Justice

Pennsylvania is home to the first Supreme Court (it preceded the US Supreme Court by 67 years). For many years, it was considered one of the most respected state appellate courts.

The court is in the news because one of its members, Justice Ronald Castille, has challenged the right of an outspoken critic of the court, to voice his views. As the Pittsbugh Post-Gazette explained, Law professor keeping heat on Supreme Court:

Tension is thick between the state Supreme Court justice who wrote last year's opinion upholding judicial pay raises and a prominent critic of the state judiciary, Bruce Ledewitz of the Duquesne University School of Law.

Another Post-Gazette piece, Justice, law prof in spat over comments, described the dispute:

Their heightening differences came to light this morning during a hearing on a bill that would prevent state judges from receiving automatic raises every time federal judges got a pay raise.

Discussion on the bill in the State Government Committee was sidelined after Mr. Ledewitz told senators that Justice Ronald D. Castille threatened to take him to the judicial Disciplinary Board for calling him corrupt and calling the pay-raise decision a "judicial swindle."

The threat, Mr. Ledewitz said, came in a letter sent to another Duquesne professor. It accuses Mr. Ledewitz of violating a provision of the attorneys' code of professional conduct that prevents lawyers from knowingly making false statements about a judge's qualifications or integrity, said Mr. Ledewitz . . . .

Mr. Ledewitz said his statements were not false and, even if they were, criticism of the courts is protected under the First Amendment. He has said the court had a corrupt motive when it allowed judges to keep their raises -- which ranged from 11 percent to 15 percent -- even after raises had been repealed for other state officials.

"Bending the law to suit your own self interest is what I meant by corruption. I'm not accusing them of taking bribes, and I don't think anyone thought I was," he told reporters after the hearing.

Mr. Ledewitz said the letter was meant to intimidate him and, possibly, to keep him from testifying on judicial pay before the Judiciary Committee . . . .

The Inquirer, in Supreme rebuke for lawyer who took on Pa. high court, added:

It's not unusual for a lawyer to criticize a judge. If that criticism is considered to be over the line, the lawyer can face sanctions. However, it's considered rare for a member of the high court to strike back.

* * * *

Ledewitz, whose critical commentaries have appeared in newspapers across the state, told the Beaver County Times in February that the high court was "more corrupt than the legislature" for having thrown out the General Assembly's mid-term 2005 pay raise while protecting judges' raises. Ledewitz called that ruling a swindle.

Castille, the author of that decision, responded in a March 22 letter to one of Ledewitz's Duquesne law school colleagues in Pittsburgh, accusing Ledewitz of violating lawyers' rules of professional conduct and suggesting that the professor be sanctioned.

* * * *

In an interview yesterday, Castille said Ledewitz had made "baseless charges of criminal misconduct" against the court.

"It's shocking to think about a law professor accusing the Supreme Court of criminal conduct," said Castille.

Castille said he would not release a copy of his letter to Gormley, but read a portion of it to a reporter.

"While these statements may be the personal opinion of your colleague, they are charges an attorney cannot make against the Supreme Court and its members without subjecting that attorney to possible sanctions from the Disciplinary Board" of the Supreme Court, the letter said. "The charges appear to me to be clear violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and, therefore, worthy of the board's attention."

Castille said he had not filed a complaint with the board but did not rule out doing so.

"I could do it. I haven't done it. I think he should apologize to the citizens of the state for slandering the court," the justice said.

Under the state constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline. Members of the Disciplinary Board are appointed by the court.

So under this theory of law, an attorney can protect free speech rights of others by representing them in court when a First Amendment claim is alleged (even if that individual had said the very same things that Ledewitz said), but the attorney himself does not enjoy those same rights when it concerns the court? That would be the rule if Castille's view prevailed.

I don't know Ledewitz, but I am an alum of Duquesne Law School and would not exactly call it a hot bed of radical liberal thought. When I attended the school, I would have categorized it as espousing moderate to conservative leanings. While I can't speak for its politics today, I wouldn't be surprised if it were much the same.

For example, I recently received an invitation to the Carol Los Mansmann award to be given to Justice Samuel Alito by Duquesne (which is the event that precipitated the letter from Castille). I respected Judge Mansmann, who was a law school professor of mine and was first appointed to the bench when I was a law clerk, but Alito is something else! I just rolled my eyes when I saw that he was getting a "Distinguished Public Service Award." Distinguished isn't exactly the word that I'd use to describe him, see Alito is All That.

And then there's Castille (who used to live a block away from me when I resided in East Falls). He has been in the news before. He was a former DA in Philly and has been mentioned as part of that office's problems with charges of selectively purging of blacks from juries. See, Rigged Justice, which notes that a training video produced by then DA Ron Castille, was used to teach new prosecutors tricks on how to remove blacks from juries without getting caught.

And there's the infamous Philly Mumia Abu-Jamal case -- the convicted cop killer whose case has been the subject of controversy for many years. Castille has a connection to that case, and his role has contributed to the claims that Mumia did not receive fair treatment, because he serve as a chief prosecutor on the direct appeal, and later sat as an appellate judge on the same case, but did not recuse himself. See
Classical Values.

Of course, I won't say what I really think of him -- I might get in trouble for expressing my opinion.

Tags: Civil Liberties, Law, Pennsylvania