Shohin H. Vance of Kleinbard.

In February, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision detailing Cynthia Baldwin's pervasive professional misconduct related to her representation of Penn State and its administrators during the grand jury investigation into Jerry Sandusky. After setting forth the multitude of violations committed, Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the court, concluded by expressing concern that Baldwin "has never contemplated, much less expressed remorse" and, instead, had "seen fit to cast blame for her problems on everyone involved here including the Disciplinary Board, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Superior Court, and [her former clients]." See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwin, 225 A.3d 817, 858 (Pa. 2020).

The court's admonition—delivered by a unanimous vote of the participating justices—has seemingly fallen on deaf ears. Baldwin, who served on the state Supreme Court between 2006 and 2008, has now found a new scapegoat: her former colleague, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor.

According to a story first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 24, Baldwin, who is Black, believes that the "unfair ordeal" that ultimately resulted in her public reprimand was the result of Saylor's "bigotry." In support of this grave allegation, Baldwin relies on an affidavit signed by former Judge Barry Feudale—the very same judge who oversaw the grand jury proceedings where Baldwin's unethical conduct was permitted to continue unabated. The affidavit claims that during a 2012 conversation between the two men, Saylor demanded Feudale's cooperation in the forthcoming investigation into Baldwin and allegedly insisted that disciplinary measures were necessary because "she caused … a lot of trouble when she was on the Supreme Court with her minority agenda."

Setting aside the incredible source of the accusations, the suggestion that Saylor orchestrated the disciplinary investigation to retaliate against some mysterious "minority agenda" Baldwin pursued during her two-year stint on the Supreme Court is preposterous to anyone who knows the chief justice's personal character, or judicial philosophy. As a former Saylor law clerk, I can speak to both.

With regard to my own experience—which is informed by my perspective as someone who immigrated to the United States at the age of 12 and, like Baldwin, is a minority—I have never heard, seen, or even suspected any hint of racial bias from the chief justice. To the contrary, I have always been impressed by Saylor's boundless intellectual curiosity about other cultures and religions. It is no coincidence that the lengthiest and most memorable conversations between us had nothing to do with the law, but instead, were about world history and foreign cultures.

But Saylor's record is far more telling than my personal experiences because even a cursory review of Saylor's jurisprudence during his 22 years on the court should put to rest the attacks on Saylor and his purported opposition to a "minority agenda."

As concerns needed improvements to the criminal justice system—an issue that uniquely impacts minority communities—Saylor has long been a voice for change. Specifically, he has highlighted "systemic deficiencies," such as "chronic underfunding of public defense systems,"deficient stewardship by counsel and has called for application of "consistent and fair review criteria on appeal."

Saylor has also consistently advocated for more robust appellate review of racial discrimination in jury selection, cautioning that the existing jurisprudence does not afford adequate protection for criminal defendants.

What is more, Saylor's contributions in the field have not gone unnoticed in the legal community. For instance, in a 2015 article published in Pennsylvania Law Weekly titled "Saylor Offers a Lonely Voice in Death-Penalty Appeals," attorney Bruce P. Merenstein detailed Saylor's unique role in capital punishment cases and concluded, "Saylor will leave a legacy of continuously endeavoring to fulfill the high court's important role of carefully reviewing sentences and post-conviction appeals for the scores of inmates who reside on Pennsylvania's death row.

Moreover, a review of Baldwin's tenure on the court further exposes the absurdity of the notion that Saylor was seeking revenge for some abstract "minority agenda" that had "caused trouble" for the court.

Nothing in her short jurisprudential history shows an overriding concern for issues uniquely relevant to minority communities; nor is there any evidence that she routinely disagreed with the majority view of the court on any issue—let alone those pertinent to minorities. Tellingly, while on the court, Baldwin authored a grand total of 16 opinions and statements dissenting in whole or in part from the majority's perspective; by contrast, Saylor authored 52 such opinions and statements during the same period.

Against Saylor's established jurisprudence and his unblemished record of public service, stand the allegations of a former judge whose fall from grace rivals Baldwin's. Not only has Feudale's inexplicable failure to deter Baldwin's misconduct been the subject of several Superior Court decisions, but his lack of judicial temperament was also put on display in a series of incidents in 2015, which included potential violations of grand jury secrecy and an incident during which he displayed a large knife to employees of the Office of Attorney General. These actions ultimately led to the Supreme Court revoking his status as senior judge altogether.

On a more general level, Baldwin's claim that the proceedings against her were staged by Saylor is an affront to the judicial integrity of Justices Donohue, David Wecht, Kevin Dougherty and Sallie Updyke Mundy, who were the sole members of the panel that considered her appeal. Even casual observers of the court know that these four jurists are not only highly intelligent, but also quite independent, regularly differing with the chief justice on wide swaths of matters. Candidly, the suggestion that these four justices constitute a single voting block eagerly awaiting the chief justice's instructions would be laughable, if the circumstances were not so grave.

Finally, Baldwin's allegations are predicated on a false premise—namely, that she was treated unfairly. The full extent of Baldwin's multiple transgressions, which include conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality, are too lengthy to set forth in detail here; suffice it to say, however, that a public reprimand was, if anything, a more lenient punishment than the circumstances of her case would ordinarily require.

With this backdrop in mind, the accusations leveled by the discredited duo of Baldwin and Feudale should be given exactly the weight they deserve—none.

Shohin Vance is an associate at Kleinbard. He focuses his practice on appellate litigation, white-collar criminal matters and political law. He formerly clerked for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor.