THE ART OF JUDGING

 In recent months many Pennsylvania lawyers have followed and attempted to explain to their family and friends the unfolding judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County. (for background go to “Luzerne County Citizen’s Voice” and click on “Corruption”)  How could so few, perpetrate such a complex financial scheme, to deprive so many juveniles of their constitutional rights, for so long?  How did they escape detection?  What type of judicial culture would foster such behavior? Could it happen elsewhere?  How could real life in Luzerne County be more outrageous than Kindle County in a Scott Turow Novel?   

In many respects The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania mirrors the United States in its political formation and diversity.  Blue/urban on the east/west corridors with a middle that is decidedly red/rural.  Pennsylvia’s 67 counties range in size from Philadelphia with a population of 1,500,000 to Fulton, smaller than many municipalities at 14,200.  The size and complexity of the Court of Common Pleas are equally diverse. The largest, Philadelphia County has a President Judge, 4 Administrative Judges and 125 members on its bench.  The smallest, Fulton County has three part time Judges.  Luzerne County is near the middle with a population of 320,000 and 8 judges.

            Over my legal career, I have had the opportunity to closely observe our trial courts in the context of a large system (Allegheny County, 50 judges), where I worked as the Administrator of its Adult Family Division and a small- medium system, ( Washington County, 6 judges), where I now have a private practice.  The context in which judges operate is quite different in the two environments.  The odds that a litigant in Allegheny County knows anything of a personal nature about his assigned common pleas judge are slim.  In Washington County at least two thirds of my clients know the assigned judge personally or someone from his family or staff.  A sense of community is melded with the need for justice.

Allegheny County, along with its big brother, Philadelphia control much of what matters in the state wide judicial arena.  The court rules committees are dominated by Judges from these two counties. The appellate courts are dominated by their Judges.  This dominance spills over to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) and The Judicial Review Board, charged with administrating and enforcing Pennsylvania court activities.  Unfortunately, this large urban court prospective has not always encompassed the reality or needs of smaller county court systems. 

While the larger counties dominate state judicial policies and procedures, I would argue that Judges in smaller counties are more revered and exert more influence over their citizens.  In Allegheny County, given the numbers of cases involved, justice is swift and often impersonal.  The need to dispense quickly, to get to the next, outweighs the personal touch.  If you are lucky enough to receive accelerated disposition (ARD) of your drunk driving charges in Allegheny, you are one of hundreds in a cattle call proceeding that only reinforces for you the number of drinkers on the roadways.  The judge does not get to look you in the eye.

            On the other hand, it is fascinating to observe Washington County Judges issue orders and sentences.  Each pronouncement comes with a lecture or sermon designed to impact not only the litigant but his or her family, others seated in the courtroom, lawyers and the community. There is no confusion about how the law will be enforced or what will happen to you if you are unfortunate enough to reappear.  A judgeship in a smaller county elevates the individual to one of the most respected positions in the community.  The job is not simply deciding cases.  It is setting legal boundaries and mores that affect the fabric of the community.   

In Allegheny County a judges’ power base is limited to his immediate staff and courtroom. This is due to the large number of judges and the fact that the DA’s office, Public Defender’s office, Legal Aid and the Bar Association exert large power bases and influence in their own right.  In a large urban court system, these other institutions are checks and balances against judicial abuses.  Moreover, in Allegheny and Philadelphia the President Judge positions are administrative and unlike the convicted President Judge in Luzerne County, do not normally have assigned cases.

In Washington County, I have found that there is much less power sharing between the court and other offices involved in the legal system.  The court is “king.” The court is above petty differences.  The court takes the lead and others follow. 

            Luzerne County has a slightly larger population and judicial base than Washington County.  My sense is that the Judges in Luzerne commanded the same respect and standing as I have observed in Washington.  I am sure the public knew the offending judges well and had closely followed their careers.  The DA, Public Defender and local Bar Association (which have been highly criticized by the media for their failure to take action) had no history or reason to challenge the President Judge and his decisions.  This made financial corruption appear unlikely and difficult to confront once it took place.  The scenario is not unlike the long trusted bookkeeper who embezzles from the family business after twenty years of impeccable service.

            The ongoing investigation in Luzerne County represents the most significant example of judicial corruption in Pennsylvania’s long history. Just as terrorist attacks and oil spills foster responsive policies, the AOPC and Judicial Conduct Board will alter its administrative and disciplinary practices toward courts in the smaller judicial districts. I hope that these changes are able to provide checks and balances without disrupting the special relationship between judges and the citizens of smaller counties like Washington.