The Double Life of Judge Lori Hackenberg
Irreparably Wrecked in Federal Court, "Business as Usual" on the Bench
There is a fundamental rule in the American judiciary: A judge must be the embodiment of stability, impartiality, and mental clarity. But in Pennsylvania’s 17th Judicial District, President Judge Lori R. Hackenberg is attempting a legal feat that defies logic, ethics, and the very Code of Judicial Conduct she is sworn to uphold.
Judge Hackenberg—the woman I hold responsible for the death of my son, Adam—has done something virtually unprecedented in the history of the American bench. She has filed a federal defamation lawsuit against a former defendant, Daniel Bozin (Hackenberg v. Bozin, No. 4:25-CV-01024).
Judges almost never sue their former litigants. The power dynamic, the ethical complications, and the appearance of retaliation are so severe that it is simply not done. But Hackenberg has broken that seal, and in doing so, she has trapped herself in a devastating contradiction.
The Staggering Admissions of an “Incapacitated” Judge
In her June 6, 2025, filing in the Pennsylvania Middle District Court, Hackenberg makes a series of admissions that should disqualify anyone from the bench. She tells the federal court that she has suffered:
“Irreparable harm to her reputation and career as well as causing mental suffering, shame, humiliation, physical and emotional distress.” (See p. 14, paragraph 60 of her complaint).
Let that sink in: Hackenberg doesn’t claim she is suffering because her decisions resulted in a child’s death. No. She claims suffering because the truth about her conduct got exposed. And that tells you everything you need to know about Hackenberg.
Her complaint paints a picture of a judge who is emotionally overwhelmed and publicly disgraced—suffering ongoing psychological distress severe enough to seek punitive damages.
So naturally, she took time off to recover, right? Wrong.
The Fatal Contradiction: Traumatized or Too Busy?
Judge Hackenberg is currently presenting three completely different versions of herself to the world, depending on which courtroom she is standing in.
The “Traumatized” Victim (Federal Court): She swears under penalty of perjury that she is “professionally and personally debilitated,” suffering “irreparable” psychological damage.
The “Powerhouse” President Judge (Local Courts): Despite claiming “incapacitating” injury, she hasn’t missed a day. Both the Snyder and Union County court calendars—and courthouse employees—confirm she is still presiding over cases. She is wielding full administrative authority over matters requiring complete mental fitness.
The “Busy” Witness (Disciplinary Hearings): In April 2025, during a disciplinary hearings regarding fraud allegations involving her former law firm partner, Daryl Yount, Hackenberg reportedly avoided testifying. Her excuse? She claimed she was too busy to appear because she had “more than 80 items on the docket in one day.”
There is no third option: Either she lied to the federal court about her condition, or she is currently unfit to serve.
The Ethical Meltdown: Violations of the Pennsylvania Code
The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct exists to protect the public from exactly this kind of instability. Hackenberg’s dual posture appears to violate at least seven distinct ethical mandates:
Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary: A judge claiming irreparable damage to her career and mental stability while presiding over cases undermines public confidence in her ability to act responsibly.
Rule 2.1 – Giving Precedence to Judicial Duties: If her personal distress is severe enough to warrant federal litigation, it is compromising the precedence her judicial duties must take.
Rule 2.5 – Competence and Diligence: Competence requires mental stability. If her “distress” is as debilitating as her lawsuit claims, she cannot meet this standard.
Rule 2.7 – Responsibility to Decide: If she truly believes she is experiencing “irreparable injury,” continued service without disqualification raises serious concerns about her compliance.
Rule 2.11(A)(1) – Disqualification: Her claim of “humiliation and trauma” from public criticism creates a substantial risk that her impartiality is compromised in any case involving media, public commentary, or emotionally complex family disputes.
Rule 2.14 – Disability and Impairment: This rule requires a judge suffering from an emotional condition that impairs performance to take leave or recuse themselves.
Rule 2.15 – Duty to Report Unfitness: When a judge’s own filings raise substantial questions about their fitness to serve, it is the duty of oversight boards to intervene.
The Precedent This Sets Is Dangerous
If Hackenberg is allowed to claim debilitating emotional harm in one court while exercising absolute authority in another, the message to the public is chilling:
To Litigants: Your judge might be presiding while psychologically compromised, and the system will look the other way.
To Other Judges: You can claim whatever suits your litigation needs without consequences for your continued service.
To the Public: Judicial accountability is a myth. Judges can contradict themselves between courtrooms without oversight.
A Question of Due Process: Can Hackenberg’s Impartiality Be Guaranteed?
In our justice system, there is no principle more sacred than the right to a judge who is mentally fit and impartial. This leads us to a difficult but necessary question for anyone currently involved in a case in the 17th District:
If a judge admits, under penalty of perjury, to being “professionally and personally debilitated,” can she still provide a fair and unbiased trial?
Under Rule 2.11 of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge is expected to disqualify themselves whenever their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Judge Hackenberg has publicly declared in her federal filing (No. 4:25-CV-01024) that she is suffering from “irreparable harm” and “emotional distress.”
This raises a series of profound questions for the public and for litigants:
Does a judge’s own admission of “mental suffering and humiliation” create a reasonable doubt about their ability to remain impartial—especially in emotionally charged family court matters?
Should a litigant have to wait for an oversight board to act, or do they have the right to ask Hackenberg directly: “How can the integrity of my trial be guaranteed when you have already admitted to being psychologically incapacitated in a federal record?”
Raising these questions isn’t about giving legal advice; it’s about demanding the transparency that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires. If a judge is truly “wrecked” by public criticism, as she claims, then every citizen in her courtroom has a right to wonder if that distress will impact the life-altering decisions she makes from the bench.
What Should Happen Next
This situation demands immediate institutional intervention:
Judicial Conduct Board Investigation: The Board has a duty under Rule 2.15 to investigate when a judge’s fitness is in question. Hackenberg has provided the evidence herself—not through rumors, but through sworn federal filings. The Board must determine if her self-proclaimed "irreparable harm" constitutes a disability that prevents her from performing judicial duties.
The Role of Federal Judge Matthew W. Brann: Hackenberg’s defamation lawsuit is currently sitting on the desk of Judge Matthew W. Brann (No. 4:25-CV-01024). Under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, if Judge Brann receives reliable information that a judge is unfit or has violated ethics rules, he has a duty to take “appropriate action” (See Rule 2.14, Rule 2.15). We are waiting to see if Judge Brann will acknowledge the contradiction: How can a plaintiff be “physically and emotionally wrecked” for the sake of a payout, yet “fit and impartial” for the sake of a paycheck?
Independent Fitness Evaluation: If a judge swears she is suffering “irreparable psychological harm,” she must be evaluated to ensure she isn’t endangering litigants and, most critically in custody cases, other children like my son Adam.
Temporary Recusal or Reassignment: Until this contradiction is resolved, Hackenberg should not be presiding over cases where her emotional state could affect impartiality.
A Public Explanation: The judiciary owes the public an explanation of how a judge can be “ruined” in one court and “fit” in another.
Why This Matters
When a judge decides that her “hurt feelings” are worth a federal lawsuit, but her “busy schedule” is an excuse to avoid answering for fraud allegations, the system has officially collapsed.
Judge Hackenberg is attempting to be the victim and the victor at the same time.
Hackenberg wants the “shame” to win her a massive financial settlement in federal court, but she wants the “power of the gavel” to keep her in control of your families in local court. Pure greed meets pure ego.
In Part 2, we will discuss the “Taboo” of the Bench: The chilling ethical implications of a sitting judge suing a citizen—and why this “litigation as retaliation” strategy is a death knell for the First Amendment.