Judge's plan to decide traffic cases before hearing date 'was not evil in nature,' disciplinary court says
A Philadelphia municipal judge who ruled on 95 traffic citations one day before the hearing date violated just one ethics rule requiring diligent and competent performance of duties, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline has ruled. (Image from Shutterstock)
A Philadelphia municipal judge who ruled on 95 traffic citations one day before the hearing date violated just one ethics rule requiring diligent and competent performance of duties, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline has ruled.
In its March 12 opinion, the disciplinary court said the conduct by Judge Marissa J. Brumbach of the Philadelphia Municipal Court was not as bad as alleged by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, Law.com reports.
“The initial report of the alleged misconduct in this case sounded much worse than what the actual evidence showed,” the disciplinary court said. “Judge Brumbach’s plan was not evil in nature, nor was it an attempted abuse of power for personal gain.”
Brumbach had ruled in advance because she had plans to be in Florida on Jan. 7, 2022, the date when the cases were scheduled, according to the opinion. She had asked then-President Judge Patrick Dugan of the Philadelphia Municipal Court for the day off in November 2021 but never received a response until Jan. 6, 2022, after Brumbach notified the presiding judge of her advance-ruling plan in an email.
Brumbach’s email had asked whether Dugan had an alternate plan. He responded that “the alternative plan is for you to show up and handle your list,” and he had not authorized the day off.
Typically, witnesses did not appear in traffic court. The judge ruled based on information in the citation, the disciplinary court said.
Brumbach had informed her staff that if any defendants showed up in court, their cases were to be continued.
Before ruling in the cases, Brumbach had asked a prosecutor to review them and decide whether to withdraw any of them.
Brumbach’s advance rulings were to be implemented only if there was no coverage for Brumbach’s courtroom and if the court was not closed because of snow. As it turned out, the court was indeed closed that because of the inclement weather, and there was indeed coverage for Brumbach’s courtroom if the court had been open.
The defendants’ rights to be heard were not violated, the disciplinary board said, because the rulings were only for cases in which the defendant failed to appear.
“There is no evidence that anyone was denied their rights, that anyone failed to receive a fair trial, or that the government was denied due process under the particular facts of this case,” the opinion said.
Dugan should have told Brumbach whether her time-off request was approved before Jan. 6, 2022, the disciplinary court said. And Brumbach should not have signed off on the case dispositions in advance.
The disciplinary court said Dugan and Brumbach “have obvious problems with communication,” although the source of the friction isn’t entirely clear. The working relationship was so poor that Brumbach did not want Dugan to have any in-person communication with her, the court said.
Lawyer Matthew Haverstick represented Brumbach. He told Law.com that he viewed the decision as an overall win that refuted a “really overblown and overhyped” ethics complaint.
The disciplinary court opinion becomes final after a 10-day period to lodge objections, Law.com explains. After that, a hearing on sanctions will happen.
