Judiciary

JCB's Proposed Rule Change Applauded for 'Transparency'

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 2 Comments

The state's Judicial Conduct Board has proposed a rule change to strip its chief counsel of the ability to determine whether anonymous complaints warrant full investigations without consulting the board's members.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • A Victim

    These "changes" we keep reading about are laughable. The JCB is corrupt. How many corrupt judges do we have in PA that the Board is ignoring? We have corruption from top to bottom in the state. Corbett ignored it when he was AG, and he'll ignore it now that he's governor (until the next election when he'll take a sudden interest in one big case.)

  • Larry Hohol

    The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Should Be Investigated I have a great idea. How about an in-depth investigation into the entire Judicial Conduct Board? The JCB gave no less than 5 reasons as to why they did not act on the Conahan Complaint as they are “REQUIRED” to do by their own rules. All 5 explanations turned out to be misstatements of facts. There was a time when we called misstatements of facts, “Lies”. The fact of the matter was during the timeframe in question, the JCB was very, very busy removing a Judge from office that was believed to be the author of the anonymous complaint against Conahan. Low and behold, who were the two highest profile witnesses to testify against this Judge but Ex-Judge Conahan and newly convicted Felon-Judge Ciavarella. Did I mention that the Chairman of the JCB at that time was business partners with Ex-Judge Conahan in two different Businesses? I also think I failed to mention the fact that the son of Former Supreme Court Chief Justice owned 50f the juvenile prison at the center of the “Kids for Cash” scandal. This whole cover up MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL! Where are the Pennsylvania Legislators on this one? Sign me: Larry Hohol, Author- The Luzerne County Railroad

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202486830641

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.