Supreme rebuke for lawyer who took on Pa. high court

HARRISBURG - A member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has lashed out at one of the court's most outspoken critics - and the law school where he teaches - for calling the court corrupt in its handling of the legislature's 2005 pay raise.

A letter written by Justice Ronald D. Castille about Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz came to light at a state Senate committee hearing yesterday. Castille wrote that Ledewitz should face "possible sanctions" for his words - drawing swift rebuke from legislators in both parties.

It's not unusual for a lawyer to criticize a judge. If that criticism is considered to be over the line, the lawyer can face sanctions. However, it's considered rare for a member of the high court to strike back.

"Professor Ledewitz is known as a critic of the court. The fact that he was threatened by a member of the court with discipline to me was chilling," said Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R., Dauphin), chairman of the Senate's state government committee.

Ledewitz, whose critical commentaries have appeared in newspapers across the state, told the Beaver County Times in February that the high court was "more corrupt than the legislature" for having thrown out the General Assembly's mid-term 2005 pay raise while protecting judges' raises. Ledewitz called that ruling a swindle.

Castille, the author of that decision, responded in a March 22 letter to one of Ledewitz's Duquesne law school colleagues in Pittsburgh, accusing Ledewitz of violating lawyers' rules of professional conduct and suggesting that the professor be sanctioned.

In a letter to law professor Ken Gormley, Castille declined the school's invitation to an event next week honoring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., saying the school was providing a forum for someone who makes "irresponsible charges" against Castille's court.

Gormley could not be reached for comment.

Castille, a Philadelphia district attorney from 1986 to 1991, was elected to the Supreme Court in 1993.

Ledewitz referred to the contents of the letter during his testimony yesterday before a committee that happened to be considering a bill to uncouple state judges' pay raises from federal judges' raises - legislation that would likely hit judges where it hurts: in the wallet.

"Obviously, it was a threat to tone down and shut up," Ledewitz said of Castille's letter after the Senate state government committee hearing.

News of the letter reignited long-simmering tensions between the state's legislative and judicial branches. Some legislators are still unhappy about the court's ruling on the pay raise lawsuit, while members of the court are mindful that one of their own, Justice Russell Nigro, was swept from office in 2005 on a wave of voter anger over the raises.

Several senators on the committee immediately sided with Ledewitz, raising questions about First Amendment rights and the power of the Supreme Court to control the speech of lawyers.

Sen. Anthony Williams (D., Phila.) suggested that Castille was using his judicial power to intimidate a critic.

"Those who hold public office know that there are people who don't agree with you," said Williams. "I don't think judges are any different."

In an interview yesterday, Castille said Ledewitz had made "baseless charges of criminal misconduct" against the court.

"It's shocking to think about a law professor accusing the Supreme Court of criminal conduct," said Castille.

Castille said he would not release a copy of his letter to Gormley, but read a portion of it to a reporter.

"While these statements may be the personal opinion of your colleague, they are charges an attorney cannot make against the Supreme Court and its members without subjecting that attorney to possible sanctions from the Disciplinary Board" of the Supreme Court, the letter said. "The charges appear to me to be clear violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and, therefore, worthy of the board's attention."

Castille said he had not filed a complaint with the board but did not rule out doing so.

"I could do it. I haven't done it. I think he should apologize to the citizens of the state for slandering the court," the justice said.

Under the state constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline. Members of the Disciplinary Board are appointed by the court.

West Chester lawyer Samuel Stretton, a former counsel to the disciplinary board, said he was surprised by Ledewitz's remarks.

"That's off the charts," said Stretton, who has represented numerous lawyers and judges before the board. "If he said those things, then he crossed the line and could be subject to disciplinary action."

As for Castille's actions, Piccola said his committee would investigate the issue and would even try to use the panel's subpoena powers to get a copy of Castille's letter, if necessary.

"In my estimation," the senator said, "the court has demonstrated an arrogance that nobody can touch them."