Justices to weigh discipline for ex-Allegheny County judge for role as PSU-counsel | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Justices to weigh discipline for ex-Allegheny County judge for role as PSU-counsel

Associated Press
1656290_web1_1656290-bf5733cdd24f49719165f5b2328cc292
AP
In this Feb. 14, 2006, file photo, then-Allegheny County Judge Cynthia Baldwin appears before the Judiciary Committee in Harrisburg Pa., where she picked up support for her nomination to Pennsylvania’s highest court. Proposed discipline against Baldwin, who was the chief lawyer for Penn State when the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke, was the focus of a state Supreme Court argument in Philadelphia.

PHILADELPHIA — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court considered arguments in Philadelphia on Tuesday over whether the chief lawyer for Penn State when the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke should face public censure.

The state’s lawyer disciplinary board recommended that punishment in March for Cynthia Baldwin, who is a former state Supreme Court justice and before that an Allegheny County judge. The board did not recommend that her license be suspended or taken.

The Legal Intelligencer said only four of the court’s seven justices participated in the argument, and there was no indication when they might rule.

The board has leveled several claims against Baldwin regarding her conduct as investigators ramped up their probe of Sandusky. Sandusky, Penn State’s former defensive football coach, is serving a state prison sentence on a 45-count child sexual abuse conviction in 2012.

The board said Baldwin had a conflict of interest because she represented both the university and three of its top administrators during a grand jury investigation into Sandusky’s conduct.

In an August filing, Samuel Napoli, an Office of Disciplinary Counsel lawyer arguing the case against Baldwin, said she had “betrayed her clients” by testifying before a grand jury about their communications. She’s also accused of having engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, according to Napoli, because her allegedly improper testimony to the grand jury led to the dismissal of some of the criminal charges faced by former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Vice President Gary Schultz and former Athletic Director Tim Curley.

A board hearing panel that considered the case before the full board took it up had recommended the case against Baldwin be dismissed. The lawyer disciplinary proceedings are administrative, not criminal, and the board indicated it felt a license suspension was not warranted.

Baldwin’s lawyer, Charles DeMonaco, said in a brief last month that the justices should side with the hearing committee, not the full board, and conclude she did not violate the rules of professional conduct for lawyers.

“It is nearly impossible to gauge what is in the best interest of a client or to provide sound legal advice when the client lies about his or her situation and the underlying facts,” DeMonaco said.

Baldwin accompanied Curley, Schultz and Spanier to grand jury appearances in 2011, before Sandusky was charged with child molestation.

Schultz and Curley pleaded guilty to misdemeanor child endangerment on the eve of trial in 2017 for their response to a 2001 complaint about Sandusky showering with a boy and served brief jail terms. Spanier was convicted of child endangerment, but that charge was recently thrown out by a federal judge, a decision under appeal by state prosecutors.

The Legal Intelligencer said justices Sallie Mundy, Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht heard argument Tuesday, and that justices Max Baer, Thomas Saylor and Debra Todd did not participate.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.