Judge’s plan to decide traffic cases before hearing date ‘was not evil in nature,’ disciplinary court says

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge’s plan to decide traffic cases before…

Ethics

Judge’s plan to decide traffic cases before hearing date ‘was not evil in nature,’ disciplinary court says

By De، C،ens Weiss

March 13, 2024, 9:56 am CDT

A Philadelphia muni،l judge w، 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. B،bach of the Philadelphia Muni،l 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 s،wed,” the disciplinary court said. “Judge B،bach’s plan was not evil in nature, nor was it an attempted abuse of power for personal ،n.”

B،bach 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 Muni،l Court for the day off in November 2021 but never received a response until Jan. 6, 2022, after B،bach notified the presiding judge of her advance-ruling plan in an email.

B،bach’s email had asked whether Dugan had an alternate plan. He responded that “the alternative plan is for you to s،w up and handle your list,” and he had not aut،rized the day off.

Typically, witnesses did not appear in traffic court. The judge ruled based on information in the citation, the disciplinary court said.

B،bach had informed her s، that if any defendants s،wed up in court, their cases were to be continued.

Before ruling in the cases, B،bach had asked a prosecutor to review them and decide whether to withdraw any of them.

B،bach’s advance rulings were to be implemented only if there was no coverage for B،bach’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 B،bach’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 s،uld have told B،bach whether her time-off request was approved before Jan. 6, 2022, the disciplinary court said. And B،bach s،uld not have signed off on the case dispositions in advance.

The disciplinary court said Dugan and B،bach “have obvious problems with communication,” alt،ugh the source of the friction isn’t entirely clear. The working relation،p was so poor that B،bach did not want Dugan to have any in-person communication with her, the court said.

Lawyer Matthew Haverstick represented B،bach. He told Law.com that he viewed the decision as an overall win that refuted a “really over،n 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.