The state Court of Judicial Discipline's handling of a complaint against Butler County Judge William Shaffer was a credit to the state's court system, verifying that an efficient system of deciding legal issues and meting out justice is regarded with utmost seriousness.

For those people who were directly affected by Shaffer's unacceptable handling of their cases, the Judicial Discipline Court's action should provide a sense of comfort and renewed confidence in how the courts are expected to operate but, in their cases, didn't.

Unfortunately, however, the state court's ruling does not fully erase the lengthy feelings of frustration and inconvenience of those who were wronged by the judge. And, the fact that the judge filed four inaccurate semi-annual reports with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts on which he failed to list cases that were more than 90 days overdue for a decision no doubt eroded the trust many county residents had in his judicial abilities.

Shaffer now has the task of rebuilding that trust — and about four years to decide whether he wants to continue wearing a judicial robe beyond the 10-year term to which he was elected in 1999.

Fortunately, his court service outside of the cases that led to the state-level complaint against him has been carried out well. In an order that placed Shaffer on probation until July 31, 2007, the Judicial Discipline Court said that, outside the cases that resulted in his punishment, Shaffer "has performed his judicial duties in a conscientious and industrious fashion, with dignity, and with courtesy toward those who appear before him."

But the lingering question that remains beyond the sentence that has been imposed is why Shaffer, when he experienced problems in making a decision in nine family court cases, chose not to seek advice or help from his colleagues on the court. The state Judicial Conduct Board, which filed the complaint against Shaffer on May 13, said his rulings in the nine divorce, custody and support cases between 2001 and 2005 ranged from six months to 34 months late.

The complaint alleged that the judge "engaged in a pattern of unreasonable and unjustifiable delay" in deciding the cases. As a condition of his probation, the state court ordered Shaffer to dispose of all matters pending before him within 90 days of the date they become ripe for decision unless there is a legitimate reason not to do so. He also was ordered to file all reports as required by law.

Shaffer had been awaiting a state court decision regarding his punishment since the court on Sept. 15 issued a decision that the delays regarding the cases in question amounted to neglect of his duties and represented a violation of the state Code of Judicial Conduct. The most serious action that the state court could have taken was removal of Shaffer from the bench.

Because of Shaffer's otherwise good service, it was right that the state court chose not to take the most drastic action. And, it is to be presumed that the judge will ensure that there never will be grounds for similar complaints against him.

The situation was unfortunate for all concerned, but it delivered a stern message to courts throughout Pennsylvania that problems such as these are not supposed to happen and will not be tolerated.