# L.J.S. v. State Ethics Commission

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 13, 2000 · 744 A.2d 798

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747202

## Case

- **Full name:** L.J.S., Petitioner, v. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 13, 2000
- **Citations:** 744 A.2d 798; 2000 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 10
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Colins
- **Judges:** Doyle, Colins, McGinley, Smith, Kelley, Flaherty, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747202

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the State Ethics Commission lacked jurisdiction to pursue an investigation of a county’s chief adult probation officer, who “is subject to the supervision and discipline of our ... Supreme Court”

## Opinion text

COLINS, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
. I concur with the result reached by my learned colleague. However, I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the petitioner is a judicial officer. Article V, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that:
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law and justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system.
Therefore, while the petitioner is a public employee, and an employee of the judicial branch of government, he is not a judicial officer, as he has no judicial powers. Those who may be considered judicial officers are clearly delineated above. While petitioner is certainly an officer of the court, pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), he is not a judicial officer.
Further, I would grant fees to petitioner against respondent, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7538.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747202. Public record. Not legal advice.