Photo: Shutterstock

A panel appointed by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  recommended on Oct. 26 that former Penn State general counsel and former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Baldwin be cleared of any ethics violations in a 43-page opinion finding that she did disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when it came to her representation of Penn State officials during the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Baldwin's attorney, Charles De Monaco of Fox Rothschild in Pittsburgh, who was commenting on behalf of Baldwin, said that it was clear following the evidentiary hearing in May that Baldwin did not violate any of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

“Although no attorney wants to be the subject of a disciplinary proceeding, in this case it was a blessing. It was not until an evidentiary hearing was held on the allegations of ethical misconduct that the public was able to see first hand that Cynthia Baldwin at all times fulfilled her ethical responsibilities,” De Monaco said in the email.

The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) had claimed Baldwin was in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.7, 1.6 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the ODC claimed Baldwin represented ex-athletic coach Tim Curley, former vice president Gary Schultz and former PSU president Graham Spanier, the former Penn State officials convicted of failing to inform authorities about allegations of child sex abuse by ex-football coach Sandusky, and failed to let them know of a conflict of interest between the accused—Curley, Spanier and Schultz—and the university.

The ODC also claimed that she failed to properly represent Schultz and Curley before the grand jury and gave confidential client information during her own grand jury testimony.

But the Disciplinary Board, made up of Leonard J. Marsico, David Ridge and M. Scott Zegeer, rejected all of the accusations and said the ODC failed to prove that Baldwin inadequately represented Schultz and Curley.

“The ODC failed to prove that respondent's representation of the individual employees and PSU was jointly incompetent,” the panel said in the opinion.

Further, based on the evidence, the panel found that Baldwin clearly made Schultz, Spanier and Curley aware of the potential conflict of interest with the university and that all three consented to joint representation. The panel also found that Baldwin did not reveal confidential information during her own grand jury testimony.

“Respondent's testimony to the grand jury related to the existence of documents responsive to Subpoena 1179 did not improperly reveal protected information of the individual employees,” the panel said.

“A neutral and objective three-member hearing committee considered all of the evidence and unanimously concluded that her conduct was diligent, proper and in compliance with all of her professional responsibilities. Although this was a six-year ordeal, justice prevailed in the end.  Hopefully, this decision will put to rest any professional criticism of Cynthia Baldwin and will allow her to live her life with the dignity and respect that she has so rightly earned and deserved over her distinguished 38-year career.”

The ODC did not respond to a request for comment.

Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify that that Baldwin's attorney was commenting on her behalf. This story has been updated to clarify that the opinion of the panel is only a recommendation and the case has not yet been resolved.