Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Wolf](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10813559/gd-jalil-v-pa-judicial-conduct-board/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

G.D. Jalil v. PA Judicial Conduct Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1511 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wolf

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (7.6K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Wolf

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Guillermo D. Jalil, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1511 C.D. 2024
:
Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, :
Respondent : Submitted: February 3, 2026

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE WOLF FILED: March 23, 2026

Guillermo D. Jalil (Requester), an unrepresented litigant, petitions this
Court for review of the October 10, 2024 Final Determination of the Office of Open
Records (OOR). The Final Determination denied Requester’s appeal from the
Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board’s (Board) denial of a request for certain
records requested under the Right-to-Know-Law1 (RTKL). Upon review, we find
that the records requested by Requester are not subject to disclosure under the RTKL
as the records are requested from a judicial agency and are not financial records.
Accordingly, we affirm the OOR.

1
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104.
I. BACKGROUND
By way of a RTKL request sent to the Board on September 23, 2024,
Requester requested:

Copies of manuals and procedures on how to handle a complaint once
received, the investigation procedure and procedure about handling the
complaint, and any form letter to the complainant and the respondent.
Policy papers as it relates to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct
Board over Special Masters. Standardized questions and/or checklists
when investigating a President Judge as it relates to the actions of a
Special Master under his or her supervision. Description of training
programs provided to Special Masters. Criteria for the various actions
the Judicial Conduct Board may take as it applies to the Dismissal with
A Letter of Caution, Dismissal with a Letter of Counsel, Not Opened
Due to a Lack of Jurisdiction, Petition for Interim Suspension, and/or
Sanctions.

Petition for Review, Ex. 1 (Board’s Open Records Officer’s Response Letter).

On September 27, 2024, the Board’s Open Records Officer (Officer)
issued a response denying Requester’s request. The Officer noted that the first two
sentences of Requester’s request mirrored a prior request, and he reiterated that the
Board does not have jurisdiction over special masters. The Officer explained that
the Board’s jurisdiction is set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution, and includes
only magisterial district judges, judges of the Courts of Common Pleas,
Commonwealth Court, Superior Court, and Justices of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania. Accordingly, disclosure of any information related to special masters
did not exist and was therefore denied. As to the remainder of the request, the
Officer stated that as a judicial agency, the Board is required only to provide
financial records under the RTKL, and the requested records did not fall into that

2
defined category.2 See Sections 102 and 304 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.102,
67.304.
Requester appealed the Officer’s denial to the OOR on October 7, 2024.
The OOR issued a Final Order on October 10, 2024, affirming the Board’s denial
and adopting the Officer’s reasoning. Requester subsequently appealed to this
Court.3
II. ISSUES
On appeal, Requester argues that pursuant to Section 305 of the RTKL,
65 P.S. § 67.305, the requested records must be presumed public. He quotes Bowling
v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813, 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), aff’d, 75 A.3d
453 (Pa. 2013), for the contention that “any record, including financial records of a
Commonwealth or local agency, is a public record to the extent the record: is not
exempt from disclosure under the [RTKL]; is not exempt under Federal or State law,
regulation, or judicial order or decree; or, is not protected by privilege.” He further
contends that the RTKL’s dictate that judicial agencies provide financial records is
not exclusive of other records. He also contends that the requested records should
be accessible pursuant to a provision outside the RTKL that provides for public
access to case records. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81 (Case Records Public Access
Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania).
III. DISCUSSION
The RTKL defines different types of agencies, with different categories
having different obligations under the law. A “[j]udicial agency” is defined as “[a]

2
The Officer noted that while not subject to disclosure under the RTKL, some of the
information sought in the request may be available on the Board’s website. Board’s Open Records
Officer’s Response Letter at 2.
3
We exercise de novo, plenary review when considering RTKL appeals stemming from OOR
determinations. Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 75 A.3d 453, 477 (Pa. 2013).

3
court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the unified judicial
system.” 65 P.S. § 67.102. Section 304 of the RTKL requires that “[a] judicial
agency shall provide financial records in accordance with this act or any rule or order
of court providing equal or greater access to the records.” 65 P.S. § 67.304.
Our Supreme Court has held:

All records in the possession of Commonwealth and local
agencies are presumed to be public records subject to
disclosure, unless they are exempt under a section 708
exception, subject to a privilege, or are otherwise exempt
under another state or federal law, regulation, or judicial
order or decree. 65 P.S. § 67.305(a). In contrast, only
financial records in the possession of a judicial agency
“shall be presumed to be available” in accordance with the
RTKL. 65 P.S. § 67.305(b). Section 304(a) provides
further that “[a] judicial agency shall provide financial
records in accordance with this act or any rule or order of
court providing equal or greater access to the records.” 65
P.S. § 67.304(a). For these reasons, the RTKL limits the
public records that judicial agencies must disclose to
financial records. See also Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna Cty. v. Pa. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d
810, 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

Miller v. Cnty. of Ctr., 173 A.3d 1162, 1168 (Pa. 2017) (footnotes omitted). Further,
this Court has held that “[b]ecause the [Board] is an entity within the judicial system,
it is a judicial agency under the Right-to-Know Law.” Burda v. Pennsylvania Jud.
Conduct Bd., 175 A.3d 1138, 1140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).
Here, the requested records are not financial records, nor has Requester
contended that they are financial records. Rather, he asserts that judicial agencies
must provide records other than financial records under the RTKL. This contention
is not supported by the plain language of the RTKL or the case law interpreting it.

4
Requester improperly conflates the requirements the RTKL places on
Commonwealth and local agencies with those it places on judicial agencies.
However, as set forth in Section 304 of the RTKL, and as explained in Miller, the
RTKL disclosure requirements placed on judicial agencies are more limited.
Further, Requester’s assertion that the requested records should be accessible as
“case records” is incorrect—the records requested are not case records, but rather
records dealing with internal procedures or disciplinary processes, rather than
pertaining to a specific litigation matter as contemplated by 204 Pa. Code § 213.81.4
The Officer, and subsequently the OOR, correctly found that the request was not
subject to disclosure by the Board.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the October 10, 2024 Final Determination of
the OOR is affirmed.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

4
“Case Records” are defined as “(1) documents for any case filed with, accepted and
maintained by a court or custodian; (2) dockets, indices, and documents (such as orders, opinions,
judgments, decrees) for any case created and maintained by a court or custodian. This term does
not include notes, memoranda, correspondence, drafts, worksheets, and work product of judges
and court personnel. Unless otherwise provided in this policy, this definition applies equally to
case records maintained in paper and electronic formats.” 204 Pa. Code § 213.81 (1.0)(B).

5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Guillermo D. Jalil, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1511 C.D. 2024
:
Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, :
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March 2026, the October 10, 2024 Final
Determination of the Office of Open Records in the above-captioned matter is
AFFIRMED.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge