On Monday, October 6, 2025, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Scott DiClaudio refuted accusations that he attempted to improperly influence a colleague’s decision in a criminal case. DiClaudio testified before Pennsylvania’s Court of Judicial Discipline, asserting that fellow Judge Zachary Shaffer misinterpreted their conversation, which has now jeopardized DiClaudio’s position.

The controversy stems from an encounter in June when Shaffer visited DiClaudio’s courtroom. DiClaudio stated that he mentioned a prior conversation with Dwayne Jones, whom Shaffer was scheduled to sentence. DiClaudio explained that Jones had approached him at the Roots Picnic earlier in June and mentioned his pending criminal case. DiClaudio testified that he simply conveyed to Shaffer what he had told Jones: that Shaffer was “a good judge who would do the right thing.” He maintained that his intention was to compliment a friend.

However, Shaffer interpreted the interaction differently, expressing significant concern. Shaffer testified that he believed DiClaudio intended to sway him toward a favorable outcome for Jones, who is reportedly a friend of Philadelphia rapper Meek Mill, also an acquaintance of DiClaudio.

These conflicting accounts were presented publicly for the first time in a Harrisburg courtroom after the state Judicial Conduct Board filed formal charges against DiClaudio last month. The charges include multiple ethical violations and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Consequently, Philadelphia court supervisors placed DiClaudio on administrative leave, and the board is seeking his suspension without pay while the proceedings unfold. The disciplinary panel will decide on the suspension request in the coming weeks.

The accounts of DiClaudio and Shaffer diverged significantly, encompassing the circumstances of Shaffer’s visit to DiClaudio’s courtroom and the specifics of their conversation. Shaffer testified that he and his clerk, Nicole Vernaccio, intended to purchase T-shirts from DiClaudio’s wife’s cheesesteak shop and had communicated with DiClaudio about it during the week. On June 11, Shaffer stated that he gave an envelope containing $10 for the shirts to DiClaudio’s court administrator.

Shaffer recounted that the following morning, DiClaudio’s assistant, Gary Silver, summoned him to DiClaudio’s courtroom. Shaffer and Vernaccio went to DiClaudio’s robing room, expecting to collect the shirts. After a brief conversation, Shaffer said DiClaudio asked Vernaccio to leave the room, a detail Vernaccio corroborated in her testimony.

After Vernaccio left, Shaffer said DiClaudio produced a piece of lined paper with “Dwayne Jones, courtroom 905, and Monday’s date” written on it. Shaffer said DiClaudio held out the paper and then looked at him and said, “OK?”. Shaffer said he was confused and hesitantly responded, “OK.” DiClaudio then allegedly tore up the paper and discarded it. Before Shaffer left, DiClaudio purportedly said something to the effect of, “You probably would have done the right thing anyway.”

Shaffer stated that he was initially shocked but later concluded that the comments were an attempt to influence the case. He reported the conversation to his supervisors, who then referred the matter to the judicial conduct board.

DiClaudio vehemently denied Shaffer’s account, asserting that it was “completely wrong.” He acknowledged meeting Jones at the Roots Picnic on June 1, where Jones informed him about his guilty plea for illegal gun possession and upcoming sentencing by Shaffer. DiClaudio claimed he responded by saying, “Judge Shaffer is a good judge, he’ll do the right thing.” He said Jones gave him his business card, which he placed in his wallet. DiClaudio denied summoning Shaffer to his courtroom and stated that Vernaccio left the room on her own accord. He claimed that as Shaffer was leaving, he remembered Jones’s business card, retrieved it, and recounted the brief conversation he had with Jones. He insisted that the card was blank and that he discarded it.

DiClaudio’s attorneys suggested that Shaffer was paranoid and confused, citing inconsistencies between his testimony and summaries of the conversation compiled by the judicial conduct board and its investigators. Shaffer clarified that he did not write or review those summaries before their submission as evidence. He maintained that his testimony was truthful and that DiClaudio’s remarks were inappropriate, asserting that they constituted an attempt to influence the case.

Elizabeth Hoffheins, deputy counsel for the judicial conduct board, concurred, asserting that DiClaudio’s intent was clear. She highlighted the personal and social connection between DiClaudio and Jones through Meek Mill. She characterized the interaction as a deliberate attempt to influence the case by invoking a personal connection, which she argued “threatens to cast a long shadow on the judiciary.”

Hoffheins revealed that the board had referred the matter to the FBI for a potential criminal inquiry, which was subsequently transferred to the state Attorney General’s Office. She was unaware of the status of any ongoing criminal inquiry. She advocated for DiClaudio’s suspension without pay pending the inquiry’s outcome.

Throughout the hearing, DiClaudio struggled to maintain composure, interrupting witnesses and making disparaging remarks toward members of the judicial conduct board. At one point, DiClaudio’s attorney, visibly frustrated, admonished him to stop talking. Despite acknowledging DiClaudio’s difficulty in controlling his speech, the attorney affirmed that DiClaudio is a highly respected judge who would never intentionally influence a case.

The five-member panel will decide whether DiClaudio should be suspended without pay while it deliberates its ruling.

 

 

Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer