On Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Scott DiClaudio filed a brief in opposition to the Judicial Conduct Board’s petition for his interim suspension without pay. The brief, submitted through his attorney Michael T. Van Der Veen, contests the Board’s allegations of misconduct and requests the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline to deny the petition.
The central issue stems from an encounter between Judge DiClaudio and Mr. Dwayne Jones at a concert on June 1, 2025. According to the brief, Mr. Jones, who had a case before Judge Zachary Shaffer, approached Judge DiClaudio seeking information about Judge Shaffer’s reputation. Judge DiClaudio claims he responded that Judge Shaffer was a good judge who always does the right thing. He asserts that Mr. Jones did not ask him to intervene or influence the case, nor did he offer to do so.
The brief details a subsequent interaction on June 12, 2025, when Judge Shaffer visited Judge DiClaudio’s chambers. During their conversation, Judge DiClaudio recalled the encounter with Mr. Jones and mentioned it to Judge Shaffer, identifying Mr. Jones by name from a card he had received at the concert. The brief emphasizes that there was no discussion about the specifics of the case.
Following this conversation, Judge Shaffer recused himself from the Jones matter on June 13, 2025. Mr. Jones was later sentenced by Judge Scott J. O’Keefe on June 16, 2025, to 11.5 to 23 months of incarceration, served on house arrest, followed by a three-year probation term.
On June 25, 2025, Judge DiClaudio was placed on administrative duties, restricting him to appellate matters. The Judicial Conduct Board initiated a full investigation on July 1, 2025, regarding alleged misconduct. Judge DiClaudio responded to the Board’s inquiries through his attorney on August 22, 2025.
The Board filed a formal complaint against Judge DiClaudio on September 9, 2025, alleging violations of the Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Simultaneously, they filed the Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension Without Pay, which is now being contested by Judge DiClaudio.
The Board’s complaint alleges that Judge DiClaudio met with Judge Shaffer in his chambers, showed him a paper with Mr. Jones’ name and courtroom number, and said, “I’ve heard you might do the right thing anyway,” before tearing up the paper.
Judge DiClaudio’s brief argues that the Board has not met the burden of proof required for an interim suspension. It emphasizes that Judge DiClaudio has not been charged with any crime and that the alleged misconduct is unrelated to his judicial duties. The brief further contends that suspending Judge DiClaudio would negatively impact the administration of justice by creating a backlog of cases and delaying appellate opinions.
The brief also challenges the Board’s claim that the alleged misconduct has harmed public confidence in the judiciary. It asserts that there have been no complaints from litigants or defendants regarding Judge DiClaudio’s ability to serve as a judge. The brief questions the Board’s logic, arguing that if Judge DiClaudio intended to influence Judge Shaffer, he would have approached him directly and requested a specific outcome.
Judge DiClaudio’s legal team argues he has not been afforded due process, as he has been denied discovery of the evidence against him. They claim the Board’s actions are an attempt to damage his reputation based on weak allegations.
The brief requests the Court to consider Judge DiClaudio’s reputation as an outstanding jurist and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the Board’s claims.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
