What Can We Do About It?

What Pennsylvania Trial Court Judges Can Do to Protect and Promote Judicial Independence in Accordance with the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct

Judge Jordan B. Yeager serves on the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania and is a member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence. The views expressed here are those of the author alone, and not of any entity on which he serves.

The bigger the challenge, the harder it is to know where to start. We in the trial courts are the only representatives of the justice system that most people are ever likely to see up close. As such, we have a unique challenge – and a unique opportunity – to serve as ambassadors for the rule of law. Our entire constitutional framework depends on people’s faith in the independence of our judiciary. Unless we protect and promote the noble institution in which we serve and its core values, they will be more vulnerable to attack. We simply cannot take their continued vitality and viability for granted. So, what can we do about it?

Judges are inclined toward cautiousness and operate within a strict set of ethical constraints. We generally don’t engage in public discourse, much less on the hottest topics of the day. It’s hard to see how the work we do in our courthouses every day, presiding over cases large and small, can move the needle on public perception.

Through an informal survey of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judges and Magisterial District Court Judges, the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence asked a series of questions, including, “what can judges do to protect and promote judicial independence?” Among a lot of compelling, concrete ideas judges shared (which we will discuss further below), many judges wrote simply, “not much,” and noted that we are limited by our ethics rules.

So, a good place to start is with these rules, the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct (“the Code”). The Code, of course, requires that judges act independently, impartially, and with integrity, and it requires that judges avoid conduct that compromises the appearance of independence, impartiality, and integrity. The Code goes further, however, and directs judges to affirmatively promote judicial independence and public understanding of our justice system.

Nearly every provision in the Code relates, in one way or another, to judicial independence. Indeed, it’s harder to identify sections that don’t relate to judicial independence than sections that do.

The Preamble declares in its most relevant parts:

                        ***

(2) An independent, fair, honorable and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The Pennsylvania legal system is founded upon the principle that an independent, fair, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of persons of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. The judiciary consequently plays a fundamental role in ensuring the principles of justice and the rule of law. The rules contained in this Code necessarily require judges, individually and collectively, to treat and honor the judicial office as a public trust, striving to preserve and enhance legitimacy and confidence in the legal system.

(3) Judges should uphold the dignity of judicial office at all times, avoiding both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should at all times conduct themselves in a manner that garners the highest level of public confidence in their independence, fairness, impartiality, integrity, and competence.

***

(5) ...The Code is to be construed so as not to impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

The Code defines the central terms as follows:

Impartial, impartiality, impartially—Absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.

Impropriety—Includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this Code, and conduct that undermines a judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.

Independence—A judge’s freedom from influence or controls other than those established by law or Rule.

Integrity—Probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character.

Each of the four (4) Cannons addresses judges’ duties related to judicial independence:

1. A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

2. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

3. A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

4. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

What does this mean in our day-to-day life as judges?

First and foremost, as each of the Canons dictate, we must actually act independently.

We must act without fear. Without worrying about how litigants might respond to our decisions. Someone is going to be unhappy with what we decide nearly every time we rule on something. Violence and threats against judges are real, but we cannot let fear prevent us from doing what’s right. We cannot worry about retention and how the public might respond to our decisions.[1] Popular opinion isn’t always consistent with due process, fundamental constitutional norms, or the rule of law.[2]

We must act without favor. Without bias toward any side in any case.[3] The government and its agents are not always right. The most powerful don’t get any special treatment or a thumb on the scale. The friends, colleagues, and allies we had before we joined the bench don’t get the benefit of the doubt. No one does.[4]

Our personal views—shaped by our cultural biases, place in society, information sources, and a plethora of influences too numerous to mention—cannot control the outcomes of our judicial decisions.[5] Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke to this in 2024: “Justice Scalia used to say, and I wholeheartedly agree, that if you find yourself liking the results of every decision that you make, you’re in the wrong job. You should sometimes be reaching results that you really dislike because it’s not your job to just be deciding cases in the way that you’d like them to be seen.”[6] 

None of us should deceive ourselves into believing that we are immune from bias, prejudice, or fear. The moment we think that these are just other people’s problems is the moment we are most vulnerable to error.

Second, we must avoid the appearance of partiality, both in our courthouses and in the community. (Canons 1, 3, 4).[7] We view ourselves as ethical, open-minded, and able to make difficult decisions without fear or favor. But many in the public are either unaware of the ethical restrictions under which we operate or are predisposed to think that the system and those in it are corrupt, corruptible, or at least prone to all the same biases that exist in society at large.[8] Even the slightest most-innocent chumminess toward one side, or an errant facial expression toward another, can be easily misinterpreted.[9] Have we made all necessary disclosures on the record?[10] Have we fully assessed whether to our impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” such that disqualification is appropriate?[11] If we speak publicly or appear at community events, does it give the reasonable impression that we might favor one side over another in any matters that are likely to appear in our court?[12]

We each need to take a step back and look at our courthouses and courtrooms from the perspective of a reasonably distrusting outsider. Does it appear that the government—as represented by the District Attorney, Domestic Relations section, or child welfare agency—seems to have run of the place? What does that communicate to the defendants in criminal and support matters, or to the parents in juvenile dependency matters?

Third, we must promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. (Canon 1).[13] Although many judges were active in their communities prior to entering judicial service, among sitting judges there’s a tendency to shy away from public engagement and any activity that could be considered “promoting” anything. For some, there’s a general reluctance to call attention to ourselves. Sometimes it’s because of humility. Or because of fear. Or perhaps it’s just easier and more comfortable to avoid civic engagement. This tendency to remain silent is also borne, at least in part, out of a concern about running afoul of the dictates of Canons 3 and 4 (extrajudicial activities should not conflict with our judicial obligations, and judges may not engage in political activity that is “inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary”.[14]

We, as judges, can overcome our fears and cautious tendencies in order to meet our obligation to promote judicial independence—and we can do so while maintaining the judiciary’s integrity.[15] Indeed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. demonstrated in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary that one can call out threats to judicial independence while maintaining and, indeed, enhancing the integrity of the judiciary.[16] The Report is required reading, particularly for anyone who questions whether threats to judicial independence are real or imaginary and for anyone who questions whether it’s appropriate for members of the judiciary to publicly address such threats. The Chief Justice identifies the most pressing threats to judicial independence as, “1) violence, 2) intimidation, 3) disinformation, and 4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”[17] He specifically calls out “an elected official” who called for the impeachment of a judge who issued an adverse ruling and “public officials” who have, “engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.” Such “attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases,” the Chief Justice notes, “are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” [18]

There are innumerable ways in which we can engage in civic education to promote judicial independence and to inform the public on how the rule of law operates in practice.[19] We can reach out to community organizations—such as the Chambers of Commerce, Rotary, VFW, volunteer fire companies, and the like—and offer to make a presentation. We can reach out to local school districts and intermediate units and offer guest speakers for assemblies and social studies classes. We can invite students to tour the courthouse and to observe court. We can establish a speakers’ bureau through our local bar association. We can plan activities around Law Day (May 1) and Constitution Day (September 17). Each judicial district can tap someone to serve as civic outreach coordinator. We can submit op-ed pieces to our local newspapers.[20]

There’s no need to start from scratch in figuring out content. A wealth of resources are available through the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[21]

In addition to promoting judicial independence through civic engagement, we can also meet our ethical obligation under Canon 1 through the day-to-day work we do in our courthouses. As Chief Judge Mark Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has observed, each person who appears in our courts is a potential ambassador for the rule of law. They will go back and tell their family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues about their experience with the justice system. Each person who comes into our court system, whether as a litigant, witness, victim, attorney, observer, or juror presents us with an opportunity and a risk: either they become helpful ambassadors or they become critics.

We, as judges, have significant influence over their perspective when they walk away. Do they feel like everyone had a full and fair opportunity to be heard?[22] Do they feel like everyone was actually heard? Did the process seem fair? Was everyone treated with respect?[23] Was the process transparent? Was there clarity about the outcome and its reasoning?

It’s hard to overstate the importance of explaining ourselves, both with regard to our process and our reasoning. Transparency breeds trust. If people can't see that the process is fair, if they can’t see that we understood and considered each position, if they can't see that our decisions are well-reasoned, they are less likely to accept the outcome as fair and less likely to trust the judicial system.

Yes, it takes more time to nurture ambassadors rather than critics. It takes a few minutes at the start of a hearing to explain what the process is going to be and why. It takes a few more minutes during a hearing to communicate back to lawyers and litigants our understanding of what they have said so that they can appreciate that they’ve been heard. It takes a bit longer to explain our decisions, rather than just entering an order that says, “motion granted,” or “motion denied.” And yes, some people are going to walk away disgruntled no matter what. Some people will be unable to look past an adverse result and will be unable to appreciate that they got a fair shake, no matter how fair and transparent the process, no matter how respectfully they were treated, and no matter how well we explain what we have done and why.

But we must do our best on each of these fronts. We must take the time to be transparent, to engage in active listening,[24] and to explain our rulings. We must make the effort to be respectful to everyone. We must train our courthouse staff to be unfailingly courteous.[25] If we don’t take these relatively small steps, the chances of folks walking away disgruntled are both significantly higher and significantly more our own fault. If we take these small steps, we will be nurturing ambassadors for the rule of law. We will benefit from a steady stream of people who can share with others that the justice system—when seen up close—operates fairly, impartially, and with integrity.

As Chip Becker, Vice Chair of the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence, has noted, “that judges are independent is a byproduct of the faith and trust that people have in judges and their neutrality regarding the questions presented for them to decide. If confidence and trust withers, independence withers as well. The way to bolster independence is to bolster confidence and trust.”

As state trial court judges, we might not be able to convince people to trust the U.S. Supreme Court or to have faith that every case that makes its way through the justice system in every jurisdiction will have a fair and just process or result. But, as Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes, the Chair of the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence, has put it, “We must do what we can, in the best way we can, while we can.” 

We are, every day, creating scores of impressions about our system justice. It’s clear that some people might have trouble understanding how or why a federal court could rule against the President of the United States in a given case; as a result, they are more prone to accept an argument that the courts have too much power. But at the local level, they might observe that their local government officials are not always right, and that the courts protect fundamental rights and protect residents from abuses of governmental authority. Such local observations equip people to recognize the importance of an independent judiciary and can help counter whatever impressions they might be getting from the national stage.

To promote judicial independence, we also have to promote judicial security. We rightfully expect judges to act without fear. At the same time, many of us have experienced direct threats of violence. We send people to prison, make custody determinations that tear apart loved ones, remove kids from abusive and neglectful parents, terminate parental rights, and make decisions that cost people their livelihoods and their homes. We are dealing with many people who have violent tendencies. In courthouses around the Commonwealth, judges worry about inadequate security. We must advocate for our courthouses and court personnel to have the security they need. If our judicial personnel are vulnerable to threats, then our judicial system is vulnerable to mob rule.

We are not able to effectively meet our ethical obligations to protect and promote judicial independence unless we are fully aware of existing and impending threats. We cannot expect to be aware of the threats we face—and that we are duty-bound to counter—unless we confront a deep-seated societal challenge: online algorithms and information bubbles. We must recognize that unless we make a concerted effort, we are not seeing the same news that our colleagues are seeing, and they are not seeing the same news that we are seeing. Those who watch Fox News and those who watch MSNBC hear different stories. Algorithms reinforce our prejudices and perceptions. We must make a concerted effort to ensure that we are regularly seeking out news about threats to judicial independence from a diverse range of sources.

Finally, to carry out our obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct, we must honestly recognize our vulnerability to the pressures that threaten our independence. We must plan for how we will respond, continually step back and monitor our situation with humility, and rediscover the inspiration and strength needed to meet our challenges. Only by recognizing our weaknesses can we adequately summon our strengths.

Just like we must recognize that none of us is immune from bias, we also must recognize that the prevailing sentiments of the day—particularly during times of national crisis and perceived crisis—have claimed respected jurists throughout history and caused them to deviate from upholding fundamental civil and human rights. In his excellent published lecture, Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law, Judge D. Brooks Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, surveys highs and lows in the history of judicial independence.[26] He discusses Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (noting that then-President-elect James Buchanan had communicated with justices in advance of their ruling, apparently influencing the result); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (in which the Court is understood to have struck down the Income Tax Act of 1894 based purely on their personal policy preferences rather than—and contrary to—established precedent); and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) (infamously known as “the switch in time that saved nine”).[27] Only hubris or ignorance could make us think that we are absolutely immune from repeating history.

From world history, we can learn about how the German judiciary failed under the Third Reich, and how even the international tribunals that convened to address those atrocities were vulnerable to looking the other way and to bending to the seeming exigencies of the day. Jurists who are not familiar with the Justice Trials conducted in post-war Nuremberg should consider reading the play and watching the movie Judgment at Nuremberg.[28] It asks difficult questions about the role of the judiciary in an era of creeping fascism.

As with all incrementally advancing dangers, there is a risk that we become complacent over time and lose sight of the scope and scale of what is being lost. There’s a useful allegory about a frog placed in a pot of cold water. As the temperature rises gradually, the frog doesn’t realize it’s in danger, and as a result it never jumps out. By the time the water is boiling, it’s too late for the frog. We can increase our chances of avoiding the fate of the frog by recognizing advancing risks, by identifying potential future turning points we might encounter, by having a plan for how we will respond, by continually tracking how things are progressing toward and perhaps through those turning points, and by responding as planned.

We can buttress our resolve by finding inspiration in judges who have upheld the rule of law in the face of enormous political pressure and intimidation. For just a small sampling, Judge Smith points to Judge Hugh Lennox Bond of the Fourth Circuit, who presided over the prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction Era;[29] Judge Ronald Davies, who presided over the Little Rock Nine case;[30] Judge John Sirica, who presided over the “Nixon tapes case”;[31] and Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over many of the January 6^th cases.[32] Each of these judges—like innumerable others—served courageously and selflessly, and can inspire each of us to do the same.

Each judge is the face of the American legal system. Each judge is the face of the rule of law. We must carry out our duties—in our courthouses and in the community—as thoughtfully and thoroughly as we can.

The many compelling responses from judges who participated in the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence’s informal survey echoed each of the points discussed above. As such, this piece will close with a small sampling of their answers to the question, “what can trial judges do to protect and promote judicial independence?”:

• Fairly apply and follow the law without fear or favor.

• Listen to both sides and make sure each side feels heard and is provided due process so that they all leave the courtroom satisfied that they got to say to the Court what they felt was important.

• Be transparent. Explain why we are doing what we are doing to the parties in front of us.

• Be intellectually honest.

• Make the correct legal decision even when it is not the popular or politically favorable one. Recuse if you are unable to be objective.

• Carefully guard against our own decisions being affected by political, social, or moral beliefs and help our colleagues do the same. 

• Remind the public at jury selection of the importance of the rule of law.

• Better educate the public on the role of the judiciary.

• More security.

• Be prepared to be brave and make decisions regardless of public sentiment.

• 1) Exude the independence of the judiciary in what we do and what we say; 2) Participate in and promote civic education projects; 3) Support each other in the first two.

ENDNOTES

[1]“A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 1.2, Comment 2.

[2]“A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.4(A).

[3]“A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.3(B).

[4] “A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.4(B).

[5] “Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. This comment is not intended to restrict the appropriate functions of the courts in statutory or common law review.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.2, Comment 2. This requires us, in part, to recognize and work to overcome confirmation bias, which makes us more likely to credit information that is consistent with our beliefs and more prone to discount information that is inconsistent with our beliefs. See, Robert A. Creo, Making Decisions: Overconfidence, Pa. Law., May/June 2022, at 16.

[6] How Amy Coney Barrett is Confounding the Right and the Left, New York Times, June 15, 2025 (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/15/us/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html).

[7] “An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.4, Comment.

[8] “Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge's integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge's extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 3.1; See also, Rule 3.6, Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations.

[9] See, e.g., Rule 2.3, Comment 2: “…Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice…”

[10] “A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification or recusal, even if the judge believes there is no proper basis for disqualification or recusal.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.7, Comment 3.

[11] See, PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.11.

[12] “A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.4(C).

[13] “Judges are encouraged to initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Comment 6; See also PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.1, Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office, Comment (3): “Although it is not a duty of judicial office unless prescribed by law, judges are encouraged to participate in activities that promote public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice.”

[14] While the conduct of candidates for judicial office, and therefore much of Canon 4, is beyond the scope of this discussion, Rules 4.1(A)(11) and (12) of the Code of Judicial Conduct are instructive. Rule 4.1(A)(11) provides that a judge shall not “engage in any political activity on behalf of a political organization or candidate for public office except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.” Under Rule 4.1(A)(12), a judge shall not, “in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”

[15] The directive to engage in civic education is balanced against limitations on statements concerning pending and impending cases. For example, Comment 2 to Rule 2.1 states: “To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties, judges must conduct their personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts that would result in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.1, Comment 2; See also, Rule 4.1, Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General. Further, Rule 2.10. Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases, provides:

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

***

(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

Comment:

(1) This Rule’s restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. A judge should be mindful that comments of a judge regarding matters that are pending or impending in any court can sometimes affect the outcome or impair the fairness of proceedings in a matter. See Rule 1.2.

**

[16]  Chief Justice Robert’s “2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary” is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf.

[17] Id., at 5.

[18] Id., at 7.

[19] See, PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 3.1, Extrajudicial Activities in General, Comments:

[1] To the extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are not compromised, judges are encouraged to engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities. Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, or participating in scholarly research projects. In addition, judges are permitted and encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic extrajudicial activities not conducted for profit, even when the activities do not involve the law. See Rule 3.7.

[2] Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities helps integrate judges into their communities, and furthers public understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system.

[20]  See e.g., A Local Perspective on Judicial Independence, Jordan B. Yeager, March 27, 2025 https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/opinion/2025/03/27/judicial-independence-is-under-threat-it-is-essential-to-our-republics-survival-opinion/82677749007/.

[21] See https://www.pacourts.us/civics-ed, https://www.pabar.org/public/lre/civicsandresources.asp, and  https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/CandCResourceList.pdf.

[22] “A judge shall accord to every person or entity who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person or entity’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.6(A); See also, Id., Rule 2.6, Comment 1: “The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.”

[23] “A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.” PA Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 2.8(B).

[24] Valerie McNaughton, Active Listening: Applying Mediation Skills in the Courtroom, Judges' J., SPRING 1999, at 23.

[25] For a discussion of judges’ supervisory duties, see PA Code of Jud. Conduct Rule 2.12.

[26] Smith, Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law, 27 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 395 (2023). The article is available here: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/34863-2721smith.

[27] Id. at 399-403 (internal citations omitted).

[28] Abby Mann, Judgment at Nuremberg: A Play (New Directions 2002); Judgment at Nuremberg (United Artists 1961).

[29] Smith, 27 Lewis & Clark L. Rev at 400.

[30] Id. at 405.

[31] Id. at 406-408.

[32] Id. at 409.