Judge Smith issued important rulings in two cases in which Mid-State Bank had a very substantial financial interest. At the time of these rulings, Judge Smith's wife was an officer at Mid-State Bank and jointly the Smiths held between $100,000 and $250,000 in stock in Keystone Financial, Inc., Mid-State's parent company. The most important of these rulings was deemed “economic blackmail” by poor rural school districts in western Pennsylvania victimized by the ruling, reversed by another district court judge and ultimately ruled “improper” by the Third Circuit. While eventually disqualifying himself from the cases, Judge Smith never disclosed his large financial stock in the bank.

In February 2002, CRC submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee a comprehensive legal analysis of Judge Smith's ruling in two cases in which he had disqualifying financial interest. Partnering with Environmental Working Group, Community Rights Counsel brought these disturbing cases to the attention of the media and the public. Click here to read CRC's press release and the extensive media coverage generated about this issue.

CRC has subsequently submitted two additional letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first letter analyzing Judge Smith's testimony regarding these cases, the second letter analyzing Judge Smith's responses to follow-up questions posed by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).

Preeminent legal ethics experts have prepared ethics opinions for the Senate Judiciary Committee harshly condemning Judge Smith for presiding over these two cases. To read the opinion of Professor Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law, click here (PDF). To read the opinion of Professor Monroe Freedman of Hofstra University School of Law on all of the ethical issues concerning Judge Brooks Smith, click here. For an earlier letter sent by Professor Freedman to the Senate Judiciary Committee focusing exclusively on the Mid-State Bank cases, click here.