PRINTER'S NO. 2835
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE RESOLUTION
No.
631
Session of
2017
INTRODUCED BY FABRIZIO, RAVENSTAHL, HARKINS, SCHLOSSBERG,
THOMAS, MILLARD, CONKLIN, KIRKLAND, RYAN, BIZZARRO, SCHWEYER,
P. COSTA, FLYNN, ROZZI, PASHINSKI, KINSEY, DAVIS, MULLERY,
KORTZ, SONNEY, ENGLISH, RABB, DALEY, DeLISSIO AND DeLUCA,
DECEMBER 21, 2017
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, DECEMBER 21, 2017
A RESOLUTION
Urging the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Procedural Rules
Committee to expand procedures for addressing conflicts of
interest and to update guidance related to social media
relationships.
WHEREAS, The Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee is
the primary advisor to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on
matters governing actions in cases of divorce, support, custody,
paternity and protection from abuse; and
WHEREAS, The committee's goal is to simplify family law
practice by recommending new rules or amendments to existing
procedural rules relating to family law matters; and
WHEREAS, Ethical concerns related to disqualification and
recusal are commonly raised by residents, attorneys and judges;
and
WHEREAS, In Pennsylvania, anyone performing judicial
functions, including a referee in bankruptcy, special master,
court commissioner or magistrate, is considered a judge under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the Code of Judicial Conduct; and
WHEREAS, Impartiality, integrity and independence are vital
to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all judicial
proceedings; and
WHEREAS, Conflicts of interest can arise and be discovered in
domestic cases and family law matters at any time and in any
number of settings; and
WHEREAS, Parties in domestic matters cannot challenge a
conflict of interest involving a judge or other adjudicator
after a final decision has been rendered; and
WHEREAS, Providing this mechanism would give parties the
ability to question whether an alleged conflict unfairly
impacted the judgment in their case; and
WHEREAS, Conflicts of interest arising in online venues,
including on social media, present an ever-changing area of
concern for judicial ethicists; and
WHEREAS, The American Bar Association urges attorneys to not
assume they can "friend" judges on social media; and
WHEREAS, The Pennsylvania Bar Association's formal opinion on
the ethical obligations for attorneys using social media states
only that they may not connect with judges in an effort to
influence the judge; and
WHEREAS, The American Bar Association has highlighted several
states, including California, Florida, Massachusetts and
Oklahoma, that have adopted strict rules prohibiting judges from
becoming "friends" on social media with anyone who may appear
before them in the courtroom; and
WHEREAS, The establishment of stronger policies governing
online relationships between plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys
and judicial officers of any kind would bring enhanced integrity
20170HR0631PN2835 - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
to the judicial system; and
WHEREAS, Creating a procedure for challenging conflicts of
interest post-trial would further ensure fair and impartial
outcomes in all proceedings; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives urge the
Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee to
expand procedures for addressing conflicts of interest and to
update guidance related to social media relationships; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
members of the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Procedural Rules
Committee, each justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and
to the President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
20170HR0631PN2835 - 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13