Court Opinion

ID: 9694329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:37:47.286242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:59.605048
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority in holding that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial. See Commonwealth v. Potter, 445 Pa. 284, 285 A.2d 492 (1971).
I am constrained to write to emphasize that improper conduct on the part of an attorney can never justify impropriety on the part of his or her adversary. Retaliatory conduct by counsel has no place in a courtroom. It is the trial court’s duty to ensure that the trial takes place in a dignified atmosphere, conducive to the fair and effective administration of justice.
The American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards .for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge § 6.3 (Approved Draft, 1972) [ABA Standards] provide:
“The trial judge has the obligation to use his judicial power to prevent distractions from and disruptions of the trial.”
Section 6.5 further provides:
“The trial judge should require attorneys to respect their obligations as officers of the court to support the *74authority of the court and enable the trial to proceed with dignity.”
Where an attorney causes a significant disruption, the trial court should correct the abuse and discipline the attorney, where necessary. The ABA Standards propose that the following sanctions be employed when necessary to maintain proper courtroom decorum:
“(i) censure or reprimand;
(ii) citation or punishment for contempt;
(iii) removal from the courtroom;
(iv) suspension for a limited time of the right to practice in the court where the misconduct occurred, if such sanction is permitted by law;
(v) informing the appropriate disciplinary bodies in every jurisdiction where the attorney is admitted to practice of the nature of the attorney’s misconduct and of any sanction imposed.”
ABA Standards, § 6.5, supra.*
Thus, the trial court has sufficient power to respond to an attorney’s improper conduct. There is no reason for an attorney to retaliate to his or her adversary’s unprofessional conduct. Such retaliation is highly improper.

 This Court has established the Disciplinary Board to ensure that all attorneys in the Commonwealth maintain the highest standards of professional conduct.