Pa. high court raps ex- justice’s stance over reprimand as attorney
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on Tuesday released a statement criticizing a former justice’s stance that she was unfairly reprimanded for her role as Penn
State University’s general counsel in the Jerry Sandusky child abuse investigation.
justices In a statement, who participated the four in her reprimand defended their position that Cynthia Baldwin, 75, of McKeesport, committed multiple breaches of “rules relating to attorney competence, conflicts of interest, client confidences and the administration of justice.”
The justices — Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, David Wecht and Sallie Mundy — also said they imposed than was a recommended lesser sentence by the disciplinary board because of Ms. Baldwin’s age and because she was no longer representing clients. At a news conference hosted by the Black Political Empowerment Project in late August, Ms. Baldwin called the disciplinary process against her “aberrant and corrupt” because she was reprimanded despite two Common Pleas court judges finding no issue that she represented both Penn State and three of the university’s administrators during the Sandusky investigation.
BPEP also requested an investigation into alleged remarks made by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor when he was still an associate justice.
Former Judge Barry Feudale, who presided over the grand jury investigation into Sandusky, alleged in an affidavit that then- Justice Saylor said Ms. Baldwin, who is Black, “caused us a lot of trouble on the Supreme Court with her minority agenda.”
The chief justice is facing an ethics inquiry from the Judicial Conduct Board regarding those allegations, which include he pressured Mr. Feudale to give him information about the grand jury investigation to support a disciplinary investigation into Ms. Baldwin.
Chief Justice Saylor confirmed that he spoke to Mr. Feudale about the grand jury but said the conversation was “entirely appropriate.” The chief justice has denied saying anything of a racial nature and called those accusations “false and offensive.”
He recused himself from the case against Ms. Baldwin and did not participate in the reprimand, with the court citing that he and Ms. Baldwin “shared service” on the bench.
The four justices, in their statement Tuesday, wrote, “Attorney Baldwin points now to the untested affidavit of a former senior judge regarding a disputed conversation with then- Justice Saylor more than seven years earlier, but she did not make that affidavit known to the justices who decided her case. Moreover, Chief Justice Saylor did not participate in the decision of her case.”
They also wrote that Ms. Baldwin “has seen fit to cast blame for her problems on everyone else involved in her case, including the Disciplinary Board, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Superior Court and the individual clients. Attorney Baldwin’s failure to take responsibility for her errors now continues after she received her sanction.”
Ms. Baldwin took issue with that characterization and said the court was trying to change the narrative.
“This is no longer about me. It’s about the affidavit and the allegations in the affidavit,” she said.
Ms. Baldwin also said she was “shocked that the Supreme Court felt the need” to issue a statement.
“They are well aware, as I am, that the outcome of the court cannot be changed,” she said.
She reiterated that her problem with her disciplinary process was that there were no complainants or fact witnesses who testified against her.
“If the allegations [ against Chief Justice Saylor] are true, it shows vindictiveness and bias on behalf of the chief justice,” she said. “Let the Judicial Conduct Board complete its investigation.”