CHEESESTEAK SCANDAL – Judge in Hot Water
A Philadelphia judge faces charges of ethical misconduct concerning his involvement in his spouse’s cheesesteak business, raising questions about judicial impartiality.
At a Glance
- Judge Scott DiClaudio accused of breaching ethics via role in wife’s cheesesteak shop.
- Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board files an ethics complaint against him.
- DiClaudio denies allegations, asserting a mere supportive role.
- He claims involvement intended to humanize judges.
Judge Under Scrutiny
Scott DiClaudio, a Philadelphia judge, is under the spotlight for allegedly violating state ethics rules due to his involvement with Shay’s Steaks, a cheesesteak venture owned by his wife. The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has initiated an inquiry into claims that DiClaudio improperly used his judicial status to promote the establishment. The probe zeroes in on his apparent involvement in operational details such as pricing and ingredients, which the board argues could create a conflict of interest.
The judge is adamant that his actions remain within permissible scope, stating that “I have a support role, which I’m permitted to have.”
Pronounced Ethical Dilemma
DiClaudio’s narrative is complicated by his appearance on a podcast, where discussions about Shay’s Steaks’ pricing strategy and competition reportedly occurred. This content of the podcast was referred to in the board’s complaint. He claims his participation may foster a positive public image of judges as relatable figures while denying any influence over the business’s portrayal in the media.
Despite DiClaudio’s assertions that “People do not come to Shay’s because a judge may make their cheesesteak,” the complaint suggests the opposite—indicating a misuse of judicial prestige.
An Uncertain Future
Compounding these ethical allegations, DiClaudio faces a tenuous position in light of previous financial oversights, including tax liens and unpaid bills, resulting in a probationary status. His recent history saw him suspended without pay, obligating him to complete additional service time to qualify for retirement benefits. Despite being up for a ten-year term, DiClaudio has suggested he may opt for early retirement.
“I had no idea what they were going to write,” DiClaudio said about media descriptions. “I had no say in the editing process until I saw it myself.”
The Judicial Conduct Board continues its investigation, with the case destined for the Court of Judicial Discipline. The situation incites major questions about judicial ethics, exploring whether his actions truly constitute self-promotion through his wife’s business.
