A Philadelphia judge faces potential discipline after allegedly using his judicial status to promote his wife’s high-end cheesesteak restaurant, raising questions about ethical boundaries for elected officials with family businesses.
At a Glance
- Philadelphia Judge Scott DiClaudio is under investigation by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board for allegedly promoting his wife’s cheesesteak restaurant
- The ethics complaint cites DiClaudio’s podcast discussions about pricing, ingredients, and competitors
- DiClaudio denies wrongdoing, claiming he serves only in a supportive role and receives no profits
- The judge is already on probation for unrelated financial issues and needs to serve until early 2026 to qualify for pension benefits
- The case will be heard by the Court of Judicial Discipline, which determines whether judicial ethics were violated
Ethics Complaint Targets Judge’s Restaurant Involvement
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has filed a formal ethics complaint against Philadelphia Judge Scott DiClaudio, alleging he improperly used his judicial position to boost the profile of Shay’s Steaks, an upscale cheesesteak restaurant owned by his wife.
The complaint centers on DiClaudio’s public statements about the business, including discussions about pricing strategies, ingredient choices, and comparisons to competing restaurants. These actions potentially violate state ethics rules that prohibit judges from using their position for personal gain or engaging in activities that interfere with judicial duties.
According to investigative documents, DiClaudio participated in a podcast where he openly discussed business decisions for the restaurant, including justifying the $19 price point for the establishment’s premium cheesesteaks.
The judicial board cited these statements as evidence that DiClaudio’s involvement extends beyond that of a supportive spouse to active management, raising concerns about misuse of judicial office. County judges in Pennsylvania face strict limitations on outside employment that could compromise their impartiality or interfere with judicial responsibilities.
Judge Defends Actions as Supportive Spouse
DiClaudio, who is representing himself in the matter, strongly denies any wrongdoing. “This complaint is such a farce,” DiClaudio said in a phone interview. “People do not come to Shay’s because a judge may make their cheesesteak.”
“I have a support role, which I’m permitted to have,” he said. In a podcast interview cited by the board, DiClaudio discussed decisions about pricing, ingredients, salary levels for employees and competing restaurants.
The judge maintains that his involvement with the restaurant is limited to supporting his wife’s business, which was named after his late mother. He argues that he has never received payment for his work at the restaurant and that all profits go directly to his wife.
DiClaudio further contends that he cannot control how media outlets describe him or reference his judicial position when covering the restaurant, stating, “I had no idea what they were going to write. I had no say in the editing process until I saw it myself.”
Previous Financial Issues Complicate Case
This ethics investigation comes at a particularly sensitive time for DiClaudio, who is already serving a probationary period due to past financial issues. According to public records, the judge previously faced tax liens and unpaid bills that resulted in contempt citations. These financial difficulties led to a suspension without pay. To qualify for his pension and retiree health benefits, DiClaudio must serve until two weeks after his current term ends in January 2026.
The judge has indicated that while he is seeking retention for another 10-year term on the bench, he may consider early retirement next year. This decision could be influenced by the outcome of the current ethics investigation, which will ultimately be decided by the Court of Judicial Discipline. If found in violation, DiClaudio could face sanctions ranging from reprimand to removal from office.
Ethical Implications for Elected Officials
The case raises broader questions about the boundaries for elected officials who have connections to family businesses. The judicial ethics code specifically prohibits judges from using their position to advance personal economic interests or lending the prestige of their office to private ventures. The complaint alleges that DiClaudio failed to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and integrity by intertwining his judicial identity with the restaurant’s public profile.
DiClaudio has offered an alternative perspective, suggesting that his involvement with the restaurant might actually enhance the public image of judges by showing they are relatable community members. However, the Judicial Conduct Board appears unconvinced, focusing instead on whether his actions constitute self-promotion and abuse of judicial prestige for commercial advantage, potentially undermining public trust in the independence of the judiciary.