On Eve of Trial, Ex-Phila. Family Court Judge Younge Admits to Ethics Violations
In court papers docketed Tuesday, Younge waived her right to an ethics trial set to begin the following day and admitted to the JCB's accusations that she acted in an "undignified" manner during proceedings and created massive delays in cases involving children designated to be resolved quickly.
February 18, 2020 at 04:47 PM
4 minute read
Former Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris Younge has admitted on the eve of her ethics trial to the allegations made against her by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board.
In court papers docketed Tuesday, Younge waived her right to an ethics trial set to begin the following day and admitted to the JCB's accusations that she acted in an "undignified" manner during proceedings and created massive delays in cases involving children designated to be resolved quickly.
By forgoing the trial, Younge has agreed to face sanctions at a hearing yet to be scheduled.
Younge's attorney, Charles Gibbs of McMonagle Perri McHugh Mischak and Davis, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
JCB Chief Richard Long said Younge's admission was not part of a deal with the state.
Younge was removed from Family Court to the Philadelphia court system's civil division following a series of articles in The Legal exposing Younge's history of violating parents' rights.
The JCB subsequently filed charges against her in a 10-count, 270-paragraph complaint. The board claimed that in several incidents, many previously reported by The Legal, Younge prohibited parents and attorneys from testifying on their own behalf.
In one case, Younge refused to allow a mother to reenter the courtroom to testify at a termination of parental rights hearing after she had become ill and stepped out into the hallway. Younge ultimately entered an order terminating the mother's parental rights. On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the ruling and remanded the matter, after which Younge recused from the case.
In another matter, Brian McLaughlin, an attorney handling a family case before Younge, was held in contempt after being summoned to another judge's courtroom for a hearing that took longer than expected, making him late for his case before Younge. According to the appeal filed by McLaughlin and his lawyer, Karen Deanna Williams, Younge continually put off the contempt hearing for McLaughlin until it appeared that she had decided to let the matter go.
Then, during a scheduled hearing for the family matter McLaughlin was handling, Younge allegedly ambushed him at the last minute with an unscheduled contempt hearing, according to the appeal. According to the JCB complaint, Younge found McLaughlin in contempt and fined him $750, but the Superior Court reversed that ruling this past April.
In each instance cited, the JCB said Younge "failed to accord to every person or entity who had a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person or entity's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law."
The JCB also said Younge "repeatedly demonstrated an improper demeanor that was impatient, discourteous, disrespectful, condescending and undignified."
"While presiding over cases in Family Court, Judge Younge repeatedly spoke harshly, yelled, screamed and berated attorneys, social workers, and others who appeared before her," the complaint alleged.
In one case, according to the complaint, Younge caused an attorney "to cry in open court, in front of her client and her colleagues" after the attorney arrived 14 minutes late for an immunization hearing.
The JCB also alleged Younge exhibited "a pattern of conduct of holding parents in contempt and ordering their detention, without conducting a contempt hearing," including in a case in which the Superior Court found Younge inappropriately locked up a grandmother at a court hearing because the grandmother did not know her 26-year-old daughter's whereabouts in a case involving her grandchild.
In several other matters, the JCB alleged, Younge applied the incorrect standard of law when ruling that the Philadelphia Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of a child from a home.
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 AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
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