein, upon stated we Based the reasons notion that because he has been removed continue. find that this ease must processes, longer subject other he eloquently argued by action. As attorney, Costopoulos, Esq., his C. William ORDER 27, 1998: PER CURIAM. But let’s assume that this Court wants NOW, day August, AND this 4th precedent set the that no matter how a removed, hereby jurist dead, it is ORDERED and DIRECTED if even he’s Respondent’s Amended Omnibus bring up we want to the coffin from the AND ground. exactly DENIED DIS And that’s what Pretrial Motion is we’re (20) case, days doing twenty opening and we’re it and Within MISSED. Order, may file firing corpse shots into the .... date of this Complaint in accordance an Answer to the guided by We are the decision of the Su- . No. 413 with C.J.D.R.P. Carrillo, preme Court of Texas Matter of (1976), 542 S.W.2d 105 in which the was court J., BYER, concurring in opinion files an faced with a case in which a lower court the result. judge had been convicted in a trial of im- peachment and removed the state Senate. McEWEN, Judge, and President judge sought to dismiss the J., WEINBERG, participate did as moot. The Texas disposition of this case. consideration or Court, however, pend- that in of a noted view validity ing challenging the lawsuit BYER, Judge, concurring. impeachment legislature, and removal concerning Although I doubt have some the ease not moot. opinion, part II of this the issue discussed Here, in- has stated he I concur in the result. tends to file a collateral attack his conviction, resulting criminal removal I. office, through post-conviction peti- join majority opinion to the a federal action I cannot tion. He has also instituted doctrine “is challenging validity impeachment it holds that the mootness of his extent alia, sanctions contending, deprived applicable imposition inter that he was By reasoning during only.” Majority opinion at 46. process rights of constitutional due requested by regardless the Court of whether 19. All forms of under Article disbarment, 18(d)(1),including are available to Board.

49 judgment power to enter a majority have the premise, do not from that incorrect judgment contradicting the Senate. case would erroneously concludes that Therefore, Board’s in the absence of the not to moot even if the Board elects not be remedy restricting Respondent’s ability seeking a limiting Respondent’s seek a sanction law, any decision we would ability practice to to law. charges would be a on the current render A. advisory opinion. prohibited circumstances, Where, changed because judicial remedy longer will affect the a B. parties, the case must be dis status of a I hold absence Odegaard, as moot. DeFunis v.

missed See remedy right prac- to potential affecting the 312, 1704, 94 40 L.Ed.2d 164 416 U.S. S.Ct. Board does not seek e.g. tice where the law— Commonwealth, (1974); Dept. Environ judicial remedy, officer is a such a or the Jubelirer, 472, v. 531 Pa. mental Resources justice not licensed to law— district Theatres, (1992); Inc. 614 A.2d 204 Easton v. disqualification of a the Senate’s removal and Co., Pa. Fargo Mortgage Land & 498 Wells judicial disciplinary proceed- officer renders (1982); 557, Kuriger 449 A.2d 1372 v. Cram court moot. ings before this er, (1985); Pa.Super. 1331 345 Commonwealth, Goldsborough Dept. v. Respondent has been removed Because Education, A.2d 137 Pa.Commw. 586 disqualified holding from from office and (1991). 997 judicial any public only office but also other future, office in the cases, In I suppose each of the above one Glancey, in Matter decisions argued could have that the court could have (1988), Inquiry 542 A.2d 1350 and Judicial issue, liability only decided the Snyder, 514 Pa. and Review Board v. However, remedy argu- was moot. such an (1987), distinguishable are 523 A.2d 294 contrary precedent. ment would be to Un- majority’s conclusion. do not here, majority like the courts do not look at Analysis of cases demonstrates those fashion, mootness in such a narrow for an judicial does removal of a officer from office remedy a obvious reason. Where cannot disciplinary proceedings moot not render any parties, affect the status of the decision where, here, unlike there still is issue liability advisory. A on would be function of respect qualification that officer’s prevent the mootness courts doctrine hold office the future. rendering prohibited advisory from decisions. Jubelirer; See Bank v. Newton Jefferson Snyder, In officer lost reten- Associates, Pa.Super. 686 A.2d 834 election, thereby from and was removed (1996); Exchange see also Erie Insurance while the electorate Claypoole, Pa.Super. A.2d judi- charges Glancey, In pending. were sought to conclude cial officer Complaint After the Board filed its before resigning consenting to the convicted on his office and Senate entry declaring ineligible him impeachment, Respon- an article of an order removed In disqualified judicial office in the' future. both dent from office and Re- hold office, judi- concluded that spondent holding cases the otherwise, Snyder, the Su- If we were matters were not moot. cial or the future.1 Sny- although Judge charges preme noted that to convict on the officer, us, longer the Court not remove him from der was no we could holding duty whether disqualify office or him from future still had the to consider office, Snyder permanent already impose Judge former because the Senate Furthermore, Glancey, holding office. conclusively done so. we bar has judgment in the criminal case. 1. The of Common also ordered Re- of sentence Pleas spondent part removed from office as authority supporting proposi- Snyder, in not- There is quoted the court its decision judicial pending tion that a collateral attack will save ing purposes that one of only authority system integrity maintain the a case from mootness. is to judicial system majority cites in of this in order to ensure which the proposition thoroughly fur- a unconvinc- public in the law. The court novel confidence analyze ing opinion, Texas which fails ther discussed its role as follows: question. 18(i) V, § in that Art. is clear its mandate for the er- appropriate where the sanction Supreme Court Both the United States judicial justifies rant behavior of a officer Pennsylvania Supreme. Court have and the removal, imposition of the censure of it possibilities do not cre- hypothetical held that permanent against it a bar carries with exception to the mootness doctrine. ate an judicial a clear future service. This is DeFunis; If See Jubelirer. ineligibility for people mandate of the that pending in his collateral were to succeed both part future service must be sanction this dismissed case attacks after this Court Thus, imposed. mere termination of moot, pre- nothing which would as there is comply present term of office does not reinstituting charges, vent the Board from constitutionally punish- with the mandated pro- of actions there is no limitation requires if conduct ment the established proceedings before this applicable vision imposition of the sanction of removal. Court. Moreover, binding gratu- of a effect promise by respondent a not to seek itous II. in

or hold this Common- questionable. wealth in the future is at best as moot if it case should be dismissed This at 1353- Glancey, 518 Pa. at opinion in not for the were Anonymous Attor- Counsel A, Al- ney A.2d 42 Here, Snyder, unlike the Senate’s determi- strength of the though I do not share conclusively question of nation resolves the Anonymous Attor- majority’s conviction that eligibility Respondent’s for future office. ney A the 1993 amendment survives powerless to hold otherwise. The We are Pennsylvania which established Constitution disqualifica- judgment conclusive Senate’s judicial discipline revised the this Court and by comparing it tion cannot be diminished Commonwealth, I concur system in our “gratuitous promise” which the with the majority’s result. Glancey. “questionable” in court called Therefore, Glancey Snyder do not save Constitution, Pennsylvania Sec- from mootness.2 case 18(d)(3), by providing that a a member of the who is “disbarred as officer

C. removed, shall be bar of the Court” anticipate majority’s by this from office seems disagree I with the conclu- also in some would occur cannot be dismissed as the disbarment sion that this case tribunal. proceeding, another hypothetical possibility other before moot because of notes, correctly However, majority might in both his succeed provision existed on the similar pending collateral attacks Senate’s the 1993 amendment conviction. and his criminal Constitution 18(d)(5) disqualified; nor does it autho- Con- has removed 2. Article independent determi- majority’s rize this Court to reach support conclu- stitution does not Sen- might with the providing be inconsistent By nation sion. convicting judicial officer on articles of ate’s provisions and not in substitu- are "in addition to Instead, provision makes impeachment impeachment. Assembly’s tion for” the General adoption specific disci- provide clear that the power, does not the Constitution V, § plinary proceedings Art. 18 does power with the Court of Judicial general power Legislative controversy, supplant Branch’s proceed, of a case or absence officers, impeachment includ- removing disqualify- over all with the needless act of already ing ing officers. whom the Senate Anonymous Attorney A surplusage phrase to at the time it would reduce decided. “disbarred as a member of the bar of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court” in Constitu- Anony- my in question A mind is whether 18(d)(3). V, tion Article Section Attorney might mous have been incorrect- ly provision decided in view of the now found by trying I to harmonize also am troubled Constitution, V, Pennsylvania in Article Sec- precedential authority the continued of 18(d)(3). course, Supreme Of when the Attorney A Anonymous light of other A, Anonymous Attorney Court decided reso- changes by to made the 1993 amendments really question lution of that did not matter. Pennsylvania noted Constitution. As effect, Under scheme then above, Supreme when the Court decided Supreme Court was not bound recom- A, Anonymous Attorney the decision Inquiry mendations of the former Judicial jurisdiction in whether to vest the former Board, and Review but would review them de Inquiry and or in the Review Board novo, applicable the same standard difference, Disciplinary Board made no be- Supreme lawyer disciplin- Court’s review of Supreme cause the Court made the ultimate ary Disciplinary decisions Board. However, decision. under the 1993 amend- Thus, Anonymous Attorney A did was to all Constitution, V, ment to Article shift the initial responsibili- recommendation 18(c)(2), Supreme has a Section ty agency Supreme from one limited standard review over decisions agency Supreme another with Court, pursuant Supreme to which the making the ultimate dis- clearly Court is limited to a erroneous stan- ciplinary decision. reviewing findings dard in our fact has might possible

It power except harmonize the hold- our to review sanctions ing Anonymous Attorney A with Pennsyl- they determine whether are lawful. 18(d)(3). vania Constitution Article Section I applying am concerned that the result of Anonymous If Attorney A holding jurisdictional holding Anonymous At- were limited to disciplin- situations where the torney A to this Court creates inconsistencies ary affecting sanction right practice ability to exercise its upon law is based conduct which occurred power regulate practice exclusive judicial judicial while the holding officer was law under Constitution office, complaint judicial then a that a officer V, imposition and its violated the Rules of Professional Conduct pursuant power, depending sanctions to that assuming before pros- office would be holding judi- whether the offender was ecuted before Disciplinary Board in the cial office. instance, first with the final decision to be I also am bothered additional as- two Court; made and in ease of First, pects problem. if has this Court conduct, Pennsylvania disbarment for such power suspend to disbar or 18(d)(3) Constitution Article Section right respect officer with to his or her require that this Court remove the offender jurisdiction do we have also office. for reinstatement? See applications Pa. over opinion Anony- problem is that the Second, R.D.E. 218. the effect of our deci- A, Attorney mous In Re by relying upon only jurisdiction expand our but sion is to (1971), Greenberg, 442 Pa. 280 A.2d 370 Board, per- also that of the Judicial Conduct dicta, appears and in to conclude that JIRB mitting policy that Board to delve into issues jurisdic- and not the had involving regulation of the of law. complaints tion over that a hand, majority’s had violated the Rules of Professional Con- On the other decision Anonymous Attorney A notwith- assuming duct before office. Such a to follow dicta, only standing amendment conclusion not because the con- the 1993 Constitutional Anonymous Attorney A oc- efficiency ju- promotes duct involved and fairness to both ju- respondents acting It better sense for curred while the were dicial officers. makes officers, troubling but also is dicial officers who are members of bar Attorney the 1993 charged of both A survive Constitutional who are violations urge I that the Court resolve Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules amendments. single by appropriate quickly. to face rules of Professional Conduct these issues proceeding this Court have all and to once, imposed pro- sanctions instead of III. ceedings before this Court both in a deciding We are these issues context Board, Disciplinary separate appellate hypothetical. Respon- which is somewhat subject review in to dif- to dent has intent resume not indicated ferent Such a also standards. scheme However, practice of law. short of a possibility punish- avoids the of excessive Bar resignation formal from the of the Su- ment, Court, taking consid- into preme Pa.R.D.E. an ex- Court under circumstances, eration all make could pression that he by Respondent does not judicial disciplin- the determination whether practice intend to of law in Penn- resume ary standing alone would be suffi- sanctions sylvania probably would be insufficient to interest, cient to while vindicate moot, require of this case as be- dismissal might greater temptation there to im- cause, Glancey, an expression under such pose if multiple sanctions case were promise.” be a “gratuitous

heard as well. to Board has point, More not for Nevertheless, remain, questions difficult fact, whether, mally request it will decided including: restricting impose this Court to a sanction jurisdiction tribunal has over Which Respondent’s ability practice law. At the reinstatement; applications for 27, 1998 Respondent’s argument on oral jurisdiction 2. Does this Court have over Motion, counsel for the Board stat Omnibus claims that a officer violated the yet posi had not taken a ed the Board Rules Conduct in her of Professional his or question. judicial office; practice assuming law judicial efficiency Fairness and dictate that jurisdiction tribunal has Which over respect now with the Board make a decision lawyer against jus- disciplinary cases district limit Respon- whether to seek to it intends tices, sought based where right If dent’s law. the Board conduct which unrelated seeking such a has no further intention respondent’s judicial duties but instead relat- then in Respondent, sanction on fairness law; separate practice ed to his or her this Court and Board should advise both Respondent, should then dismiss this and we is the standard of review on What action moot. appeal judi- from a sanction affects a right cial officer’s law when that yet chapter in the This another case imposed by this Court? sanction is saddest the otherwise distin- volume of Pennsylvania judicia- guished history of the power has the to re- Supreme Court ry. It is to close the book. time questions pursuant solve to its rule these authority. The also making making authority

could rule to con- use its jurisdiction

firm have does that this Court affecting

enter officer’s a sanction

ability judi- practice law as a sanction for misconduct, assuming

cial holding in Anonymous its

Court intends that

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Larsen

Court Name: Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Aug 4, 1998

Citation: 1998 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 7

Docket Number: 4 JD 94

Court Abbreviation: Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa