On Friday, February 6, 2026, PennLive reported that an invitation to a fundraiser for Dauphin County Judge Katy McShane has stirred ethical concerns among legal professionals. The controversy stems from the wording of an email sent by her husband, attorney Justin McShane, which solicited donations from area attorneys.

The email invited attorneys to contribute up to $2,500 to meet Judge McShane at a victory party held on December 11. Justin McShane stated in the email, “It is always best to get to know and meet the judge before you appear before the judge, I have found. I am sure that you agree.” This statement has raised eyebrows among judicial ethics experts.

Sam Stretton, an attorney and judicial ethics expert, suggested that the email’s tone implies that financial contributions could lead to favorable treatment from the judge. Stretton argued that the email potentially violates the code of judicial ethics, which mandates impartiality and prohibits any appearance of impropriety.

While Justin McShane is not bound by the judicial code, his communications on behalf of his wife’s campaign are seen as a reflection on Judge McShane herself. Members of the Dauphin County Bar Association have reportedly discussed the email privately, with many expressing discomfort. However, they have been hesitant to speak out publicly, fearing potential retaliation from Justin McShane in court.

Justin McShane defended the email, asserting that no one expressed concerns to him directly and that his words should not be interpreted as suggesting improper influence. He also stated that his wife is unaware of who donated to her campaign.

Judge McShane did not respond to requests for comment from PennLive.

The campaign sold tickets to the victory party for prices ranging from $500 to $2,500. The event was held at the Maclay House in Harrisburg, a venue rented from the state bar association. The Pennsylvania Bar Association clarified that it had no involvement in planning the event, characterizing it as a celebration and thank-you gathering rather than a fundraiser.

The email also included a request for those not interested in donating to inform the campaign, so they could be placed on a do-not-contact list. Stretton has strongly criticized this aspect of the email, calling it a “really serious violation,” and suggesting it implies that those who do not donate will be remembered negatively.

Debbie Gross, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, noted that the email’s language occupies a concerning gray area regarding fairness and impartiality.

Stretton also raised the possibility that the email could violate the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from implying an ability to improperly influence a government agency or official.

Campaign finance reports indicate that McShane loaned herself $320,000 and spent $186,000 on SP Media, a company that makes TV ads for political campaigns. The total cost of her campaign was $467,000.

McShane reported receiving $2,500 each from state Reps. Dave Madsen and Nate Davidson, $1,000 from Dauphin County Commissioner George Hartwick, and $500 from the Tucker Arensberg PAC. She also reported receiving $1,000 each from Shollenberger, Januzzi & Wolfe, and JDSC; $500 each from Judson Perry, Mahali Haki Associates, John Dornberger, and Hillary Vesell. The McShane Firm donated $30,000 to her campaign in two installments, for a total of $47,500.

Tom Wilkinson, a member of the state bar association’s professional responsibility committee, emphasized the need for judicial campaigns to be cautious in their communications with donors.

Stretton suggested that Judge McShane should disavow the letter, apologize, and return the money. He also argued that she should recuse herself from cases involving donors or those on the “no contribute” list.

 

 

Source: PennLive