# Judicial Inquiry & Review Board of the Supreme Court v. Fink

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 15, 1987 · 516 Pa. 208

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761769

## Case

- **Full name:** JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW BOARD OF the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner, v. Honorable Harold B. FINK, Jr., President Judge, the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County Pennsylvania, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 516 Pa. 208; 532 A.2d 358; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 821
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Larsen, McDERMOTT, McDermott, Nix, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9761769

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice, concurring.
I agree with the analysis set forth in the majority opinion with the exception of the finding of a violation of Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Judicial Conduct in respondent’s criticism of an opinion of this Court, see at 367-368. While the comment was in poor taste or even injudicious, it was probably a spontaneous reaction to an unfavorable ruling. Although greater restraint is to be expected from members of the bench of this Commonwealth, it nevertheless must be recognized that even judges share the frailties of human nature. Such a miniscule departure from the deportment expected from the jurists of this Commonwealth should not provide the predicate for disciplinary sanction.
However, eliminating from consideration this complaint against Judge Fink, I am nevertheless constrained to agree *240 with the majority that the pattern of behavior set forth on this record compels the conclusion that he is unsuited for judicial office and must be removed from the bench. I therefore join the opinion of the majority, except as noted.
In view of the bizarre behavior reflected in this record, I would be inclined to stay the Order of removal, upon petition on behalf of respondent expressing willingness to undergo a mental evaluation by a competent physician designated by this Court, for a determination as to whether respondent is an appropriate candidate for compulsory retirement under Article 5, section 18(h) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761769. Public record. Not legal advice.