Opinion ID: 2549762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Duration of the Board's Investigation

Text: The Board received the initial complaint against appellant on April 27, 2004, and filed charges on November 27, 2006. Pursuant to then-existent Judicial Conduct Board Rule of Procedure 31, [10] the Board had 180 days to dismiss the complaint, file charges against appellant, or grant a continuance. The Board granted all necessary continuances prior to filing charges against appellant. Appellant claimed the duration of the Board's investigation violated Rule 31. The court acknowledged it had previously dismissed a complaint when the Board failed to exercise diligence. Lokuta I, at 1126 (quoting In re DeLeon, 902 A.2d 1027, 1031 (Pa.Ct. Jud.Disc.2006)). The court observed the delay in DeLeon was without explanation, as the Board conducted only one interview over the course of a year and a half, and the Board admitted it violated Rule 31. The court distinguished DeLeon, noting the Board spent six months obtaining appellant's mental health evaluation, and appellant caused further delay by opposing the Board's deposition of her. Therefore, the court concluded the Board conducted the investigation with diligence. Lokuta I, at 1127. Appellant, admitting the Board facially complied with Rule 31, contends the Board lacked good faith in granting the continuances. She argues the Board front-loaded its investigation, conducting most of it before issuing the Notice of Full Investigation, and delayed filing charges to circumvent Rule 31's spirit. [11] The Board insists it diligently investigated appellant. The Board argues its continuances were appropriate, as it was still investigating and waiting on appellant's mental health examination. The Board distinguishes DeLeon, noting there it violated Rule 31, and without explanation, did nothing for 18 months. The Board alleges it properly investigated here before issuing a Notice of Full Investigation, as it may `conduct interviews and examine evidence to determine whether grounds exist to believe' a judicial officer engaged in misconduct. Board's Brief, at 39 (quoting Pa. Jud. Conduct Bd. R.P. 26(A)). The Court of Judicial Discipline found [t]he facts establish that the Board conducted this investigation with diligence. Lokuta I, at 1127. As this is a factual finding, we may only reverse if it is clearly erroneous. See In re Hasay, 546 Pa. 481, 686 A.2d 809, 812 (1996) (citing Pa. Const. art. V, § 18(c)(2)) (In an appeal by a judicial officer from an order imposing discipline, the standard of review for factual questions is the clearly erroneous standard.). The Board interviewed and deposed witnesses until November, 2005. The Board then spent six months obtaining a mental health examination of appellant, after which appellant spent three months resisting the Board's subpoena to depose her. Appellant offers no evidence, beyond her own speculation, that the Board acted without diligence or in bad faith. Therefore, we cannot hold the Board's finding was clearly erroneous. [12] Accordingly, this claim must fail.