Samuel C. Stretton, in a filing yesterday with the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline, wrote that the court's opinion "improperly suggested that this was widespread real-estate activity run out of the judicial office."
In a majority opinion last week, the court found that Berry, 66, brought "the judicial office into disrepute," violated the Code of Judicial Conduct "by lending the prestige of his office to advance his own private interests" and violated the criminal code by having his secretary work on real-estate matters during court hours.
The judge in March admitted to the court that from January 1996 to April 2007, he used his judicial resources "to assist him in the day-to-day operations" of his landlord activities.
Stretton said the judge stopped such activities after the Inquirer wrote about them, causing him to realize he had been wrong. In his filing, Stretton said that the real-estate business conducted out of Berry's chambers "took very little time" and did not affect his or his secretary's court responsibilities.
On the contrary, he said, Berry is "extremely hardworking."
Stretton also contended that the court was creating a new, and perhaps confusing, standard for a finding of "disrepute."
"Any judge who has a moment of bad temper or ill will or is difficult to get along with, is going to be [in] disrepute in the future," Stretton wrote.
"If all the judicial secretarial and judicial responsibilities are completed but there are two hours left in the judicial day, is the judge to be found in disrepute if he or she leaves early, or reads a book, or makes business or investment calls?"
The attorney also said that Berry was "not given proper notice that he was being charged with violating criminal statutes."
He asked for an oral argument before the court on the matter. *
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOST POPULAR PHILLY.COM PHOTOS
Daily Headlines
Subscribe now! Daily Headlines Newsletter
Philly.com news blogs
Philly.com Promotions
