Judge’s plan to decide traffic cases before hearing date ‘was not evil in nature,’ disciplinary court says

House
Day by day Information
Choose’s plan to determine site visitors circumstances earlier than…

Ethics

Choose’s plan to determine site visitors circumstances earlier than listening to date ‘was not evil in nature,’ disciplinary court docket says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 13, 2024, 9:56 am CDT

A Philadelphia municipal decide who dominated on 95 site visitors citations someday earlier than the listening to date violated only one ethics rule requiring diligent and competent efficiency of duties, the Pennsylvania Court docket of Judicial Self-discipline has dominated.

In its March 12 opinion, the disciplinary court docket mentioned the conduct by Choose Marissa J. Brumbach of the Philadelphia Municipal Court docket was not as dangerous as alleged by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, Legislation.com reviews.

“The preliminary report of the alleged misconduct on this case sounded a lot worse than what the precise proof confirmed,” the disciplinary court docket mentioned. “Choose Brumbach’s plan was not evil in nature, nor was it an tried abuse of energy for private acquire.”

Brumbach had dominated upfront as a result of she had plans to be in Florida on Jan. 7, 2022, the date when the circumstances had been scheduled, in accordance with the opinion. She had requested then-President Choose Patrick Dugan of the Philadelphia Municipal Court docket for the break day in November 2021 however by no means acquired a response till Jan. 6, 2022, after Brumbach notified the presiding decide of her advance-ruling plan in an e mail.

Brumbach’s e mail had requested whether or not Dugan had an alternate plan. He responded that “the choice plan is so that you can present up and deal with your listing,” and he had not licensed the break day.

Usually, witnesses didn’t seem in site visitors court docket. The decide dominated based mostly on data within the quotation, the disciplinary court docket mentioned.

Brumbach had knowledgeable her workers that if any defendants confirmed up in court docket, their circumstances had been to be continued.

Earlier than ruling within the circumstances, Brumbach had requested a prosecutor to evaluate them and determine whether or not to withdraw any of them.

Brumbach’s advance rulings had been to be carried out provided that there was no protection for Brumbach’s courtroom and if the court docket was not closed due to snow. Because it turned out, the court docket was certainly closed that due to the inclement climate, and there was certainly protection for Brumbach’s courtroom if the court docket had been open.

The defendants’ rights to be heard weren’t violated, the disciplinary board mentioned, as a result of the rulings had been just for circumstances during which the defendant failed to seem.

“There is no such thing as a proof that anybody was denied their rights, that anybody did not obtain a good trial, or that the federal government was denied due course of underneath the actual details of this case,” the opinion mentioned.

Dugan ought to have informed Brumbach whether or not her time-off request was accepted earlier than Jan. 6, 2022, the disciplinary court docket mentioned. And Brumbach shouldn’t have signed off on the case inclinations upfront.

The disciplinary court docket mentioned Dugan and Brumbach “have apparent issues with communication,” though the supply of the friction isn’t solely clear. The working relationship was so poor that Brumbach didn’t need Dugan to have any in-person communication along with her, the court docket mentioned.

Lawyer Matthew Haverstick represented Brumbach. He informed Legislation.com that he seen the choice as an general win that refuted a “actually overblown and overhyped” ethics grievance.

The disciplinary court docket opinion turns into remaining after a 10-day interval to lodge objections, Legislation.com explains. After that, a listening to on sanctions will occur.