Court Opinion

ID: 9544050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:51:36.625428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:52.786135
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
by Judge Blatt :
Because the petitioner was denied all representation when he appeared before the Conduct Board, I agree with the majority’s decision to remand. I do not believe, however, that Section 502 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §502, which states that “[a]ny party may be represented before a Commonwealth agency” (emphasis added), should be construed as providing for the right to legal representation in every, and specifically in the instant, situation. The legislature may very well have intentionally omitted the word “legal” before the term “represented” in Section 502 so that the latter term could remain flexible and thereby provide due process protection relative to the demands and nature of the particular interest and proceeding involved.
I am concerned that the majority’s interpretation of Section 502 will be understood as absolutely conferring the right to counsel whenever a party is before an agency, regardless of the circumstances. Here, the majority’s extension of the right to counsel could con*74ceivably require such representation even where there is only the possibility of suspension.
I believe, therefore, that the majority’s construction of Section 502 will tend to impair, rather than to improve, the school disciplinary process.