1 JD 2014 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Jul. 7, 2014)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Domitrovich

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

Jul 7, 2014

1 JD 2014 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Jul. 7, 2014)

Opinion

1 JD 2014

07-07-2014

IN RE: Stephanie Domitrovich Judge of the Court of Common Pleas Sixth Judicial District Erie County

PETITION FOR RELIEF FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH OR WITHOUT PAY

AND NOW, this 7^th day of July, 2014, comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Board), by and through Robert A. Graci, Chief Counsel, and James P. Kleman, Jr., Deputy Counsel, and files this Petition Relief For Interim Suspension With or Without Pay pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(2) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Rule 701 of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, and Rule 13(A) of the Board Rules of Procedure and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. The Pennsylvania Constitution provides this Court with the authority to impose interim suspension as follows:

Prior to a hearing, the court may issue an interim order directing suspension, with or without pay, of any justice, judge or justice of the peace against whom formal charges have been filed with the court by the board or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony. An interim order under this paragraph shall not be considered a final order from which an appeal may be taken.

Pa. Const, Art. V, § 18(d)(2). 2. From approximately January 2, 1990, until the present, Judge Domitrovich has served continuously as a duly elected Court of Common Pleas Judge in the Sixth Judicial District, Erie County Pennsylvania, with an office located at the Erie County Courthouse, 140 West Sixth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania 16501. 3. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Petition, Board Counsel is filing a Board Complaint against Judge Domitrovich alleging six counts of judicial misconduct. A copy of the Board Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. See Attachment "A" (Board Complaint). 4. The allegations contained within the Board Complaint against Judge Domitrovich undermine both public confidence in the judiciary and its reputation. If Judge Domitrovich is permitted to continue participating in cases before the Erie County Court of Common Pleas during the pendency of the Board Complaint, the public's confidence in the judiciary will continue to erode.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court enter an interim order suspending Judge Domitrovich, either with or without pay, pending disposition of the Board Complaint filed against her and to grant such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT A. GRACI

Chief Counsel

BY: __________

James P. Kleman, Jr.

Deputy Counsel

Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 87637

Judicial Conduct Board

Pennsylvania Judicial Center

601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500

P.O. Box 62525

Harrisburg, PA 17106

(717) 234-7911
IN RE: Stephanie Domitrovich Judge of the Court of Common Pleas Sixth Judicial District Erie County

1 JD 2014

IMPORTANT NOTICE

TO: STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH

You are hereby notified that the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board determined that there is probable cause to file formal charges against you for conduct proscribed by Article V, §§17(b) and 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Canons 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4), 3(B)(1), and 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Board's counsel will present the case in support of the charges before the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline.

You have an absolute right to be represented by a lawyer in all proceedings before the Court of Judicial Discipline. Your attorney should file an entry of appearance with the Court of Judicial Discipline in accordance with

You are hereby notified, pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 302(B), that should you elect to file an omnibus motion, that motion should be filed no later than 30 days after the service of this Complaint, in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 411.

Attachment A

You are further hereby notified that within 30 days after the service of this Complaint, if no omnibus motion is filed, or within 20 days after the dismissal of all or part of the omnibus motion, you may file an Answer admitting or denying the allegations contained in this Complaint in accordance with C.3.D.R.P. No. 413. Failure to file an Answer shall be deemed a denial of all factual allegations in the Complaint.

COMPLAINT

AND NOW, this 7^th day of July, 2014, comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Board) and files this Board Complaint against the Honorable Stephanie Domitrovich, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the Sixth Judicial District, Erie County. The Board alleges that Judge Domitrovich violated the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, §§ 17(b) and 18(d)(1), and the Code of Judicial Conduct by virtue of her conduct, delineated specifically as follows: 1. Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grants to the Board the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges against a judicial officer in this Court and, thereafter, to prosecute the case in support of such charges before this Court. 2. From approximately January 2, 1990, until the present, Judge Domitrovich has served continuously as a duly elected Court of Common Pleas Judge in the Sixth Judicial District, Erie County Pennsylvania, with an office located at the Erie County Courthouse, 140 West Sixth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania 16501. 3. As a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Domitrovich is, and was at all times relevant hereto, subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed on her by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Code of Judicial Conduct. 4. This matter was investigated by the Board as a result of a request for investigation of Judge Domitrovich's conduct by President Judge Ernest DiSantis of the Court of Common Pleas of the Sixth Judicial District of Erie County. 5. Judge DiSantis' request for investigation presented a number of allegations regarding Judge Domitrovich's conduct. 6. The Board Investigated the allegations presented by President Judge DiSantis in his request for investigation and other matters that developed through its investigation of Judge Domitrovich's conduct. 7. As of the time of the initiation of the Board's investigation, Judge Domitrovich's court assignments were, in the main, as follows: (1) presiding over Orphans' Court matters; (2) presiding over final Protection from Abuse hearings; (3) presiding over appeals from summary traffic and non-traffic criminal matters; (4) probation revocation hearings and Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition cases; and (5) motions' court (on a rotational basis with her colleagues on the Erie County Bench). 8. During her tenure as a Common Pleas Judge, Judge Domitrovich was (and continues to be) engaged in many regional, national, and international educational, charitable and civic endeavors. 9. In stark contrast to her record of non-judicial public service, the judicial administrative authorities in Erie County have received numerous and consistent complaints regarding Judge Domitrovich's demeanor and concomitant behavior both on the bench and off the bench. 10. Generally, the complaints about Judge Domitrovich's in-court conduct that were received by the judicial administrative authorities in Erie County can be categorized as follows:

a. Judge Domitrovich's on-bench, Impatient, intemperate, belittling, overly-critical, or disrespectful treatment of the following:

i. lawyers;
ii. litigants; and
iii. witnesses.

b. Judge Domitrovich's on-bench, impatient, intemperate, belittling, overly-critical, or disrespectful treatment of Erie County employees.
c. Judge Domitrovich's off-bench impatient, intemperate, belittling, overly-critical or disrespectful treatment of her personal staff.
d. Judge Domitrovich's ex parte communications regarding matters pending before her court.

11. Through the course of its investigation, the Board uncovered additional areas of concern, specifically that Judge Domitrovich provided misleading answers to Board counsel at an investigative deposition conducted on February 6, 2014, at the Board's offices. 12. As a result of its investigation, the Board concluded at its June 2, 2014 meeting that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Domitrovich in this Court for conduct proscribed by Article V, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. PART I. ON-BENCH CONDUCT

**A. Skalos v. Pierce, CV-12948-2006**

13. The Skalos case was a custody matter that was assigned to Judge Domitrovich in the summer of 2012 outside of her normal judicial assignments because the previously assigned judges had recused themselves from the case. 14. The parties to the case were Lori Skalos (Skalos), Lon Pierce (Pierce), and LP., their then six-year old child. 15. When Judge Domitrovich was assigned the case, Skalos was represented by Tina Fryling, Esquire (Fryling), and Pierce was represented by Raquel Taylor, Esquire (Taylor). 16. Judge Domitrovich's first involvement with the case was to rule upon a request for adversarial hearing filed by Pierce, through Taylor, on July 10, 2012. 17. By order dated July 10, 2012, Judge Domitrovich directed the parties to file and serve pre-trial narrative statements by August 3, 2012. 18. The order dated July 10, 2012, also scheduled a custody trial for September 10, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. 19. By order entered July 13, 2012 (dated July 12, 2012), Judge Domitrovich appointed Michael Visnosky, Esquire (Visnosky), as guardian ad litem for L.P., with the parties to share the costs of his appointment. 20. The July 13, 2012 order also scheduled what was termed a "pre-trial status conference" in Judge Domitrovich's courtroom for August 6, 2012. 21. Though termed a "pre-trial status conference," the transcript of the August 6, 2012 hearing indicates that Judge Domitrovich took sworn testimony from the parties.

a. Present at the August 6, 2012 "pre-trial status conference" were Skalos, Fryling, Mark Lobaugh (Lobaugh), Skalos' paramour, Pierce, Taylor, and Visnosky. The court reporter was Annette Allegretto.

22. The following issues were discussed at the pre-trial conference by the parties: (1) Where LP. was going to attend school; (2) domestic violence occurring in Skalos' home between her and Mark Lobaugh, her paramour, that was observed by L.P.; and (3) the custody visitation schedule between the parties. 23. The conference began by Taylor outlining the issues for consideration at the pre-trial status conference.

a. Thereafter, Visnosky set forth his recommendations regarding the school choice issue and the domestic violence issue on the record.

24. After Visnosky made his recommendations on the record, Judge Domitrovich swore in Skalos and Pierce. 25. Judge Domitrovich questioned Lobaugh regarding his relationship with Skalos but did not swear him in. 26. After Judge Domitrovich finished questioning Lobaugh, she questioned Pierce. See Attachment 1 (N.T., pre-trial status conference, 8/6/2012), at 26. 27. During Judge Domitrovich's examination of Pierce regarding his relationship, or lack thereof, with Lobaugh, Taylor interjected and attempted to explain the history of animosity between the two men. See Attachment 1, at 26-27. 28. Taylor indicated to Judge Domitrovich the history of the animosity between Lobaugh and Pierce, recounting that both Skalos and Lobaugh were charged with attacking Pierce outside of the Erie County Courthouse.

a. Skalos was convicted of disorderly conduct regarding this incident. See Commonwealth v. Skalos, MJ-0621-NT-0000514-2010.
b. Lobaugh was convicted of harassment regarding this incident. See Commonwealth v. Lobaugh, MJ-06201-0000513-2010.
c. Pierce was not charged; he was the victim in both citations issued to Lobaugh and Skalos.
d. Mistakenly, Judge Domitrovich believed that Pierce and Lobaugh, not Lobaugh and Skalos, were convicted of offenses stemming from this incident.

Throughout this Complaint, where appropriate, the names of minors and adults have been substituted with initials. The attachments have been redacted to reflect initials.

See Attachment 1, at 27-28. 29. After discussion of the domestic violence issue ended, the focus of the hearing moved to, essentially, Skalos' response to Pierce's motion for an adversarial hearing, through Fryling, her counsel. 30. After Fryling stated her position on the record, Judge Domitrovich stated the following about the school attendance issue:

"But wouldn't it be nice to show this child that Judge Brabender gave [Skalos] her way for one year, and now we're going to give the father his way for one year, just to try it out. Just to try it out
between the two enemy camps here, and that's what [Visnosky] is recommending, not for that reason but for other reasons. And I'm just saying just to - can you see that this would be almost a truce, to show that this child can have parents that can try to compromise.
"I mean, we have to have compromise in this case, and I'm not - I mean, it's something that what about Friday, first: of all, because we're not going to get anywhere today.
"I can't even get through these lists. You've got friends, you've got relatives, you've got all these people down. How are we going to do this all in one day?"

See Attachment 1, at 34. 31. Skalos attempted to speak after Judge Domitrovich asked "How are we going to do this all in one day?" 32. Though Judge Domitrovich examined both Pierce and Lobaugh (who was not a party to the case) and though the proceeding was termed a "pre-trial status conference," Judge Domitrovich responded to Skalos by stating: "No, you have an attorney. I'm not listening to you. Okay. So - and I listened to Mr. Lobaugh and he seems reasonable and so does Mr. Pierce, so I was hoping that the men could get together." See Attachment 1, at 34. 33. After Judge Domitrovich refused to allow Skalos to speak, Lobaugh spoke up and offered to shake Pierce's hand as a "truce." See Attachment 1, at 35. 34. Pierce responded to Lobaugh's entreaty to Judge Domitrovich by stating "Your Honor, two weeks ago my son says to me, he says, on a Friday, I'm going to be okay with my mom and [Lobaugh] this weekend because [K.L.] and [E.L.] [Lobaugh's sons] are going to be there, because [L.P.] knows that when [K.L.] and [E.L.] are there, that there won't be domestic --" See Attachment 1, at 35. 35. After Pierce made the above statement, the following exchange took place:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Listen, did you hear what you just said, Mr, Pierce?
[PIERCE]: Yes.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: You said that the child said this. You have now put this child in a very powerful position, to manipulate the parties. And do you know who manipulators are? They are criminals. They are criminal defendants because they learn how to manipulate their parents. He now has given you information about them and about what's happening in their home without you going on Family Wizard and asking what's happening.
So to repeat what the child says in my courtroom doesn't work.
[PIERCE]; I'm sorry, Your Honor.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I don't want you - I'm going to put out an order right now that neither parent are allowed to examine this child about what happens at either one's house, okay. Neither one.
Miss Skalos, I don't want you asking what's happening in Mr. Pierce's home and visa versa. That's it. You stay contained in each of your homes, and you are not to engage this child as to what is happening in the other's home. That's it. None of this.
[SKALOS]: That's -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Otherwise this child is in a manipulative position and he's powerful, and he's too powerful at the age of six. Miss Skalos, can you agree to that?
[SKALOS]: Absolutely. It's not my concern what goes on in his household, and that's where the conflict Is.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Okay. Well, there's none of that now. You're not going to know what's happening -
[SKALOS]: I never have.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: -- visa versa. He'll [Visnosky] will stay as the GAL. The child wants to talk to someone, he can talk to Attorney Visnosky and pay the rates to talk to Attorney Visnosky as the GAL. And that's it.
But, in the meantime, neither one of you, and I don't want to hear again out of either of your mouths that you say that he said what's happening in someone else's home. It's off limits, that's it.

See Attachment 1, at 35-37. 36. Throughout the above exchange, Judge Domitrovich was shouting or yelling at Pierce and Skalos. 37. Throughout the above exchange, Judge Domitrovich was pointing her index finger at either Pierce or Skalos. 38. After the above exchange, the focus of the discussion shifted to the school choice issue. 39. Judge Domitrovich and Skalos discussed [L.P.]'s religious preference and her belief that [L.P.]'s continued attendance at Saint Boniface school would benefit him because of his established friendships and activities. 40. The following exchange took place between Judge Domitrovich and Skalos:

[SKALOS]: But I believe religion is very important at this stage in [L.P.]'s life.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: And [Pierce] will be responsible, since it is his suggestion, to take the child to schooling in regard to Sunday school, and it will be -
[SKALOS]: But he has established friendships, he has established school activities.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Ma'am, are you ready to litigate this for a whole day?
[SKALOS]: I'm just trying to show that I think the negativity of removing him from that would be more detrimental than trying to appease -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: And how are you going to prove that? What we're doing is one year you had him for Saint Boniface; he's going to have him for one year at Belle Valley. Then you come back to me after both school years, and then I'll decide permanently where the child goes. That is the truce, okay. Have a truce. Talk to her, Mr. Lobaugh.
[SKALOS]: And that's a fair thing to a child for a truce between the parents, or is that in the best interest of the child?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Oh, my.

See Attachment 1, at 37-38. 41. Throughout the above exchange with Skalos, the tone of Judge Domitrovich's voice was raised, dismissive and sarcastic. 42. Following a discussion about L.P.'s religious preference and education, Visnosky reminded Judge Domitrovich about the issue Pierce raised in his motion for adversarial hearing regarding the custody schedule between the parties. See Attachment 1, at 46.

a. Judge Domitrovich stated, "No. I'm not changing it. It stays as is. That's it." See Attachment 1, at 46-47.

43. Later at the pre-trial conference, Judge Domitrovich addressed Pierce directly, stating the following:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: [...]. What I would hope for you - I know you dialogued about what happened in the past and Mr. Lobaugh raised his hand oyer as a truce to bring the two men together. Any way for you, Mr. Pierce?
[PIERCE]: Your Honor, he and I are not the issue.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Okay, but - yes, it is. You are the issue; the two men are the issue. I can see it now. The two of you are the issue. You have to grow up, Mr. Pierce. Grow up, be mature. Show this child that you two can get along. Why not?
[PIERCE]: [Lobaugh] needs to show that he can get along with [L.P.]'s mother, that is the issue.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, absolutely not. He doesn't have to show me that. He doesn't have to show you that. Remember, we're not even going to know what's going to happen in their homes now unless the child reports it to the G.A.L.
[PIERCE]: Or Doctor Iddings.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Whoever. The G.A.L. No, the G.A.L. only. Not the doctor, nobody else. That's his representative. That's it. The G.A.L. only. Now, can you extend your hand?
[PIERCE]: I can, Your Honor.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Well, shake his hand.
[PIERCE]: That is fine, Your Honor.
(Mr. Lobaugh and Mr. Pierce shook hands.)

See Attachment 1, at 48-49. 44. In the above exchange where Judge Domitrovich required Pierce to shake Lobaugh's hand, Judge Domitrovich yelled at Pierce. 45. Later in the hearing, a discussion ensued between Judge Domitrovich, Taylor Fryling, and Visnosky about the date for the forthcoming custody trial and the other issues presented in the motion Taylor filed on Pierce's behalf. See Attachment 1, at 52-54. 46. In the midst of this discussion, Skalos agreed to temporarily resolve the school choice issue by agreeing to send L.P. to Belle Valley. Id., at 52. 47. The following exchange took place regarding the remaining issues and the forthcoming trial date:

[FRYLING]: What other Issues are left that we didn't discuss today?
[TAYLOR]: The issues that we're having a pretrial on, on September 10^th. Was that just - the pretrial was only going to be for schooling?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Yes. After I read all the reports and everything, there are no other issues. That's it.
[TAYLOR]: Well, we raised an issue to the custody schedule and attached a different order, so if we're not going to be able to present our case, if you're saying you already ruled and we can't have a trial, [then] that's an issue.
[FRYLING]: I thought everyone agreed that the current schedule was working, the 5-2/2-5.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I thought we decided that if we're going to go with the father going to Belle Valley, that we're not going to put anything - other change in the child's life other than for that, and the Sunday school. That It would be too much emotionally for this child for now dad to have more time than mom. Okay. We just want to keep the status quo on all the other issues and just change this one so that I know what's happening to the child.
[TAYLOR]: And I understood that's what you said you were going to do, and I'll advise my client, but what I'm saying is we filed for an adversarial hearing, and we haven't put any evidence on.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: That's fine. So you still - I'm the one giving you September 17^th. You've now rejected it.
[TAYLOR]: No, no, no, I didn't reject it. I said if we don't need it for the schooling issue, we could come back on the 10^th and in between now and then Attorney Fryling and I could try to work something out, and then only if we know it's absolutely necessary would we then take another date on your calendar. That's what I was trying to do. Because -
[SKALOS]: She's talking custody -
[FRYLING]: I don't understand what else we were changing. I thought we were doing a permanent custody order that says the child goes to Belle Valley this year, Saint Boniface Sunday school and everything else stays the same.
[TAYLOR]: We are in agreement with Belle Valley. If you want to do the Sunday school thing, that can be in a stipulation, because that's what the judge has ordered. The underlying custody schedule we are not in agreement with.
I understand that the judge at this point has made a statement -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: You know what, all bets are off. The child doesn't go to any school at all until after we have a hearing. See you September 10^th. That's it.

See Attachment 1, at 55-57. 48. Throughout the above exchange, the volume of Judge Domitrovich's voice was elevated and, occasionally, she shouted at the parties. 49. After Judge Domitrovich said "That's it," she left the bench abruptly. 50. After the hearing, the parties executed a settlement that was adopted into an order by Judge Domitrovich that ended the custody litigation that ensued from Pierce's request for an adversarial hearing.

**B. In the Matter of the Estate of J.C., Orphans' Court No. 165 of**

2011

51. J.C. was a case regarding a petition for appointment of a plenary or limited guardian of the person and/or estate of J.C., minor, filed by V.W. and F.W., Sr., J.C.'s grandparents, custodians, and caretakers. 52. Participating In the hearing were the V.W. and F.W., Sr., their daughter, M.W., mother of the minor subject to the petition, and J.C., Sr.(himseif a 16 year-old minor), father of the minor. These persons were present in Judge Domitrovich's courtroom. Also participating was Charlotte Pelc (Pelc), an Office of Children and Youth (OCY) employee, who participated via telephone. The court reporter was Jeanne Sykes. 53. The minor's parents consented to guardianship of the minor. 54. After Judge Domitrovich questioned the minor's parents regarding their consent, she observed that "Hopefully, there will be no custody issues. If there are, you have to file downstairs with custody court. But, hopefully, we won't have those issues, right?" See Attachment 2 (N.T., guardianship petition hearing, 8/9/2011), at 4. 55. In response to Judge Domitrovich's statement, V.W. mentioned that she already had "full custody" of the minor. See Attachment 2, at 4.

a. V.W. and F.W., Sr., had a June 1, 2011 consent custody decree that gave full legal and physical custody of the minor to her and her husband.

56. Judge Domitrovich stated "I don't know why you're here then. Because if you have custody, we shouldn't really be doing this." See Attachment 2, at 4. 57. Judge Domitrovich then proceeded to question the minor's grandparents as to the circumstances of how it was that they petitioned for guardianship of the minor. See Attachment 2, at 4-6. 58. In undertaking this examination, Judge Domitrovich questioned Pelc, who, on behalf of her agency, denied advising the minor's grandparents to seek guardianship. See Attachment 2, at 5-6. 59. Upon Judge Domitrovich's questioning, V.W. testified that a custody office employee told her that "the next step would be guardianship." See Attachment 2, at 6_? Upon further questioning from Judge Domitrovich, V.W. testified that "Josh Maloney'' (Maloney) did the custody office "intake." Id. 60. After questioning Ms. Pelc, using the speaker phone at her bench, Judge Domitrovich telephoned the Custody Conciliation Office and asked for "Josh Maloney." See Attachment 2, at 8. Ms. Stephanie Young (Young), a Custody Conciliation Office clerk, answered the telephone and tried to send the call to Maloney. Id. 61. Young returned to the call and informed Judge Domitrovich that Maloney was not present. Judge Domitrovich asked for a "Karen," who was also not present in the Custody Conciliation Office. See Attachment 2, at 9. 62. Judge Domitrovich asked Young to "pull the file" of the family from the Custody Conciliation Office's records; Young indicated that she would, but Judge Domitrovich continued to speak to her. See Attachment 2, at 9. 63. Judge Domitrovich told Young, a clerk, that the minor's grandparents were "saying that they entered into a consent agreement where they received full custody of [the minor], that Josh had indicated to come to guardianship court, and I wanted to put a nip to this, nip this In the bud. It's not necessary to go to guardianship court. In fact, grandparents should be going through custody court. They have the right to appear in custody court. It's not like an aunt or an uncle needing to have guardianship. They don't need to have guardianship. And I want to get that through your office, that please do not send them for a further layer that I am going to dismiss anyway." See Attachment 2, at 9-10. 64. When Young went to retrieve the file, V.W. continued to speak, and she expressed to Judge Domitrovich that Maloney (or someone from the Custody Conciliation Office) said "guardianship is better than custody." See Attachment 2, at 10. 65. Judge Domitrovich expressed that Maloney was "not a lawyer. That's why he doesn't understand it. I am getting flooded with these cases. I got to find out who is doing all this. I have to dismiss this. And you are not going to be happy because you wasted your time, the court time and--" whereupon V.W. apologized. See Attachment 2, at 10-11. 66. Young returned to the call and Informed Judge Domitrovich that the minor's grandparents had a custody order for the child subject to the guardianship petition. Judge Domitrovich responded "Right. So there's no need for guardianship. Dp you understand that, Stephanie [Young]?" See Attachment 2, at 11. 67. Young stated that she did not think that Maloney told the minor's grandparents to seek guardianship of J.C. See Attachment 2, at 11. 68. Thereafter, Judge Domitrovich expressed that "—they are under oath today. [V.W.] is here. I need you to report this to Karen so that she understands and [Maloney] understands that once they have custody, there is an agreement, it's not necessary to come to guardianship court, especially with grandparents. You need to talk to your solicitor of your offices to get that straight." See Attachment 2, at 11-12.

a. The transcript does not Indicate that any of the witnesses, including V.W., were sworn.

69. Young again expressed that she did not believe that the Custody Conciliation Office referred the case to guardianship court. See Attachment 2, at 12. 70. Judge Domitrovich then instructed V.W. to repeat what she had said about Maloney to Young. See Attachment 2, at 12. 71. Young and V.W. engaged in a colloquy about what each thought Maloney said to V.W. See Attachment 2, at 12. 72. Judge Domitrovich then instructed Young to tell Maloney that "he shouldn't give them any advice to that extent. He does the custody action. He tells them to go see a lawyer if they want something else." See Attachment 2, at 12. 73. Judge Domitrovich then dismissed the case. See Attachment 2, at 12. 74. After dismissing the case from the bench, Judge Domitrovich executed the following order:

AND NOW, to-wit, this 9th day of August, 2011, following a scheduled hearing attended by all parties on the Petition for Appointment of Plenary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Minor [J.C.], and considering that the June i, 2011 Consent Agreement gave full legal and physical custody of the minor child to the grandparents, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that said Petition is DISMISSED as moot since the parties already entered into a Custody Order before the Custody Conciliator, in consideration of the grandparents' testimony that they filed the Petition at the erroneous direction of Joshua Maloney of the Custody Conciliation office.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Stephanie Domitrovich, Judge
(emphasis added); See Attachment 2, at 14 (unnumbered), 8/9/2011 Order.

76. After the J.C. hearing concluded and Judge Domitrovich entered her order, Judge Domitrovich was present at a meeting with Administrative Judge John Trucilla, Mr. Maloney, and Judge Domitrovich's then-law clerk. 77. During the course of this meeting with Judge Trucilla, he asked Judge Domitrovich why she would issue an order criticizing a court employee; Judge Domitrovich responded that Maloney gave the minor's grandparents mistaken guidance.

a. Maloney denied giving the minor's grandparents any legal advice.

78. Judge Domitrovich's law clerk contradicted her statement and supported Maloney's version of events.

**c. In the Matter of the Estate of J.M., CV-289-2011**

79. J.M. was a petition for appointment of a plenary or limited guardian of the person and/or estate of J.M., a seven-year old minor. 80. The petition was filed pro se by K.L., a friend of Y.M., the minor's mother. 81. K.L. had been J.M.'s primary caregiver since approximately July 2011. 82. K.L. was J.M.'s primary caregiver because Y.M. was recuperating from cancer and the resulting treatment, and, as a result, she could not care for J.M. 83. Judge Domitrovich conducted a hearing on the petition on November 18, 2011. 84. Judge Domitrovich requested the presence of Catherine Mascharka (Mascharka), a caseworker employed by OCY at the hearing. 85. Pursuant to her regular practice involving petitions for guardianship where an OCY caseworker was involved, Judge Domitrovich requested Mascharka's presence because she conducted an investigation of K.L's care of J.M. 86. OCY closed the investigation of J.M.'s care because the child was safe in her living situation and, as such, was not a "dependent child" within the meaning of the Dependency Act. 87. Present at the hearing were Y.M., K.L, and Mascharka; the minor was not present. The court reporter was Sandy Hackwelder. 88. At the outset of the hearing, the following exchange occurred:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Okay. And what do you know in regard - first of all, where is the minor?
[K.L]: She's in school.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Okay. It says in all the paperwork that the child must be here.
[K.L]: Oh, I didn't see that
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Well, it says so.
[K.L.]: I did not know.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: You can't read? How can you be the guardian?
[K.L.]: I did read it. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I'm just going to have to continue it. How old is the child?
[K.L.]: She is seven.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I don't do these without the child. By statute you have to have the child here, so it has to be continued. Get me a new date and time, please. And, mom, your name for the record?
[Y.M.]: [Y.M.].

See Attachment 3 (N.T., guardianship petition hearing, 11/18/2011), at 2-3. 89. After Y.M. identified herself, Judge Domitrovich asked her the following:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Do you know what you're getting into here? This is as close as you get to terminating your rights; do you understand that? Yes, this is permanent until the child turns 18. Do you know what you're getting into?
[Y.M.]: That's not what I was told.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Who told you that?
[Y.M.]: I was told that this was temporary -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No. Who told you that?
[Y.M.]: -- until I got on my feet.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Very well. No. I could dismiss this action. This is until the child is 18, this is what this vehicle is for. If they want to do dependency, they have to do dependency and take the child. Because this is not what this Court is all about. This is for when a parent dies and we need to have the child - someone to take care of the child. This is not a temporary vehicle for OCY, okay?
[MASCHARKA]: Right. That was not my understanding either, that this was a permanent thing.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Oh, yes, it's always permanent. You talk to Amy Jones, she's your solicitor. She was supposed to stop this nonsense.

See Attachment 3, at 3-4. 90. During the exchanges noted above, Judge Domitrovich had an irritated tone of voice. 91. At points during the above exchange, Judge Domitrovich yelled at the parties whom she addressed. 92. Thereafter, Judge Domitrovich directed some member of her staff to get Amy Jones, Esquire (Jones), Erie County OCY Solicitor, on her bench speakerphone system. 93. After Judge Domitrovich got Jones on speakerphone, the following exchange occurred:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Hello. Good morning. We're on the record, I'm so sorry to bother you. We have one of your caseworkers here, Ms. Mascharka. Ms. Mascharka was not aware that we are not using these minor guardianships as a temporary vehicle for OCY instead of placing
children. That this - I just explained to this mother, the natural mother here, it's in the case of [J.M.], that this is as close that the natural mother gets to terminating her natural rights. I mean, this is the vehicle right before termination. And this - if I put -
[JONES]: Guardianship is?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Yes, minor guardianships, yes.
[JONES]: Okay.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: This is as close - I mean, she will not have any authority over the child, and it's meant to be a permanent vehicle until the child is 18. And I explained that to the mother, that this is not until she gets herself back on her feet in a couple of months. It's not meant to be just for a couple of months. These are minor guardianships meant to be plenary in nature until the child is 18. And, so, I just wanted to place that on the record. We have to stop these caseworkers from thinking that they can come to minor guardianship court, and instead of placing children, do what they need to do. In the meantime, I'm dismissing this action, and they can do whatever they want to do But this is not for - until the mother gets herself back on her feet in a couple of months. See, guardian has complete control. If this occurs, then she would have to do a motion to revoke. She would have to go through a whole process in regard to her rights, etcetera. I mean, it's just not meant for them to just come to court, say hello, do this, and be a Band-Aid.
[JONES]: Okay.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: And the mother understands that. Do you understand that, ma'am?
[Y.M.]: Yes, ma'am.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Okay. And as far as school -
[JONES]: The mother would rather have her child placed in foster care?
[Y.M.]: No.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, but I'm not doing it through guardianship. She would have to go to custody court, she could go and do the loco parentis through them. Go ahead.

See Attachment 3, at 5-7. 94. At that point, Mascharka interjected to defend herself from Judge Domitrovich's allegation that OCY caseworkers foist their responsibilities to guardianship court. 95. The following exchange occurred:

[MASCHARKA]: May I just say, that this was not of my doing. This was not something -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: It doesn't matter.
[MASCHARKA]: Okay. It's just that - because I happened to have the case for investigation for something else that I got -
[JONES]: We're not advising people to do the guardian -
[MASCHARKA]: Right.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, but she was shocked to know that this is -
[MASCHARKA]: I understand that. But that's also because - it wasn't my doing.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Right. But just so you know.
[MASCHARKA]: I can't advise her, just like you can't -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, no, you're not advising her, but you looked shocked, and I wanted to make sure that we communicate this message to all the caseworkers that Judge -
[MASCHARKA]: This is something that they did.
[JONES]: Right. But I don't know if this is being communicated to petitioners at the time they're bringing the petition -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, because they're not giving them - they're not advising them. And that's why we need to get someone to -
[JONES]: We can't advise people either. I mean, it puts everybody in a tough position.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I think it has to start, though, with your caseworkers to spread the word out that this isn't going to happen in my courtroom, okay? There are no judges across the state that use this as a vehicle for just a temporary couple of months, okay? Minor guardianships are meant until the child is 18, okay? That's just the way it is, okay? It's meant for a child that has lost their parents in a car accident and there's money involved, or there's - it's just not meant for this purpose, okay?
[JONES]: Okay.

See Attachment 3, at 7-9. 96. Throughout Judge Domitrovich's exchanges with Jones and Mascharka, delineated above, the tone of her voice was irritated, and, at points, she yelled. 97. The hearing continued, and Judge Domitrovich alternated between dismlssiveness and irritation with both Y.M. and K.L. when they attempted to speak to her. 98. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Domitrovich addressed K.L.,Y.M., and Jones as follows:

[JUDGE DOMITROVICH] Go see a lawyer before you come to court, okay? And I just want to get the word out that this is not happening in this courtroom any longer, okay?
[JONES]: I'll do the best I can. But, again, Judge, we're not telling people to file -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: We understand.
[JONES]: -- I can't - my caseworkers can't give legal advice, you know, it's a systemic issue.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I understand. But in this case there's - obviously, she cannot take care of the child, you had opened the case, the mother gives the child to, not even a family member; do you have any family?
[Y.M.]: (Shaking head, no.)
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: What? Say something, ma'am.
[Y.M.]: No.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No family?
[Y.M.]: Not here. My family is all in Florida, I'm not even from here.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I don't know. Wouldn't this be a classic case for OCY? I don't understand.
[JONES]: The child is safe in her current circumstance.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: How do we know? Did you double check?
[MASCHARKA]: Yes.
[JONES]: Absolutely.
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: That's fine. Well, then, go get a power of attorney, whatever, but this is not temporary. This is called permanent plenary guardianship over the child until the child is 18. Unless there's some circumstance that would occur that you would be remarkable. But you would start down the journey of a very difficult path to try to get the child back.

See Attachment 3, at 13-15. 99. Judge Domitrovich's tone in the above exchange was angry and, at points, she was yelling or shouting. 100. Thereafter, Judge Domitrovich dismissed the petition and ended the hearing.

**D. Linda Martz/Juliza Caban and K.S. v. A.C.T., 17074 of 2012**

101. Linda Martz (Martz) is an employee of SAFE NET, a private organization that assists individuals with obtaining Protection from Abuse (PFA) orders. 102. Juliza Caban (Caban) is an employee of the Erie County Protection from Abuse office (PFA Office). 103. Both Martz and Caban were often in Judge Domitrovich's court during PFA hearings assisting pro se PFA petitioners with the presentation of their cases. 104. In the case of K.S. v. A.C.T., 17074 of 2012, Judge Domitrovich conducted a temporary PFA hearing on May 21, 2012. 105. Martz was present at the hearing with K.S. and assisted her with the presentation of her PFA petition. The court reporter for the hearing was Denice Grill. 106. At the hearing, Judge Domitrovich expressed reservations about the existing partial child custody arrangement that K.S. sought to encapsulate within the proposed PFA order (drafted with the assistance of SAFENET), and she observed that: "We're not doing that. You either have the child or not. Do you want the child?" See Attachment 4 (N.T., temporary PFA hearing, 5/21/2012), at 4. 107. K.S. indicated that she wanted custody of the parties' child, and Judge Domitrovich examined her further on the subject. 108. Judge Domitrovich asked K.S. again if she wanted custody of the child, and Judge Domitrovich stressed to her that partial physical custody (and, by implication, custody exchanges) does not "work" in a PFA. See Attachment 4, at 5. 109. Ultimately, apparently based on Judge Domitrovich's direction, K.S. agreed to remove the proposed custody arrangement from the proposed temporary PFA order. See Attachment 4, at 10. 110. K.S. did not understand either the legal significance or the basis behind the statements Judge Domitrovich made at the hearing. 111. K.S. also did not understand why Judge Domitrovich was, in K.S.'view, upset and rude to K.S. when she tried to explain why she wanted the custody arrangement in the PFA order. 112. K.S., through tears, expressed her lack of understanding on these matters to Martz. 113. Martz asked K.S. if she wanted Martz to attempt to explain K.S.' thinking to Judge Domitrovich; K.S. agreed. 114. After the PFA hearings for the day had concluded, in an off-the-record conversation, Martz asked Judge Domitrovich permission to approach the bench and speak on behalf of K.S.; Judge Domitrovich agreed to this request. 115. Martz attempted to explain why K.S. wanted the partial custody arrangement in the temporary PFA order, 116. Judge Domitrovich stated, in a raised voice, words to the effect of; We are not Burger King and that [K.S.] could not have it her way! 117. Judge Domitrovich stated that Martz was not an attorney and that she had no right to represent anyone, although Judge Domitrovich had previously given Martz permission to speak on K.S.' behalf. 118. Judge Domitrovich, in an aggressive tone, stated to K.S. words to the effect of the following: if you don't want the changes, I will take custody out completely! 119. Judge Domitrovich asked Martz if she had the proposed order with the changes that she had directed her to make; Martz replied that it was in the PFA office and went to retrieve it. 120. While Martz was out of the courtroom, Judge Domitrovich told Caban who was still present in the courtroom, that she would not sign the proposed PFA order. 121. While returning to the courtroom, Martz saw K.S. in tears at the elevator. 122. On May 22, 2012, the following day, after the final PFA hearings had concluded for the day, in an off-the-record conversation, Judge Domitrovich asked Ms. Martz the following: what happened yesterday?

a. Judge Domitrovich was referring to the K.S. case.

123. Martz responded to Judge Domitrovich that K.S. had not understood what Judge Domitrovich was trying to convey and that was the reason Martz asked to speak to Judge Domitrovich on her behalf. 124. Judge Domitrovich asked Martz what K.S. said about the event. 125. Martz told Judge Domitrovich that K.S. said the following: "I don't want it (meaning the PFA order), I'll just go back to him and let him beat the fuck out of me and it'll be on her (meaning Judge Domitrovich)." 126. Judge Domitrovich was offended by this statement and responded, stating words to the effect of:

a. It's not on me, it's on her (K.S.)!
b. You shouldn't have tried to explain this, you're not an attorney!
c. Debbie (of SAFENET), should not be putting those things in the PFAs!
d. I'll just cross off all custody in PFAs like Judge Cunningham!

127. As to the last statement attributed to Judge Domitrovich, Martz responded and said it was her right to remove such custody provisions, and Judge Domitrovich responded with words to the effect of : Okay, but that's on you! 128. Judge Domitrovich's May 22, 2012 discussion with Martz was observed by Caban, who was then in the courtroom. 129. Judge Domitrovich asked Caban at some point close in time to these events to place on the record that Judge Domitrovich did not sign the PFA order because "the woman" had been belligerent in court. 130. Caban refused Judge Domitrovich's request. PART II. OFF-BENCH CONDUCT:

A. Sandra Foster

131. Sandra Foster (Foster) served as Judge Domitrovich's secretary from January 2011 until approximately April 8, 2011, when she took medical leave. 132. Prior to her brief employment as Judge Domitrovich's secretary, Foster was employed by the Erie County Domestic Relations Office (DRO) for 19 years.

a. When she left the DRO, Foster was the office manager.

133. Judge Domitrovich recruited Foster for employment in her chambers in or about December 2010, via a telephone call. 134. As Judge Domitrovich's chambers did not have a secretary for several months prior to Foster, Foster was obligated to process a backlog of paperwork that had accumulated in the chambers. 135. Neither Judge Domitrovich nor the other senior members of her staff trained Foster for the responsibilities of her new position. 136. Among the responsibilities that Foster had in Judge pomitrovich's chambers was the duty to fax or otherwise provide draft orders and other legal documents generated or received by the chambers to Ronald Susmarski, Esquire (Susmarski), Judge Domitrovich's husband, for review, editing, and comment. 137. When Foster sought guidance in the performance of her new duties, she was directed by Judge Domitrovich or by Wendy Sydow (Sydow), her tipstaff, to consult notes left by Judge Domitrovich's prior secretary, Sandy Van Volkenburg. 138. Despite the lack of guidance to Foster and her short tenure as a judicial secretary, Judge Domitrovich was overly critical of Foster's job performance and she engaged in inappropriate behavior towards Foster that made it impossible for Foster to develop the skills necessary to perform as Judge Domitrovich's secretary. 139. On one occasion, Foster made a scheduling mistake regarding Judge Domitrovich's planned attendance at a naturalization ceremony in federal court. 140. Infuriated at the scheduling error, Judge Domitrovich called Foster from the federal judge's chambers and screamed at her over the phone. 141. In early April 2011, approximately three months after Foster started working as Judge Domitrovich's secretary, Judge Domitrovich's dissatisfaction with Foster's performance reached its zenith. 142. Judge Domitrovich wrote a letter to Foster on April 5, 2011, that set forth various issues that she had with Foster's performance. 143. Foster drafted a response to Judge Domitrovich on April 6, 2011, with an explanation of her behavior. 144. Foster provided a copy of Judge Domitrovich's April 5, 2011 letter and her response to Thomas Aaron, Erie County Court Administrator (CA Aaron). 145. In a discussion about Judge Domitrovich's letter and her response, Foster indicated to CA Aaron that she was copying her response to the President Judge and the Erie County Personnel Director. 146. CA Aaron told Foster that she did not have to copy the letter to the Erie County Personnel Director, as that person did not have any authority over court employees. 147. Later that same day, Judge Domitrovich spoke with CA Aaron about her April 5, 2011 letter to Foster, and Foster's April 6, 2011 response, which Judge Domitrovich had by then received from Foster. 148. Judge Domitrovich indicated to CA Aaron that Foster crossed out something in the "cc:" section of her April 6, 2011 responsive letter. 149. CA Aaron indicated that he saw both letters, and he told Judge Domitrovich that he instructed Foster that she did not have to copy the Erie County Personnel Director because that person did not have any authority over court employees. 150. The day after Foster provided Judge Domitrovich with her response, Judge Domitrovich confronted her at the end of the day. 151. When Judge Domitrovich confronted Foster, Sydow and Susmarski (who is not an Erie County court employee) were present; Rahkee Vemulapalli, Judge Domitrovich's then-law cierk, was present in an adjacent office with the door open. 152. Judge Domitrovich was loud, aggressive, and threatening to Foster during the entire two-hour conversation that ensued from the confrontation. 153. During the conversation, Susmarski offered his observations of Foster's performance as Judge Domitrovich's secretary. 154. Shortly after Judge Domitrovich's confrontation with Foster, Foster took medical leave from her employment and was treated by a psychologist resulting from her experience in Judge Domitrovich's chambers. 155. On April 15, 2011, CA Aaron returned to work from a pre-scheduled vacation and was informed by his secretary thai: Foster called in sick to CA Aaron directly and that he would be receiving a letter from her health care provider stating that Foster would be on medical leave until June 2011. 156. Later in the day on April 15, 2011, CA Aaron was informed by Foster that she was filing a "formal complaint" against Judge Domitrovich.

a. CA Aaron later received the medical leave request and the "formal complaint" against Judge Domitrovich from Foster.

157. After consulting with President Judge DiSantis, CA Aaron sent Judge Domitrovich, who was in Scotland at that time, an email regarding Foster. 158. The email informed Judge Domitrovich that CA Aaron had information regarding Foster and that he would share it with Judge Domitrovich when she returned from Scotland. 159. Approximately five minutes after CA Aaron sent the email to Judge Domitrovich, he received a call from Susmarski, who asked CA Aaron for the information regarding Foster. 160. CA Aaron declined to provide Susmarski the information about Foster because he could not share personnel information about Judge pomitroyich's employees with anyone other than Judge Domitrovich. 161. While CA Aaron informed President Judge DiSantis about Susmarski's call and request, the following occurred:

a. Judge Domitrovich, sounding upset, called CA Aaron, who was on the other line with President Judge DiSantis and did not answer.
b. Judge Domitrovich left CA Aaron a voicemail that informed him that Susmarski was authorized by her to talk to CA Aaron about her staff.

162. Thereafter, Sydow called CA Aaron's secretary and indicated that Judge Domitrovich wanted to know if CA Aaron had received her voicemail. 163. CA Aaron was then instructed by President Judge DiSantis to send Judge Domitrovich another email that stated, in essence, the following:

a. CA Aaron could not be "authorized" by anyone to discuss personnel matters;
b. Judge Domitrovich should not worry about the Foster issue; and
c. CA Aaron would talk to Judge Domitrovich about the Foster issue on the following Monday (April 18, 2011) when she returned to work.

164. Judge Domitrovich attempted to call CA Aaron again, but did not reach him. 165. Judge Domitrovich then spoke with President Judge DiSantis, who informed her that he would not discuss the Foster issue with Judge Domitrovich and that CA Aaron would discuss the matter with her on Monday, April 18, 2011. 166. On April 18, 2011, CA Aaron went to Judge Domitrovich's chambers to discuss the Foster Issue with her and to provide copies of the medical report and the "formal complaint" Foster made against Judge Domitrovich. 167. Judge Domitriovich asked CA Aaron "what does this mean," referring to the documents provided by Foster. 168. CA Aaron provided an explanation of the documents to Judge Domitrovich 169. Judge Domitrovich denied Foster's version of events regarding the discussion between herself, Foster, Susmarski, and Sydow. 170. While Foster was on medical leave. Judge Domitrovich claimed that she or someone in her office found "mistakes," "nude pictures" of other persons on Foster's work computer and other problems with Foster's work performance. 171. Thereafter, Judge Domitrovich sought to terminate Foster, despite Foster being on medical leave. 172. Ultimately, Judge Domitrovich was informed by President Judge DiSantis that he would not sign the papers necessary to terminate Foster's employment while she was on medical leave. 173. President Judge DiSantis also instructed Judge Domitrovich that, if it was Judge Domitrovich's intent to fire Foster, she would have to sign the termination papers herself. 174. After her medical leave ended, Foster transferred back to the DRO, albeit in a lesser paid and less responsible position than what she had held prior to leaving to join Judge Domitrovich's staff.

B. Stacy Rhoades

175. Stacy Rhoades (Rhoades) is an adult probation officer employed by Erie County. 176. Rhoades had not appeared before Judge Domitrovich in her professional capacity as an adult probation officer since approximately 2002. 177. Rhoades is a personal associate of one K.K., who is the plaintiff in K.K. v. S.M.K., CV-2009-17805, an ongoing PFA case she has against her former spouse S.M.K., and the victim in Commonwealth v. S.M.K., CP-25-MD-0000515-2009, CP-25-MD-00000063-2010, CP-25-MD-0000517-2010, the accompanying Indirect Criminal Complaint (ICC) cases. 178. Judge Domitrovich presided over the PFA and ICC hearings in the K. litigation. 179. A PFA order entered by Judge Domitrovich against S.M.K. remains in effect until November 16, 2015, due to several amendments of the conditions of the order by Judge Domitrovich. 180. Before one of the ICC proceedings in or around July 2010, K.K. saw Rhoades in the courthouse hallway, and Rhoades offered to accompany K.K. to the hearing to provide moral support to her; K.K. accepted this offer. 181. Rhoades was not present at the July 2010 ICC hearing in her capacity as a probation officer or for any reason related to her employment. 182. On October 20, 2010, Rhoades received a telephone call from Sydow, Judge Domitrovich's tipstaff. 183. Sydow told Rhoades the following:

a. Rhoades' friend (K.K.) was back in court for another ICC hearing.
b. The ICC charges had been dismissed by the District Attorney.
c. K.K. was upset.

184. At the conclusion of the call with Sydow, Rhoades went to Judge Domitrovich's courtroom to comfort K.K.; Judge Domitrovich was not present in the courtroom when Rhoades arrived. 185. On October 21, 2010, Sydow called Rhoades a second time regarding the K. litigation. 186. Sydow told Rhoades the following:

a. Judge Domitrovich wanted to see Rhoades about K.K.'s case.
b. Judge Domitrovich was upset that the District Attorney dropped the charges against S.M.K..
c. Judge Domitrovich wanted to speak with Rhoades in her jury room.

187. When Rhoades arrived in Judge Domitrovich's jury room, she saw Judge Domitrovich and several other individuals employed by the Erie County Court system. 188. Judge Domitrovich Instructed Rhoades to sit down; Rhoades complied. 189. Judge Domitrovich told Rhoades the following regarding the K. litigation:

a. She was concerned for K.K.
b. She thought S.M.K. was dangerous.
c. She did not like the fact that the District Attorney dropped the charges.
d. She investigated S.M.K.'s claims of employment near Karen King's residence in Albion, Pennsylvania.

190. Judge Domitrovich also questioned Rhoades about her knowledge of a police officer friend of S.M.K. 191. Judge Domitrovich also told Rhoades to talk to the District Attorney and tell him that S.M.K. is dangerous and that he is friends with the owners of the business near K.K.'s residence in Albion. 192. Rhoades reported the October 21, 2010 conversation with Judge Domitrovich to her supervisor, who, in turn, instructed her to inform Jeffrey Shaw, the Chief of Adult Probation, about Rhoades' conversation with Judge Domitrovich. 193. Chief Shaw reported Rhoades' conversation with Judge Dornitrovich to CA Aaron. 194. Thereafter, Chief Shaw told Rhoades (on instructions from CA Aaron) to do nothing that Judge Domitrovich had asked Rhoades to do and he instructed Rhoades to write a statement about the October 21, 2010 conversation. 195. Rhoades complied with the directive from CA Aaron (communicated through Chief Shaw), and she wrote and signed a statement regarding her October 21, 2010 conversation with Judge Domitrovich, See Attachment 5, October 22, 2010 statement from Stacy Rhoades. 196. Despite her conversation with Rhoades and her independent investigation of S.M.K., Judge Domitrovich continued to preside over the K. litigation after 2010.

C. Misleading the Board at February 6, 2014 Deposition

197. Sandra Foster "pornography" issue: a. Judge Domitrovich appeared with counsel Leonard Ambrose and his three co-counsel, including Susmarski, her husband, for an investigative deposition conducted by Board Counsel at the Board's offices on February 6, 2014. b. At the February 6, 2014 deposition, Board counsel asked Judge Domitrovich the following series of questions regarding the Foster matter:

[COUNSEL]: There were problems that had surfaced with her employment, am I right in saying that?
[MR. AMBROSE]: Employment with the Judge?
[COUNSEL]: With the Judge, employment with you?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Yes.
[COUNSEL]: Why don't you tell me about those. What happened there?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: First of all, there was some pornographic email that she was sending to people.
[COUNSEL]: When you say pornographic, what do you mean? Could you describe it?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: A naked body of a woman in a bar and some gay bashing. I don't even understand the joke but that's what she was doing.
[COUNSEL]: Was this sent among court employees?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: Yes, with my tag line.
[COUNSEL]: When did this happen?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: All throughout when she was there. And there were chat rooms that she was in.

See Attachment 6, at 104-105. c. As to the pornographic material allegedly sent, Attorney Ambrose held up and showed to Board counsel a Xeroxed photograph of a nude woman, standing at an upright table, with her back to the camera, in what appeared to be a barroom location, but same was not entered into evidence. d. At the time the issue arose after Foster left Judge Domitrovich's employment on medical leave, she reported the matter of the allegedly pornographic email to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) Legal staff for investigation into a potential violation of the Unified Judicial System (UJS) Personnel Policies and Non-Discrimination Policy. e. The matter was referred by AOPC Legal to CA Aaron for investigation. f. Beside the allegedly pornographic email, CA Aaron was never informed of any other alleged inappropriate use of Foster's court provided computer by Foster, such as her using chat rooms or participating in inappropriate emails. g. CA Aaron discovered that Foster was sent one objectionable email containing a nude photograph but that she did not send or forward that email to any other court employee. h. The employee who sent the objectionable email to Foster was disciplined by CA Aaron. i. At approximately the same time he disciplined the employee who sent the objectionable email to Foster, CA Aaron told Judge Domitrovich that he could not discipline Foster for merely having been the recipient of an email containing an objectionable photograph. j. At or near the time CA Aaron told Judge Domitrovich that he could not discipline Foster, CA Aaron sent an email on May 17, 2011, to Judge Domitrovich that confirmed that he disciplined another employee based upon the information Judge Domitrovich provided to AOPC; AOPC counsel was copied on this email. 198. Participation of Attorney Ronald Susmarski in Judicial Decision Making a. When inquiring about the Foster matter, supra, Board counsel asked Judge Domitrovich the following question about Susmarski:

[COUNSEL]: Does Attorney Susmarski have any involvement in the substantive work of your chambers? Helping draft opinions, things like that?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No, sir.
[COUNSEL]: No?
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: No.
[COUNSEL]: I wanted to step back -
[JUDGE DOMITROVICH]: I'm sorry. That's the role of the law clerk.

See Attachment 6, (N.T., deposition transcript, 2/6/2014) at 126. b. Susmarski was present when Judge Domitrovich testified to this fact. c. A number of Judge Domitrovich's former staff members, including Foster, informed the Board that Judge Domitrovich often sent legal materials (pleadings, opinions, orders, and the like) to Susmarski for review, consideration and, where appropriate, editing. d. Judge Domitrovich did not disclose to the parties involved in cases she sent to Susmarski for review, consideration or edition or to their counsel that she either sought Susmarski's legal opinion on their cases or his advice regarding the drafting of judicial documents related to their matters. PART III, CHARGES

COUNT 1 (A), (B) , (C), (D)

199. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged above in Parts I(A)-(D), Judge Domitrovich violated Canon 3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 200. Canon 3(A)(3) states, in pertinent part, the following:

A. Adjudicative responsibilities.

* * *

(3) Judges should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom they deal in their official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of their staff, court officials, and others subject to their direction and control.

201. Judge Domitrovich's behavior in the Skalos, J.C., J.M., and the K.S. cases as alleged above reflects that she was impatient, undignified and discourteous to the individuals who appeared before her or were involved in those cases. 202. Judge Domitrovich's impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior in the Skalos, J.C., J.M. and K.S. cases was marked by, but not limited to, the following activity:

a. Yelling and other aggressive behavior (finger pointing, sarcasm, storming off the bench) towards those who appeared before her in each case.
b. Demeaning behavior directed toward a litigant, such as forcing Pierce to shake hands against his wishes and comparing his child to a criminal defendant.
c. Unwarranted criticism from the bench and in court orders of Erie County employees and agencies for the performance of their duties, as in the J.C. and J.M. cases.
d. Bullying and threats to pro se litigants and the persons who assist them in filing PFA petitions, as in the K.S. case.

203. Through her impatient, undignified, and discourteous behavior delineated above in Skalos (Count 1(A)), J.C. (Count 1(B)), J.M. (Count 1(C)), and K.S. Count 1(D)), Judge Domitrovich violated Canon 3(A)(3).

WHEREFORE, Stephanie Domitrovich, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).

COUNT 2 (A), (B), (C)

204. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged above at Part 1(A) ( Skalos v. Pierce ) and Part 11(B) ( Stacy Rhoades ) Judge Domitrovich violated Canon 3(A)(4), and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to Article V, § 16(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 205. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged above at Part 11(B), Judge Domitrovich Violated Canon 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 206. Canon 3(A)(4) and Canon 3(C) state, in pertinent part, the following:

A. Adjudicative responsibilities.

* * *

(4) Judges should accord to all persons who are legally interested in a proceeding, or their lawyers, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, must not consider ex parte communications concerning a pending proceeding.

* * *

C. Disqualification.

(1) Judges should disqualify themselves in a proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.

207. By virtue of Canon3(A)(4), Judge Domitrovich had a duty to permit the parties to present their arguments at the Skalos ' "pre-trial status conference" and at the forthcoming custody trial hearing. 208. The facts alleged above at Part 1(A) demonstrate Judge Domitrovich would not listen to the positions of the parties at the Skalos "pre-trial status conference" and, because she had already reached a decision on certain issues, pressure the parties to abandon issues that they wished to present at the following custody trial; thereby, Judge Domitrovich violated Canon 3(A)(4) (Count 2(A)). 209. The facts alleged above at Part 11(B) indicate that Judge Domitrovich initiated an ex parte conversation with Rhoades regarding matter? that related to the substance of the K. litigation. 210. The facts alleged above at Part 11(B) indicate that Judge Domitrovich initiated an ex parte investigation regarding S.M.K. and other matters that related to the substance of the K. litigation. 211. The facts alleged above at Part II(B) indicate that Judge pomitrovich harbored a bias against S.M.K. and sought to obtain answers to evidentiary facts raised in the K. litigation. 212. By virtue of Canon 3(A)(4), Judge Domitrovich had a duty to neither initiate or consider an ex parte conversation nor conduct an ex parte investigation regarding the K. case. 213. By virtue of Canon 3(C), Judge Domitrovich was required to disqualify herself from further involvement in the K. litigation. 214. Judge Domitrovich both initiated an ex parte communication with Rhoades regarding the K, case and she conducted an ex parte investigation of S.M.K., and thereby violated Canon 3(A)(4) (Count 2(B)). 215. Judge Domitrovich did not disqualify herself from the K. litigation after her ex parte conversation with Rhoades and her ex parte investigation of S.M.K., and thereby violated Canon 3(C) (Count 2(C)).

WHEREFORE, Stephanie pomitrovich, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).

COUNT 3

216. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged above at Part 11(A) ( Sandra Foster ) Judge Domitrovich violated Canon 3(B)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 217. Canon 3(B)(1) states the following:

B. Administrative responsibilities.

(1) Judges should diligently discharge their administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in Judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials.

218. Judge Domitrovich failed to train, supervise, and manage or ensure that Foster was trained, supervised and managed by Judge Domitrovich's other staff in a competent, professional manner. 219. Judge Domitrovich engaged in inappropriate behavior towards Foster and was overly critical of her job performance in her short tenure as Judge Domitrovich's secretary. 220. When Foster attempted to address the issues regarding her employment in a professional manner by letter, Judge Domitrovich responded by engaging in a non-private, bullying and inappropriate confrontation with Foster, which included Susmarski, who was not a court employee. 221. When Judge Domitrovich learned that Foster had raised issues with her employment to CA Aaron, Judge Domitrovich sought to foist her responsibility to investigate and address the issue upon Susmarski. 222. After Judge Domitrovich learned that Foster complained about her behavior to CA Aaron, she sought to have Foster terminated from her employment while Foster was on medical leave.

COUNT 4

223. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Part 11(C) ( Misleading the Board ), Judge Domitrovich violated Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, in that her conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 224. By providing misleading and false answers to Board counsel's questions at the February 6, 2014 investigative deposition, Judge Domitrovich evidently sought to affect a particular result in a matter pending before the Board, i.e., her own case. 225. Such dishonest conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice In this Commonwealth.

COUNT 5 (A), (B), (C), (D)

226. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Part I, Judge pomitrovich violated Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that her conduct brings the judicial office into disrepute (Count 5(A)). 227. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Part 11(A), Judge Domitrovich violated Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that her conduct brings the judicial office into disrepute (Count 5(B)). 228. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Part 11(B), Judge Domitrovich violated Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that her conduct brings the judicial office into disrepute (Count 5(C)). 229. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Part 11(C), Judge Domitrovich violated Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that her conduct brings the judicial office into disrepute (Count 5(D)).

WHEREFORE, the Board asserts that Judge Domitrovich is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).

COUNT 6 (A)(1-8), (B), (C)

230. By virtue of some or all of the facts alleged at Parts I- III, Judge Domitrovich violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 231. Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, in pertinent part, the following:

Justices and judges shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law and shall not violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court.

232. Judge Domitrovich's violations of Canons 3(A)(3),(4), (B), and (C), set forth individually at Counts 1-3, each constitute an automatic, derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b) (Count 6(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8)). 233. Judge Domitrovich's violation of Article V, § 18(d)(1), set forth at Count 4, constitutes an automatic, derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b) (Count 6(B)). 234. Judge Domitrovich's violation of Article V, § 18(d)(1), set forth at Count 5, constitutes an automatic, derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b) (Count 6(C))

WHEREFORE, the Board asserts that Judge Domitrovich is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT A. GRACI, Chief Counsel

__________

BY: JAMES P. KLEMAN, JR., Deputy Counsel

Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 87637

Judicial Conduct Board

601 Commonwealth Avenue, Ste. 3500

P.O. Box 62525

Harrisburg, PA 17106

(717) 234-7911
IN RE: Stephanie Domitrovich Judge of the Court of Common Pleas Sixth Judicial District Erie County

1 JD 2014

VERIFICATION

I, James P. Kleman, Jr., Deputy Counsel to the Judicial Conduct Board, verify that the Judicial Conduct Board found probable cause to file the formal charges contained in this Board Complaint. I understand that the statements made in this Board Complaint are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Respectfully submitted,

__________

JAMES P. KLEMAN, JR., Deputy Counsel

Supreme Court ID No. 87637

Judicial Conduct Board

601 Commonwealth Avenue, Ste. 3500

P.O. Box 62525

Harrisburg, PA 17106

(717) 234-7911

Image materials not available for display.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

IN RE: HONORABLE STEPHANIE A. DOMITROVITCH

JCB File 2012-031

Deposition of: HON. STEPHANIE A. DOMITROVITCH

Taken by : James P. Kleman, Esquire

Before : Rhonda A. Adams, RMR, CMRS

Date : Thursday, February 6, 2014

Place :

Judicial Conduct Board

Pennsylvania Judicial Center

601 Commonwealth Avenue

Suite 3500

Harrisburg, PA 17106
APPEARANCES: JAMES P. KLEMAN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT A. GRACI, ESQUIRE
601 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0901

For - Judicial Conduct Board

Attachment 6

time, right?

A. She worked for the DRS office, answered phones. I don't know what else she did, but I think she did a lot of customer service type of work.

Q. Was she excited to take a position?

A. Excited in a good way or a bad way?

Q. In a good way. Was she interested in it?

A. Yes. In fact, she moved in right away. Once we talked about it, she brought all her furnishings, and yes, came in.

Q. Was your initial interview with her positive?

A. Yes. As I recall, yes, or else I wouldn't have had her come on board, yes. It was just a phone call. I'm sorry. It was just a phone call. We didn't go over her background or anything. I just knew about her and said come on up.

Q. There were problems that had surfaced with her employment, am I right in saying that?

MR. AMBROSE: Employment with the Judge? BY MR. KLEMAN:

Q. With the Judge, employment with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Why don't you tell me about those. What happened there?

A. First of all, there was some pornographic email that she was sending to people.

Q. When you say pornographic, what do you mean? Could you describe it?

A. A naked body of a woman in a bar and some gay bashing. 1 don't even understand the joke but that's what she was doing.

Q. Was this sent among court employees?

A. Yes, with my tag line.

Q. When did this happen?

A. All throughout when she was there. And there were chat rooms that she was in. She was also the head of a suicide watch program.

She had a child who died. She maintained and continued to maintain that she wanted to be president of this suicide watch. And the problem was she was taking calls there, in my office.

I tried to explain to her the Code of Judicial Conduct but it still continued. Rude jokes, things like that in the emails.

And then simultaneously to all this, because of her distraction, she is making many errors. 1 go to the personnel director and I explained, we have some issues, can you talk to her? I don't know what to do.

And then he says — do you have the letter? I sent her a letter, but 1 didn't want to send it. 1 said her and then I get a check and then I can send it in.

Q. Thank you, Judge.

Does Attorney Susmarski have any involvement in the substantive work of your chambers? Helping draft opinions, things like that?

A. No, sir.

Q. No?

A. No.

Q. I wanted to step back

A. I'm sorry. That's the role of the law clerk.

Q. Okay.

I wanted to go back to that meeting with Foster.

A. Yes.

Q. She was sitting down and where were you located?

A. I was ready to leave. There's no room. It's just right there. It's very small, a very small area and she's looking out the window. She's upset and I'm standing there.

Q. You were standing in front of her or around her?

A. To the side, yes, because I'm leaving. I'm on my way out. I had closed my door. I'm ready to leave. I'm going with my husband. IN RE: Stephanie Domitrovich Judge of the Court of Common Pleas Sixth Judicial District Erie County

1 JD 2014

PROOF OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 122(d) of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on July 7, 2014, a copy of this Board Complaint was sent by certified mail to Judge Domitrovich's counsel, Leonard G. Ambrose, III, Esquire, who agreed to accept service of this Board Complaint, at the following address:

Leonard G. Ambrose, III

Ambrose Law Firm

319 West Eighth Street

Erie, PA 16502

Certified Mail No. 7161 7145 5373 0150 1290
Return Receipt Requested

Respectfully submitted,

__________

JAMES P. KLEMAN, JR., Deputy Counsel

Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 87637

Judicial Conduct Board

601 Commonwealth Avenue, Ste. 3500

P.O. Box 62525

Harrisburg, PA 17106

(717) 234-7911
IN RE: Stephanie Domitrovich Judge of the Court of Common Pleas Sixth Judicial District Erie County

1 JD 2014

PROOF OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 122 of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on July 7, 2014, a copy of the Board's Petition For Interim Suspension With or Without Pay was sent by certified mail to Judge Domitrovich's counsel, Leonard G. Ambrose, III, Esquire at the following address:

Leonard G. Ambrose, III

Ambrose Law Firm

319 West Eighth Street

Erie, PA 16502

Certified Mail No. 7161 7145 5373 0150 1290
Return Receipt Requested

Respectfully submitted,

__________

James P. Kleman, Jr.

Deputy Counsel

Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 87637

Judicial Conduct Board

Pennsylvania Judicial Center

601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500

P.O. Box 62525

Harrisburg, PA 17106

(717) 234-7911

In re Domitrovich

Opinion

PETITION FOR RELIEF FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH OR WITHOUT PAY

1 JD 2014

IMPORTANT NOTICE

TO: STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH

Attachment A

COMPLAINT

A. Skalos v. Pierce, CV-12948-2006

B. In the Matter of the Estate of J.C., Orphans' Court No. 165 of

2011

c. In the Matter of the Estate of J.M., CV-289-2011

D. Linda Martz/Juliza Caban and K.S. v. A.C.T., 17074 of 2012

A. Sandra Foster

B. Stacy Rhoades

C. Misleading the Board at February 6, 2014 Deposition

COUNT 1 (A), (B) , (C), (D)

COUNT 2 (A), (B), (C)

COUNT 3

COUNT 4

COUNT 5 (A), (B), (C), (D)

COUNT 6 (A)(1-8), (B), (C)

1 JD 2014

VERIFICATION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

JCB File 2012-031

Attachment 6

1 JD 2014

PROOF OF SERVICE

Leonard G. Ambrose, III

Ambrose Law Firm

319 West Eighth Street

Erie, PA 16502

1 JD 2014

PROOF OF SERVICE

Leonard G. Ambrose, III

Ambrose Law Firm

319 West Eighth Street

Erie, PA 16502

In re Domitrovich

In re Domitrovich

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

**A. Skalos v. Pierce, CV-12948-2006**

**B. In the Matter of the Estate of J.C., Orphans' Court No. 165 of**

**c. In the Matter of the Estate of J.M., CV-289-2011**

**D. Linda Martz/Juliza Caban and K.S. v. A.C.T., 17074 of 2012**

Citations