Judicial Conduct Board Investigating Phila. Family Court Judge Younge
The state Judicial Conduct Board has launched an investigation into Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris F. Younge's handling of cases, her lawyer confirmed Wednesday, prompted by a series of articles in The Legal Intelligencer exposing due process violations committed by Younge.
May 09, 2018 at 03:27 PM
4 minute read
The state Judicial Conduct Board has launched an investigation into Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris F. Younge's handling of cases, her lawyer confirmed Wednesday, prompted by a series of articles in The Legal Intelligencer exposing due process violations committed by Younge.
West Chester-based legal ethics attorney Samuel Stretton, who represents lawyers and judges in disciplinary matters, said he was retained by Younge after the first article was published. Stretton said he learned of the JCB investigation by calling the agency.
This news comes a few days after the state Superior Court issued a stern ruling reversing Younge's decision to hold a child in foster care to force a confession of alleged child abuse out of the parents.
“Because of the articles and the high publicity there's an investigation,” Stretton said. “I'm providing information [to the JCB] to demonstrate that the articles and conclusions set forth are incorrect. She's actually doing an incredible job with an extremely difficult case load that was handed to her two-and-a-half years ago when she was elected to the bench.”
Stretton, who writes an ethics column for The Legal's sibling publication, the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, said there are currently no charges filed against Younge.
In addition to her history of due process violations, as evidenced by Superior Court rulings overturning her decisions, The Legal reported that Younge had more appeals of her decisions than any of her peers in the Family Court's dependency unit, which primarily deals with adoption and foster care.
Stretton argued that because Younge inherited a large number of cases from the judge she replaced, she necessarily had a higher number appeals than her peers. Stretton also complained that Younge has received “no support” from Family Court administration.
“She's not a bad judge, and it's upsetting that she's getting no support at all from the Family Court administration,” Stretton said. “They put her in this predicament with a difficult case load.”
The board's chief counsel, Robert Graci, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A spokesperson for the Philadelphia court system declined to comment.
The JCB is a reactive body and relies solely on citizen complaints or news coverage to learn about potentially unethical judges. It is unclear how much progress the board has made in its investigation or what specifically regarding Younge's conduct it is looking into at this time.
According to The Legal's analysis, of the nearly 80 closed appeals from Younge's cases, eight, or 10 percent, resulted in reversals. Four of those were for due process violations. The Superior Court's May 4 ruling in which Judge Anne E. Lazarus admonished Younge for holding the child in foster care in an attempt to force the parents to confess to abuse marked the fifth.
Richard Bost, a family lawyer and former chairman of the Philadelphia Bar Association's family law section, praised that ruling.
“I am pleased that the Superior Court has stepped in, and share Judge Lazarus' suggestion that Younge should recuse herself from this case in the future, but in my opinion this case illustrates the problem of selecting judges,” Bost said. ”Judge Younge was rated 'not recommended' when she ran three years ago and her actions on the bench certainly support this.”
He added, “In the 26 years that I've practiced it's been one of the most critical decisions I've seen that directly criticizes a judge for her actions,” Bost said.
Bost also said that family court proceedings being nonpublic, with the exception of domestic relations cases, can encourage bad behavior from judges.
“What happens in these courtrooms that are closed is that judges, at least in my opinion … individual judges can act like tyrants,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMatt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readPa. High Court's Revision of Rule 7.1 Tightens Previous Guidance on Firm Names
6 minute readIf You Are Too 'Busy' to Communicate With Your Client, You Better Think Again
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250