From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Toothman

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
Jun 22, 2020
No. 1 JD 2020 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Jun. 22, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1 JD 2020

06-22-2020

IN RE: President Judge Farley Toothman Court of Common Pleas 13th Judicial District Greene County


OMNIBUS VERIFIED PRETRIAL MOTION AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY INTO THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM

President , by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully presents this Omnibus Verified Pretrial Motion and Request for Entry into the Judicial Diversion Program in accordance with Rule 411 of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure. In support of his Motion and Request, Judge Toothman states as follows:

Introduction and Background

1. In January 2009, Judge Toothman was nominated to fill a vacancy on the Greene County bench.

2. Prior to his nomination, Judge Toothman did not have significant courtroom experience, although he was a hard worker and highly involved in his community and local government, serving as a County Solicitor for seven years and having served on the Board of County Commissioners for two terms.

3. At the time of Judge Toothman's investiture in July 2009, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts ("AOPC") "Judge School" was not available to him because he took the bench outside of the municipal election cycle.

4. Moreover, in 2009, continuing judicial education was not required.

5. Many years later, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed a program of Continuing Judicial Education (CJE) effective as of January 1, 2017. The stated purpose of CJE was to assure that judges have and maintain the requisite knowledge and skill to fulfill their judicial responsibilities. See, CJE Rule 102.

No. 719 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Docket.

6. Also, in 2016, the Court of Judicial Discipline explored implementation of a permanent Judicial Diversion Program, as originally established by this Court in In re Domitrovich, No. 1 JD 14 (2016). As explained in the Interim Policy Statement: "The purpose of the Program is to improve the quality of the judiciary by providing, mentoring, educational, remedial and rehabilitative programs for judicial officers." (Interim Policy Stmt., Exh. A).

7. From the above, it is clear that around the same time frame as the events complained of in the Complaint, approximately 2015 to early 2018, education and mentorship were just emerging as approved and/or mandated ideas to improve the quality of the judiciary. Prior to that, the judges were on their own.

8. Judge Toothman's service occurs in a rural county.

9. At the time of Judge Toothman's appointment and continuing thereafter, the Greene County Court faced multiple operational challenges, such as disharmony between the Commissioners and the Court, a change in the Sheriff with no certified Constables to serve what was a backlog of 4,700 delinquent warrants and other paperwork, lax procedures to protect confidentiality in respect to the work of the Court, and concerns over the accuracy of records management. There were also vacancies in the magisterial bench, impacting the ability to process cases and resulting in the Judge presiding in that role for a period of time.

10. What is described herein are just some of the operational administrative issues facing Judge Toothman for which he had no training or experience in managing as a President Judge.

11. In 2018, the AOCP received a complaint regarding Judge Toothman's treatment of staff employed by Greene County, which included allegations that duplicate certain allegations in this matter. Following a thorough investigation by the AOCP, the investigator stated that it was clear that the Judge believed he "confronted a judicial district in significant need of operational reform[.]" (Letr. 9/17/18, Exh. B ). However, the Judge's personal management style was deemed counter-productive to achieving the success that the Judge desired. (Id.)

Redacted to preserve confidentiality.

12. As a result of the AOCP's investigation, and consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's new focus on mentoring and education, the AOPC investigator recommended a peer advisor and multiple educational courses for Judge Toothman. (Id.).

13. Judge Toothman welcomed and embraced the AOCP's recommendations.

14. The Honorable Jolene Grubb Kopriva was appointed to assume the role of a peer advisor. Judge Toothman then worked with his peer advisor and the AOPC to select courses, as recommended. Judge Toothman completed two recommended courses by mid-November 2018, and reported his progress back to the AOPC. The Judge is scheduled to attend another class, "Special Consideration for the Rural Court Judge" at an upcoming National Judicial College in September 2020.

The Judge reported: ". . . I passed with a score of 97.4%. I learned some good tips and have been putting them to work . . . for the better!" (Letr 11/18/18, Exh. C).

15. This background is provided as context for consideration of the relief requested in this Motion, in particular, the Motion for Admission to the Judicial Diversion Program, as an extension of the education and mentoring that Judge Toothman has already embraced to improve his skills as both a judge and administrator.

16. To avoid redundancy, this Introduction and Background is incorporated into each individual motions below.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE WEBSTER MATTER AS NO VIOLATION OF THE LAW OCCURRED WHEN THE JUDGE CLOSED THE COURTROOM TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT TWO CHILDREN.

17. Rule 411 provides that the Judicial Officer may challenge the validity of the charges on the basis that the facts charged do not constitute misconduct. C.J.D.R.P. 411(D)(1).

18. Judge Toothman's decision-making in connection with the Webster Matter does not constitute misconduct.

19. Paragraphs 60 through 64 of the Complaint aver that on April 2, 2018, while Judge Toothman was presiding over a hearing on a Petition for Protection from Abuse (PFA) in the Webster Matter, he closed the hearing to everyone but the participants. It is alleged that the defense counsel questioned his legal authority, but no party objected.

20. In connection with the Webster Matter, the Board charges that Judge Toothman failed to comply with the law, in violation of Cannon 1, Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Cmplt. ¶79).

21. The Board furthermore charges that Judge Toothman failed to perform his duties competently, in violation of Cannon 2, Rule 2.5(A). (Cmplt. ¶91).

22. The closure of the court was not a violation of any law or duties. None has been cited in the Complaint.

23. Judge Toothman is mindful of the presumption of openness of the Courts arising out of the United States Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the constitutional and common law presumption of openness are not absolute and must be carefully weighed against privacy concerns.

24. Article 9 and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution specifically address the concept of keeping courts open to the public. Article 9 provides that a criminal defendant has a right to a public trial. Article 11 more generally provides: "All courts shall be open[.]"

25. Article 9 is not applicable to a PFA proceeding, which is not criminal in nature. A PFA proceeding is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. See, Pa.R.C.P. 1901 et seq.

26. Even though Article 9 is inapplicable, its interpretation is nevertheless instructive here, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held: "[T]he right to a public trial is not absolute; rather, it must be considered in relationship to other important interests." Commonwealth v. Knight, 364 A.2d 902, 906 (1976).

In considering such other interests, a court must assess all of the circumstances to determine if they present a situation in which an exclusion order is necessary. If the court determines a necessity exists, it may then issue an exclusion order; but the exclusion order must be fashioned to effectuate protection of the important interest without unduly infringing upon the accused's right to a public trial either through its scope or duration. Id.

27. The Knight case is particularly instructive, as it involved a minor witness who had suffered and was still suffering emotional trauma. It was apparent to the trial court that the minor was under a great deal of emotional stress. Under such circumstances, the trial court was held not to have abused its discretion in issuing an exclusion order. Id. at 907.

28. Like Knight, in the Webster Matter, two children of impressionable age were in the courtroom listening to and potentially providing testimony on the topic of abuse. One pre-teen girl was emotionally traumatized to the point of wetting her bed. These special circumstances warranted an exception to the constitutional requirement of an open court.

29. The "open court" mandate of Article 11 is not absolute. See, R.W. v. Hampe, 626 A.2d 1218, 1221 (Pa. Super. 1993)(a party may rebut the presumption of openness, and obtain closure of judicial proceedings and records for "good cause.").

30. For example, divorce cases present an exception to the general rule of openness, precisely because the issues frequently involve emotional accusations and testimony, which if published, could serve only to embarrass and humiliate the litigants. Katz v. Katz, 514 A.2d 1374, 1379 (1986).

31. For similar reasons, the Juvenile Act provides that "the general public shall be excluded from hearings under this Chapter," for the salutary reasons of protecting the privacy interests of minors." 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6336(d).

32. Judge Toothman's legal references in support of his decision-making, such as the Unified Judicial System Access Policy were not inapplicable, as the Complaint avers (Cmplt. ¶64). To the contrary, the Unified Judicial System Access Policy itself serves to further illustrate that the right to "open courts" is not absolute, but that a balancing of openness and privacy must occur.

33. As yet another example, in the context of a civil trial, a trial judge may regulate or exclude the public or persons in the interest of the "public good, order or morals." Pa.R.C.P. 223. The Note to Rule 223 provides further: "Trial courts in Pennsylvania customarily exercise discretion as to the exclusion of persons from the courtroom in the interest of good order and morals."

34. Before subjecting Judge Toothman to potential discipline, the Board must establish that a violation occurred. As a threshold legal issue, the Board must establish that the public has a constitutional right to be present to hear sensitive testimony involving minors and an abusive family relationship, including testimony that a pre-teenage girl wets her bed as an emotional response to the domestic turmoil in her life.

35. Although counsel questioned whether the courtroom could be closed, no one objected. No one appealed. No press sought access. No member of the public sought access or was removed. No participant in the proceeding was excluded. The record was not sealed. Rather, the children were protected—for good cause shown, fully consistent with the Constitutional balancing test established by case law.

When interviewed by the Judicial Conduct Board, Attorney Adam Belletti, one of the attorneys involved in the Webster case, was unaware of anything that occurred in the case that would prompt an investigation of the Judge.

36. To the extent that a lawyer or an appellate Judge might disagree with Judge Toothman's decision in balancing the privacy of the children with Constitutional mandates, that is the reason why appeals are taken, such that the parameters of Constitutional law can be reviewed by the appellate courts, set future precedent and guide the entire judiciary.

37. Judge Toothman's decision does not warrant discipline for violation of the law when no such violation has clearly been or can be established.

38. Under the circumstances, it cannot be shown that Judge Toothman violated the Constitution or any other established statutory law or precedential case law.

39. Therefore, Judge Toothman asks that all allegations against him pertaining to the Webster Matter be dismissed.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE LOCAL RULE MODIFICATION AS THE RULE WAS NOT MODIFIED AND NO VIOLATION OF THE LAW OCCURRED.

40. Rule 411 provides that the Judicial Officer may challenge the validity of the charges on the basis that the facts charged do not constitute misconduct. C.J.D.R.P. 411(D)(1).

41. The Complaint avers in paragraphs 65 through 73 that Judge Toothman did not comply with Pa.R.J.A 103 when he modified Green County Local Rule 1920.51.

42. The Complaint avers that the modification of a local rule was a violation of law. (Cmplt. ¶80).

43. The Complaint furthermore avers that modification of a local rule constituted a failure to perform his administrative duties competently. (Cmplt. ¶92).

44. The factual premise of these allegations is incorrect. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that the text of the Local Rule never changed between 2000 (the time of its promulgation) through 2019. When the Local Rule was to be changed in 2020, the proper process was followed.

45. Prior to 2020, Judge Toothman merely interpreted the Local Rule in such a way as to ensure that the purpose of the Local Rule was fulfilled.

46. Specifically, per the Rule, an additional filing fee was collected and intended to be utilized if an impoverished family law litigant could not afford to pay the stenographer. The Rule was rarely invoked, leading to an accumulation of unused funds. The Judge desired to ensure that the funds collected were used properly and also, properly held by a financial institution.

47. Assuming arguendo that the Local Rule can be considered to have been modified, no law was violated in doing so.

48. And, assuming arguendo that the Local Rule can be considered to have been modified, no incompetency can be shown.

49. A court has broad powers in construing its own rules, which includes the power to suspend a rule when such action is not prejudicial to the other party. Curran v. James Regulator Co., 36 A.2d 187, 188 (1944)(holding that the common pleas court had broad authority to suspend the application of its local rules to open a default judgment).

50. No party was prejudiced by Judge Toothman's actions.

51. Consistent with the guidance of Curran, supra, Rule 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure teaches: "The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." (italics supplied).

52. Further, the Judicial Code provides: "The provisions of this title shall be construed so as to vest in the unified judicial system and in the personnel of the system power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the proper execution and administration of their functions within the scope of their respective jurisdiction." 42 Pa.C.S. § 103.

53. Judge Toothman's actions demonstrated no violation of the law or incompetency. Further, his actions demonstrated that he was performing his administrative functions in interpreting and implementing the Local Rule, protecting litigants and also the fund itself, which was entirely consistent with the intended purpose of the Rule.

54. In sum, Judge Toothman's actions were fully consistent with the concept of judicial administration and did not, in any manner, bring the judiciary into disrepute.

55. Therefore, Judge Toothman asks that all allegations against him pertaining to the alleged Modification of Local Court Rules be dismissed.

III. MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFICITY AS TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW

56. Rule 411 provides that the Judicial Officer may challenge the validity of the charges on the basis that the charges do not provide sufficient notice of the allegations to be defended against. C.J.D.R.P. 411(D)(4).

57. Judge Toothman seeks more specificity as to the Webster Matter and the Kiger Matter as outlined below.

A. Webster Matter

58. In connection with the Webster Matter, Judge Toothman is accused of violating the law by not performing his duties competently. (Cmplt. ¶79). The Complaint does not aver what law was violated or how he was incompetent.

59. For the reasons explained above, Judge Toothman does not believe that his actions violated the U.S. or Pennsylvania Constitution or any other law.

60. The Complaint alleges that the Judge has subsequently provided inapplicable non-statutory sources to support his act of closing the PFA hearing. (Cmplt. ¶64).

61. While the Board finds the Judge's authority inapplicable, the Board's Complaint has not provided any contrary authority, nor revealed the specific statute or case law that he is to have violated. It is not Judge Toothman's burden to prove that no law was violated.

62. Judge Toothman's demeanor is not alleged to be at issue in connection with the Webster Matter, only a failure to comply with the law, pled in generic fashion.

63. At the time of his deposition, Judge Toothman raised this same issue: "If this is wrong, please let me know." (Cmplt. 63). He received no response then and no more clarity in the Complaint.

64. Therefore, Judge Toothman asks for more specificity as to what particular law that he is accused to have violated in connection with the Webster matter, not only so that he can defend himself in this matter, but to ensure that it does not recur.

B. Kiger Matter

65. A similar deficiency in the Complaint arises in connection with the allegations in connection with the Kiger Matter.

66. The Complaint alleges that Judge Toothman "failed to comply with the law when he failed to treat both parties fairly and impartially, failed to require order and decorum, and failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to the litigants . . . ." (Cmplt. ¶78).

67. Judge Toothman cannot be certain from the Complaint whether it is solely his decorum that is at issue, which appears to be the case, or if he has been charged with failure to comply with an actual law.

68. If some actual law has been violated, Judge Toothman wishes to know which one, again, not only so that he can defend himself in this matter, but so that it does not recur.

69. Therefore, Judge Toothman seeks more specificity in respect to whether he is being accused of violating a specific law in relation to the Kiger Matter.

IV. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR VIOLATION OF A PROCEDURE REQUIRING CONFIDENTIALITY IN RESPECT TO CONDUCT BOARD INVESTIGATIONS

70. Rule 411 provides that the Judicial Officer may challenge the validity of the charges on the basis of a violation of a Board procedure. C.J.D.R.P. 411(D)(3).

71. Judge Toothman and the undersigned counsel discovered docketed references to the Conduct Board Investigation that were available to the general public.

72. The Conduct Board Investigation is confidential.

73. Judge Toothman has not waived confidentiality. To the contrary, the undersigned counsel brought this breach of confidentiality to the attention of the Board, both verbally and in writing, requesting action to remedy the breach of confidentiality.

74. Upon information and belief, no action has been taken by the Board.

75. Therefore, Judge Toothman seeks dismissal of the Complaint or other appropriate remedy to preserve the confidentiality to which he is entitled during the Conduct Board Investigation.

V. MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF LACHES.

76. Rule 411 provides that the Judicial Officer may challenge the validity of the charges on any legal ground. C.J.D.R.P. 411(D). Accordingly, Judge Toothman raises the doctrine of laches and mootness as a bar to the entire Complaint.

77. All of the averments in the Complaint against Judge Toothman pertain to conduct that occurred in the general time frame of between 2015 and early 2018.

78. "Outdated assertions of misconduct are rendered voidable by the doctrine of laches, a defense available in a disciplinary proceeding." In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297, 310 (Pa. Cmwith. 1997); In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct. Jud. Disc. 2008).

79. Here, the alleged local rule modification occurred on three separate occasions, in 2015, 2016 and early 2018. To the extent that it is averred that the Judge modified a local rule without compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, the issue could have and should have been first raised immediately in 2015. To the extent there was any improper modification at all, which is denied (and discussed further above), its repetition could have been avoided if brought to the Judge's attention on a timely basis 5 years ago.

80. The underlying incidents in the remaining Counts of the Complaint are also dated. The Kiger Matter occurred in June 2017. The McCarty Matter occurred in September 2017. The Pellegrini Matter occurred in January 2018. The Webster Matter occurred in April 2018.

81. All matters have been under some form of investigation now for approximately 2 years, both before the AOPC as well as the Judicial Conduct Board.

82. The interest of promoting confidence in and the quality of the judiciary are not promoted by proceeding to a hearing based on stale claims that have already been examined and addressed by the AOPC.

83. The matters are unrelated. No pattern or repetitive misconduct is established.

84. Moreover, in respect to what is potentially the most serious charge, the McCarty Matter, Judge Toothman's defense is prejudiced by the passage of time.

For instance, when deposed in January 2020, over 2 1/4 years after the incident, Judge Toothman had difficulty recalling the specifics of his interaction with the store personnel and police, stating several times that he simply could not remember. (J. Toothman Depo. at 101-102, Exh. D (Redacted to Preserve Confidentiality)). --------

85. "Laches bars relief when the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in failing to timely institute an action results in prejudice to another." Comm. Ex rel. Pennsylvania Attorney General Corbett v. Griffin, 946 A.2d 668, 676, 677 (Pa. 2008).

86. Furthermore, to the extent there is a concern as to the Judge's management style from approximately 2016 to early 2018, in the past 2 years Judge Toothman has worked cooperatively with his peer advisor and others to address those concerns, rendering further disciplinary action cumulative.

87. In light of the forgoing, the incidents at issue are outdated, stale and moot. Again, the conduct at issue has not been repeated.

88. Judge Toothman did nothing to contribute to any delay in reporting or investigating.

89. Therefore, Judge Toothman respectfully respects that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety on the basis of laches and mootness.

VI. MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM

90. Finally, to the extent the Complaint is not dismissed, Judge Toothman seeks admission into the Judicial Diversion Program established by this Court in In re Domitrovich, No. 1 JD 14 (2016).

91. Judge Toothman has no prior imposition of discipline.

92. The Complaint does not contain allegations of criminal charges, corruption or other conduct where the presumptive sanction is suspension or removal.

93. The Complaint pertains to incidents involving Judge Toothman's on-bench judicial temperament, his alleged incorrect application of the law, the perception of unfairness to litigants and his administrative decision-making.

94. At all times, Judge Toothman believed that his actions advanced the goals of the court, such as: a) promoting confidentiality given the unsupervised access of janitors to judicial offices and courtrooms; b) addressing the lack of enforcement against a habitual criminal offender; c) protecting vulnerable minor witnesses; d) inquiring about the prior fairness and circumstances by which a represented husband may have taken advantage of an unrepresented wife in presenting an uncontested motion; and e) ensuring that a the local rule was implemented as intended.

95. The Judge reaped no personal benefit from any of the actions at issue in this matter. Nor was that the Judge's desire.

96. In addition to the Introduction and Background Section above, Judge Toothman asks that the following additional information be also considered.

97. Specifically, in terms of Judge Toothman's Administration, he has:

• Implemented "One Court" Pretrial and Enforcement Policies of MDJ & CCP
• Implemented an Institutional Independence Project
• Implemented AOPC Model: Privacy of Offices
• Negotiated Confidentiality Agreements with County union personnel
• Initiated and Implemented Courthouse "At the Door" Access Security
• Implemented "Cellphone Use" Policy
• Implemented Website Administration at DCA Office / Website access to Online "pro se" Documents
• Formalized "Annual Investiture" of Elected Officials
• Formalized "Law Day" w/High School participation
• Created Standard Practice for Constable certification
• Implemented Courthouse Mailing Station to conform with Service Rules
• Implemented "Judicial Library" paper & digital format.
• Reformed personnel documents & hiring practices
• Implemented monitoring of Greene County ACT 13 GasFee - Judicial
• Implemented "Warrant" Issuance, Outstanding Management.
• Implemented & Monitor "Case File Privacy" Policies
• Implemented "online" access to Criminal & (now) Civil Cases & dockets
• Implemented "statistical review" policies.
• Implemented new Notice Requirements for Retirement Board
• Implemented quarterly "Board of Judges" meetings
• Implement quarterly "Safety and Security" meetings
• Rewrote "Local Rules" (last re-write 25 years earlier)
• Initiated "Certified Mediation" option
• Implemented "OneCourt" reform of "Community Service" Program of MDJ & CCP
• Implemented "Centralized Booking Center"
• Implemented a "Specialty Drug Court" and Re-entry Job Training Partnerships
• Implemented 3 Year Oversight Contract between CYS & American Bar Association
• Implemented Update of Continuity of Operations Plan, & lead Covid-19 response
• Implemented reform of Orphans Court docket & reporting.

98. In terms of Judge Toothman's community involvement and outreach, he has been highly involved in supporting numerous events to inform, educate and empower Greene County citizens on issues involving: 1) drug use; 2) the reduction of drug related deaths; 3) employment challenges facing persons with a criminal record; and 4) mental health issues in the community.

99. A more detailed sampling of Judge Toothman's positive contributions to the Court and community is attached as Exhibit E.

100. Judge Toothman recognizes that his accomplishments, both within the court system and in the community at large, are in large part attributable to the involvement, support and dedication of many other individuals. This attests to the Judge's ability and strong desire to work with others to accomplish goals that benefit everyone in Greene County.

101. Although Judge Toothman maintains there are defenses as to the violations alleged, he is willing and eager to participate in a Judicial Diversion Program which will allow him to improve further as a judge and administrator and, more generally, a community leader. He has already embraced and implemented the prior recommendations of the AOPC, and will implement and adapt to any additional recommendations if he is afforded the privilege of admission to the Program.

WHEREFORE, Judge Toothman respectfully requests that the Court afford him the privilege of admission to the Judicial Diversion Program, to schedule a hearing on such request as may be appropriate, and to defer final disciplinary proceedings until completion of the Program.

Respectfully,

WEINHEIMER, HABER & COCO, P.C.

/s/_________

Bethann R. Lloyd, Esquire

PA Atty. I.D. 77385

brl@whc-pc.com

/s/_________

Amy J. Coco, Esquire

PA Atty. I.D. 73416

ajc@whc-pc.com

602 Law & Finance Building

429 Fourth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1503

412-765-3399

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that required filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

Submitted by: Counsel on behalf of President

Judge Farley Toothman

Signature: __________

Name: Bethann R. Lloyd, Esq.

Attorney ID No. 77385

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

In re Toothman

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
Jun 22, 2020
No. 1 JD 2020 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Jun. 22, 2020)
Case details for

In re Toothman

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: President Judge Farley Toothman Court of Common Pleas 13th Judicial…

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

Date published: Jun 22, 2020

Citations

No. 1 JD 2020 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Jun. 22, 2020)