The Supreme Court said the Court of Judicial Discipline was justified in kicking her off the bench and barring her from future judicial service after it found she mistreated courthouse employees, failed to perform her duties and sent county workers on her personal errands.
Justice Max Baer, in a concurring opinion, said that even disregarding testimony against Lokuta by four figures in the Luzerne County "kids for cash" courthouse scandal, the judicial ethics panel's conclusions were fully supported by more than 20 other witnesses.
"Indeed, while implying that the events the witnesses described never occurred, Judge Lokuta is careful not to assert directly that the testimony presented was false, instead, claiming that the witnesses 'embellished' their testimony," Baer wrote.
Lokuta's lawyer, George Michak, said Friday he was disappointed with the decision and that he and his client plan to evaluate their options over the weekend. They include asking the court to reconsider and taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court majority rejected Lokuta's argument that a member of the Court of Judicial Discipline, Philadelphia lawyer Richard Sprague, should have recused himself.
Sprague's legal clients have included a witness against Lokuta, Robert Powell, and PA Child Care, the juvenile detention facility Powell co-owned that is at the center of the kids-for-cash scandal for which one former Luzerne judge has pleaded guilty and another awaits trial.
"The parties knew about this relationship," wrote Justice J. Michael Eakin in the majority opinion, joined by two others.
Lokuta, he wrote, "does not establish Judge Sprague received illicit payments from anyone. (She) provides no evidence Judge Sprague obtained evidence, or formed an opinion regarding her or her case, based on his relationship with PA Child Care or Powell."
Eakin said Lokuta did not show how Sprague's relationship with Powell created an appearance of impropriety.
In a dissent, Justice Thomas Saylor said Sprague was compelled to recuse himself over his representation of Powell and the company.
The Supreme Court also rejected her claims that Sprague was too old to serve on the Court of Judicial Discipline, that untimely evidence of misconduct was allowed, that she did not receive evidence that could have cleared her, that she was selectively prosecuted, her equal protection rights were violated or any other argument Lokuta made on appeal.
