Was the Pa. Court of Judicial Discipline promoting transparency or covering its tracks? |

Was the Pa. Court of Judicial Discipline promoting transparency or covering its tracks?

Colin McNickle

In a victory for transparency — or was it? — Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Jack Panella shut down a proposed plea bargain in the state Judicial Conduct Board's case against suspended Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin.

The justice, off the job with pay since last month and scheduled to stand trial before the board next month, has admitted trading 18 ribald or otherwise lewd emails. Eakin's emails were sent from a private account. But they became the public's business when they were shared with a friend in the state Attorney General's Office.

AG Kathleen Kane, awaiting trial on perjury and other charges, sicced the conduct board on Eakin, serving revenge cold; Eakin voted to suspend Ms. Kane's law license pending the outcome of her legal woes.

But Judge Panella, serving as the lead judge on the three-member state Court of Judicial Discipline, cited the significance of the case to the judiciary, the law profession and the public in rejecting the plea bargain. Which was curious considering it was the court that reportedly spearheaded the move to mediation in a decidedly hush-hush fashion.

From the bench, however, Panella disputed lawyers' assertions that the court drove the mediation attempt.

Thus, the plea deal rejection did not sit well with lawyers representing Eakin or the conduct board.

As of this writing, no one was giving up, for the record, what the plea deal entailed. But The Philadelphia Inquirer, citing “people familiar with” it, said the scuttled bargain involved Eakin admitting ethics rules violations “but ones that do not carry the penalty of removal from the bench or loss of a government pension.”

While Panella should be applauded for his stance — or should he be denounced for obliquely trying to cover the Court of Judicial Discipline's tracks? — he could have served transparency better by ordering the release of the plea deal.

For the public has every right to know what kind of deal was struck behind closed doors with the curtains drawn.

One of the more troubling aspects of the Eakin case wasn't precipitated by the justice at all but by the Judicial Conduct Board.

It filed a motion last week seeking the right to use against Eakin offending emails that he never opened. Those emails buttress a pattern of conduct unbecoming a judge because their content allegedly is similar to emails that Eakin did open, the board said.

Really? Can it get any more chilling than this? Think of the ramifications.

How many unsolicited, unsavory emails do all of us get in our inboxes every day? Are we to be judged by the content of our inboxes? Does sending such unopened emails to the trash with clicks of the delete button count for nada?

How soon will it be on this slippery slope that knowingly sending unopened dubious emails to the trash also makes us somehow culpable in certain behaviors? After all, by the Judicial Conduct Board's slippery standards, that might indicate not only a pattern but attempts to hide the pattern.

How Orwellian.

Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or [email protected]).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.