The Old Main building on the campus of Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania. Photo: Shutterstock

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ordered that there be oral arguments over whether or not Cynthia Baldwin, the former general counsel of Penn State, be publicly censured for how she represented Penn State officials during the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

“We are pleased that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be entertaining briefing and oral argument in this matter,” said Baldwin's attorney, Charles DeMonaco, a partner at Fox Rothschild in Pittsburgh.

Craig Simpson, an attorney who represents attorneys in front of the disciplinary board and the founder of Craig Simpson Law in Pittsburgh, said it is unusual for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to order oral arguments and briefings for this kind of case.

“They usually don't ask for that in a public censure case,” Simpson said. “Speculating, I presume the court believes it is an important enough case and an important enough issue that they want oral argument. I would guess they will issue an opinion in this case which they don't often do in disciplinary cases.”

The issues in the claims involve failing to mention a conflict of interest and attorney-client privilege.

The disciplinary board declined to comment further on the case because it is pending.

The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel claims Baldwin violated Rules 1.1, 1.7, 1.6 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the office claims Baldwin did not notify her clients of a conflict of interest with the university. She represented three former Penn State officials convicted of failing to inform authorities about allegations of child sex abuse by ex-football coach Sandusky: athletic coach Tim Curley, vice president Gary Schultz and president Graham Spanier.

The office claims Baldwin failed to properly represent Schultz and Curley before the grand jury and gave confidential client information during her own grand jury testimony.

“Respondent [Baldwin] failed to properly advise her clients and advocate on their behalf, and failed to exercise the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, and thus failed to competently represent Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz and Dr. Spanier, in violation of RPC 1.1,” the disciplinary board said in the recommendation in March.

The board added it does not believe Baldwin's law license should be suspended nor should she be disbarred because her alleged misconduct does not “reflect dishonesty in the practice of law.”

The board's recommendation in March was a departure from a panel's recommendation in October. The panel recommended the claims against Baldwin be dismissed.