The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether former Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin should be publicly censured over her conduct during the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal at the university.

The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel claims Baldwin, who previously served as a justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, violated Rules 1.1, 1.7, 1.6 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the office claims Baldwin did not notify her clients of a conflict of interest with the university and that she broke attorney-client privilege when she testified before a grand jury. She represented two Penn State officials, former vice president Gary Schultz and president Graham Spanier, and athletic coach Tim Curley when they were asked to testify before a statewide grand jury.

Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht heard the arguments. Justices Max Baer, Thomas Saylor and Debra Todd did not participate in the hearing.

Robert Tintner, a partner at Fox Rothschild in Philadelphia, argued that Baldwin's representation of Spanier, Schultz and Curley, when she did act as their attorney, was competent and the only reason she spoke about communications she had with her clients was because of the disciplinary petition filed against her in 2017.

"Those conversations would have been protected and were not disclosed to the grand jury," Tintner said.

Samuel Napoli, disciplinary counsel at the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, however, argued Baldwin did violate attorney-client privilege and Spanier, Schultz and Curley all believed Baldwin to be their personal counsel despite a conflict with Penn State.

"To adopt Ms. Baldwin's position would be to distort attorney-client privilege beyond all recognition," Napoli said.

Much of the arguments centered over when she informed Spanier, Curley and Schultz that they needed personal counsel. Napoli indicated all three men thought Baldwin was serving as their personal counsel.

However, once Baldwin learned they had been indicted, she told them she represented the university and they needed to get personal defense counsel.

"In October 2011, she said they needed personal counsel," Tintner said.

Wecht asked Napoli what, if anything, is to be gained from a public censure.

"Her misconduct was a betrayal of her clients," Napoli said.

The disciplinary board's decision to publicly censure Baldwin is a departure from the recommendation of a disciplinary panel in March. The panel said the allegations against Baldwin should be dropped and further found that she did not act improperly during the Sandusky scandal.

The high court did not indicate when a decision would be reached.