The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week threw out a ruling by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab, saying he copied his opinion "nearly verbatim" from a proposed opinion written by lawyers for the defendants.

	Joyce Mendelsohn, Post-Gazette U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab. Click photo for larger image.

The rebuke from the appellate court was unusual.

"Typically, judges try to deal with each other with kid gloves," said John Burkoff, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who specializes in legal ethics. "In this case, for some reason, the gloves came off."

"Judicial opinions are the core work-product of judges," wrote Judge Richard Nygaard for a three-judge panel. "They are much more than findings of fact and conclusions of law; they constitute the logical and analytical explanations of why a judge arrived at a specific decision. ... When a court adopts a party's proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purpose served by judicial opinions."

Schwab was not available for comment, but issued a statement saying he'd learned his lesson.

"I have carefully reviewed the clear and thoughtful opinion of the Court of Appeals in the Bright case," he said. "I appreciate its candor, and will of course make every effort to follow its advice, counsel and directions in this and all cases."

The appeals court ordered Schwab to reconsider his dismissal of a suit filed by John Bright of Westmoreland County, whose 8-year-old daughter, Annette, was murdered in 2001 by Charles Koschalk.

Koschalk was on probation at the time of the killing. Bright sued Westmoreland County probation officers for not doing enough to keep him away from Annette.

After the defendants -- the county and the city of Monessen -- filed a motion to dismiss and Bright responded, Schwab had a conference in which he said he intended to throw out the suit based on an unpublished district court decision.

He then asked the lawyers for the defense to give him a "consolidated statement" of their position. They submitted a proposed opinion, which Schwab adopted as his own without changing hardly a word or giving Bright a chance to reply.

Bright's lawyer, Peter Suwak, appealed on various grounds, including the assertion that Schwab's order was essentially "ghostwritten" by the defense, according to Nygaard.

Lawyers and legal experts were surprised at the appellate dressing-down, but not necessarily by Schwab's actions.

While the judge enjoys a reputation for being smart and hard-working, many lawyers throughout the region have also complained about the imperious way he handles cases.

A former Buchanan Ingersoll lawyer appointed by President Bush in 2002, Schwab started work last year and is known for diligence. He has raised eyebrows in the courthouse, for example, by scheduling some proceedings as early as 8 a.m.

But many lawyers have also said he pressures them to settle their cases in the interest of efficiency, sometimes so early in a proceeding that he hasn't fully heard both sides.

In this case, Suwak said he felt the judge didn't give him a fair chance, and the appeals court backed him up.

"It is a very strong rebuke but I think a rebuke was deserved," said Arthur Hellman, a Pitt law professor and an expert on federal courts. "This was something the judge should not have done. It's a lapse that is difficult to understand, especially from someone who is so respected in the community. I would hope and expect that it won't be repeated."

Not only did Schwab copy an opinion, Hellman said, but he didn't allow the other side to respond properly and also decided a legal issue that had not been raised.

Schwab's ruling said that part of Bright's claim should be dismissed under state law. But that information came directly from the lawyers' opinion. In their earlier motion to dismiss, the lawyers hadn't brought that claim.

Yet Schwab "adopted this section of the appellee's proposed opinion without any real modification or explanation, again excepting minor stylistic changes," Nygaard wrote.

"We don't think he gave us an independent review," said Suwak, of Washington, Pa., who wouldn't comment on the judge's motives.

The 3rd Circuit opinion didn't speculate, either, but said Schwab had damaged courts' credibility.

"Courts and judges exist to provide neutral [forums] in which persons and entities can have their professional disputes and personal crises resolved," Nygaard wrote. "Any degree of impropriety, or even the appearance thereof, undermines our legitimacy and effectiveness."