High Court Must Put McCaffery Referral Fee Issue to Rest

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 1 Comments

There is an ethical cloud hanging over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving referral fees received from law firms by Lise Rapaport, Justice Seamus McCaffery's wife and chief aide and clerk. The existence of the fees has been public since this paper exposed it several years ago. Recently, The Philadelphia Inquirer published additional information about the referral fees. No one in any official capacity has taken any action. The facts are troubling and places the Supreme Court in a bad light. It must be put to rest.

This content has been archived.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

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® 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 LexisAdvance®. 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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

  • Mark Turbin

    Why? Is "the supreme court" of Pennsylvania ignorant of the rules by which it must abide? Twice this article points out, "there is a strong appearance of impropriety and McCaffery's impartiality may be questioned under the circumstances." "An ethical cloud," hangs over the court. By definition there is already a case against McCaffery and Rapaport.

    Your solution stinks, no offense. "The facts" ultimately are irrelevant! There is the appearance of hanky-panky. The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges should recuse themselves from a matter when "their impartiality might be questioned." Clearly, the matter in this case is questioned (not even maybe baby) and they should (and did) know perfectly well it would be. Our Highest Court has been engaged in a pattern of willful misconduct. What is the penalty?

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

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202608228607

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.