For those who practice before and against the Judicial Conduct Board and for those who have a sense of history of judicial discipline over the last 60 or 70 years in Pennsylvania, the answer is very clear that the JCB is doing a fine job and the criticism is unwarranted. That’s not to say that there can’t be changes and reform; every organization can always get better. But the JCB and its counsel perform a very effective role with very limited resources and a very large caseload.
One of the main problems with the recent allegations about investigations into pornography is that there’s a great deal of confusion as to when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as opposed to the JCB and the Court of Judicial Discipline, should exercise authority.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
