“Pennsylvania law is well-settled that procedural rules are not ends in themselves, and are not to be exalted to the status of substantive objectives.”
How later courts described this case
- “Pennsylvania law is well-settled that procedural rules are not ends in themselves, and are not to be exalted to the status of substantive objectives.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring opinion
by STEVENS J.
I concur in the result reached in the well-reasoned Majority Opinion. However, I respectfully do not join the Majority’s conclusion that “the specific and explicit power granted to the Supreme Court by Article V, Section 10 to control the practice of law must be viewed as precluding the use of disbarment as a sanction by any tribunal other than the Supreme Court itself.” I conclude that this statement is not supported by Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jepsen, 567 Pa. 459 , 787 A.2d 420 (2002).
Jepsen indicates that, at the very least, both the Court of Judicial Discipline and the Supreme Court possess the authority to disbar judicial officers. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that “both [the Disciplinary Board and the Court of Judicial Discipline] possess constitutionally conferred authority to entertain charges filed against a judicial officer who commits misconduct during the practice of law. Each tribunal is likewise capable of determining the appropriate discipline.” Jepsen, 567 Pa. at 464 , 787 A.2d at 423 . Specifically noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court in Jepsen never explicitly stated that it was the exclusive tribunal for disbarment sanctions. I believe that if the Supreme Court intended such a conclusion, it would have specifically so indicated.
Thus, while I agree with the remainder of the Majority’s Opinion, I do not agree with the Majority’s interpretation of Jepsen . Specifically, I disagree that Jepsen precludes disbar *486 ment as a sanction available to the Court of Judicial Discipline. 1
. I did not review the merits of whether former Justice Larsen received a fair hearing as I believe that issue is beyond the scope of our authority.