On Wednesday, July 23, 2025, the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a reply to Judge Scott DiClaudio’s second addendum to his omnibus motion in the Court of Judicial Discipline. The filing addresses procedural issues and arguments presented by DiClaudio, a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District, Philadelphia County, under case 1 JD 2025.
The Board’s complaint alleges that Judge DiClaudio, currently on probation for a previous ethics violation, has compromised judicial integrity by promoting Shay’s Steaks, a cheesesteak shop owned by his wife, misusing his judicial position for personal gain, and allowing the restaurant to interfere with his responsibilities. He has reportedly displayed his judicial work at the restaurant, escorted customers to court proceedings, and engaged with patrons during work hours, raising concerns about public trust in the judiciary. Additionally, he has responded to online reviews, sometimes combatively, while sharing his personal cell number for customer complaints.
In its reply, the Board highlighted several procedural deficiencies in DiClaudio’s filings. According to the reply, DiClaudio was granted an additional 20 days to submit his initial omnibus motion, allowing time to review discovery materials. However, the Board noted that DiClaudio’s filings failed to comply with court rules, lacking signatures, certifications, and certificates of service. The filings were also not served directly to the Board, requiring the court to ensure proper service, and omitted the required Unified Judicial System Certificate of Compliance.
In his addendum, DiClaudio cited statements he claimed were “codified” to support his position, but the Board stated these lacked references to specific cases or codes, rendering them unverifiable. The Board further noted that these statements, related to jurists who authored books, were irrelevant to the allegations against DiClaudio.
The Board also addressed DiClaudio’s reliance on its Operating Procedures, which he argued barred the Chief Counsel from initiating investigations or complaints. The reply clarified that the Operating Procedures are a compilation of policies and practices, not legally binding, and do not restrict the Board’s actions or confer substantive rights. The Board rejected DiClaudio’s arguments as baseless.
Additionally, DiClaudio requested the identities of complainants in closed investigations. The Board cited the Pennsylvania Constitution, which mandates confidentiality of complaints filed with or initiated by the Board, prohibiting disclosure of such information.
The reply incorporates the Board’s earlier responses to DiClaudio’s initial omnibus motion and first addendum, both filed on July 18, 2025. The Board requested that the Court deny DiClaudio’s second addendum and consider additional relief due to his repeated procedural violations.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
