�The Commission�s job is to help the citizens of Pennsylvania make informed choices about their judges before they enter the voting booth,� said Bloom. �We are firmly committed to the notion that lawyers have a duty to recommend to the public the very best candidates for judicial office, so that all of us can be assured of having the very best judges on our appellate benches,� he said.

Because retention elections require only a �Yes� or �No� vote of the public, the Commission rated retention candidates either �Recommended� or �Not Recommended.� It based its findings for each candidate on a two-part evaluation process. Investigative panels conducted the first phase of the process, which included a thorough review of the candidate�s completed questionnaire, an intensive analysis of written opinions authored by the retention candidate within the last three to five years, and interviews with judges and at least 20 lawyers who have appeared before the retention candidate. The panels then submitted confidential written reports to the Commission outlining their preliminary, non-binding recommendations.

Upon receipt and review of the investigative panel�s report, the Commission interviewed the investigative panel chair and rendered its own evaluation and recommendation.

Bloom noted that Pennsylvania Chief Justice John P. Flaherty did not complete the Commission�s questionnaire, but rather asked to be evaluated solely on the basis of his record.

�The Commission was faced with the dilemma of following strict adherence to its own rules (in which case the Chief Justice would have been found �Not Recommended for Failure to Participate in the Evaluation Process�) or alternatively, to meet what we viewed to be our overriding obligation to the public to evaluate the performance and fitness for judicial office of the senior-ranking judicial officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,� explained Bloom. �The Commission concluded to meet its fiduciary obligations to the public in that regard and evaluate the Chief Justice.�

Bloom said other factors involved in the Commission�s decision to rate the Chief Justice included the extensive public record arising from the Chief Justice�s 20 years of service on the state Supreme Court.

Judicial candidates involved in a primary and general election, as opposed to a retention election, receive ratings of �Highly Recommended,� �Recommended,� or �Not Recommended.� In May, the Commission released its ratings of four judicial candidates seeking election to two Pennsylvania Superior Court seats in November. The Commission issued a �Highly Recommended� rating to Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Richard B. Klein and Superior Court Judge Maureen E. Lally-Green of Pittsburgh and a �Recommended� rating to Superior Court Judge Berle M. Schiller of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh lawyer Debra Todd.

Members of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Commission include lawyers Lynne Abraham of Philadelphia County; Susan L. Anderson of Philadelphia County; Chair Michael A. Bloom of Philadelphia County; Samuel T. Cooper III of Dauphin County ; Vice Chair Richard E. Flannery of Lawrence County; Chris F. Gillotti of Allegheny County; PBA Immediate Past President Leslie Anne Miller of Montgomery County; S. E. �Tim� Riley, Jr. of Erie County; James R. Ronca of Dauphin County; PBA President Louis N. Teti of Chester County; H. Woodruff Turner of Allegheny County; and Deborah R. Willig of Philadelphia County. Non-lawyers who serve on the Commission are Dr. Richard Bell of Berks County; Christine James-Brown of Philadelphia; Erick Coolidge of Tioga County; Nancy Neuman of Union County; William B. Northrop Sr. of Washington County; and Jane G. Pepper of Delaware County.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association is a professional organization that represents 26,000 lawyers and promotes the legal profession across the commonwealth.

PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL EVALUATION COMMISSION

Candidate Ratings

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN P. FLAHERTY, JR.
Rating: Recommended

The Chief Justice advised the Commission that he would be �standing for retention� and thus would take no action to form a campaign committee or otherwise solicit support for his retention election. Rather, he asked to be evaluated on the basis of his record. In that context, the Chief Justice advised the Commission that he would not complete any required questionnaires or submit to any interviews, if required. The Commission was faced with the dilemma of following strict adherence to its own rules (in which case the Chief Justice would have been found �Not Recommended for Failure to Participate in Evaluation Process�) or alternatively, to meet what it viewed to be its overriding obligation to the public to evaluate the performance and fitness for judicial office of the senior ranking judicial officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commission concluded to meet its fiduciary obligations to the public in that regard and evaluate the Chief Justice.

In the absence of a completed questionnaire for the Chief Justice, the Investigative Panel which was assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation of the Chief Justice�s retention candidacy was required to be exceptionally thorough. To that end, the Commission�s Investigative Panel conducted more than sixty interviews with Justices and Judges of the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts, President Judges of many of the Courts of Common Pleas, and with lawyers from all over the Commonwealth, including both public prosecutors and criminal defense counsel. As a result, the Investigative Panel was able to provide the Commission with a detailed, thorough and accurate analysis of the Chief Justice�s work both as a Justice and then as Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Commission has concluded that the Chief Justice, who has served on the Supreme Court for twenty years, has a solid reputation for high integrity, ethics, and a commitment for completing the Court�s work. During the Chief Justice�s tenure, the Court has improved its record for completing opinions and resolving matters in a timely fashion and the Chief himself has been a highly productive author of numerous significant legal opinions. Additionally, the Chief has demonstrated a strong, proactive concern for the quality of justice and the efficacy of the legal system. In particular, he has worked with (1) law schools on curriculum; (2) the bar association on mandatory and continuing legal education for lawyers; (3) trial judges on continuing legal education for judges; and (4) local and state bar groups to increase lawyer participation in pro bono legal work for the poor. Additionally, he has worked on significant initiatives to achieve or improve court unification and court automation. Moreover, he has significantly improved the reputation of the Court since becoming Chief Justice. His courtesy to lawyers and to his colleagues on the bench has had a positive impact on the more courteous and collegial nature of the Court in recent years. Regarded as both intellectually competent and tireless, the Chief Justice has recognized that his job requires him to do far more than decide cases. As a result, he has become an active and energetic ambassador for the legal system and the Courts. For all these reasons, the Commission believes that the Chief Justice should be retained.

JUSTICE RALPH J. CAPPY
Rating: Recommended

A thorough review of Justice Cappy�s work as a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reflects a jurist whose opinions are sensible, clear and well-reasoned. Justice Cappy has developed and maintained a reputation for being well-prepared and hard-working. He is highly respected both by his colleagues and by litigants who appear before him as being knowledgeable, fair and even-handed. In addition, Justice Cappy has assumed significant administrative responsibilities as a member of the Supreme Court. He is regarded as having significantly contributed to the statewide Court unification effort. As the third most senior member of the Court, he is regarded by his colleagues on the bench and by persons knowledgeable about the workings of the Court to have the capability and personality to facilitate consensus-based decision making at the Court. Possessed of a keen legal mind, his opinions are timely, well written, and he shares an equal burden and responsibility with other members of the Court. His service on the Judicial Council and his administration of the funding aspect of the Council has received high reviews. For all these reasons, the Commission recommends that Justice Cappy be retained.

JUDGE JAMES R. CAVANAUGH
Rating: Recommended

Judge Cavanaugh has established a reputation for outstanding judicial temperament and demeanor. He is unfailingly polite, consistent and even-handed in his treatment of those who appear before him, while still maintaining an atmosphere of respect for the judicial process.

Among other judges of the Superior Court, he is recognized as possessing a talent for creating and maintaining a sense of congeniality and collegiality even when the judges may disagree on legal principles. He has been described as a jurist with a distinctive ability to immediately grasp the issue, recite applicable authorities, and express his conclusion in a compelling fashion. Judge Cavanaugh has served with distinction since 1980, and should be retained.

JUDGE KATE FORD ELLIOTT
Rating: Recommended

Judge Ford Elliott has served with distinction as a Judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court for the last ten years. In that capacity, she has earned a reputation for a superior intellect, an extraordinarily high work ethic, admirable judicial knowledge and the authorship of opinions which are clear, well-reasoned, direct and offer substantial guidelines to the lower courts. Her reputation for integrity and her judicial temperament are above reproach. Despite maintaining an extensive case load in a heavily overburdened court, Judge Ford Elliott has demonstrated a long-term commitment to significant participation in legal education of both lawyers and judges and in numerous civic and law-related activities. She has emphasized the importance of furthering the concepts of consensus and congeniality as a member of the Superior Court. Based upon her high integrity, outstanding scholarship, thoughtful understanding of the law and fair and even-handed approach, the Commission recommends that Judge Ford Elliott be retained.

JUDGE JOSEPH A. HUDOCK
Rating: Recommended

Judge Hudock has served with distinction on the Superior Court since 1990. He is possessed of a sharp legal intellect and his opinions are models of clarity and persuasiveness. Judge Hudock has demonstrated an ability to decide cases on the basis of critical analysis and legal reasoning. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has adopted the reasoning from a dissenting opinion by Judge Hudock in reversing a majority opinion of the Superior Court. Judge Hudock has exhibited a strong and efficient work ethic during his tenure on the Court and has contributed significantly to reducing its heavy workload. He has developed a reputation for always being prepared, thoughtful and scholarly. His friendly manner and fair and even-handed temperament are testament to the high esteem in which he is held both by his colleagues on the bench and by counsel who have appeared before him. The Commission recommends the retention of Judge Hudock as a Judge of the Superior Court.

JUDGE DANTE ROBERT PELLEGRINI
Rating: Recommended

A review of Judge Pellegrini�s written opinions demonstrates a keen intellect and outstanding legal scholarship. His opinions are well written, easy to read, comprehensive and well researched. He has developed a reputation in the legal community for being innovative and willing to tackle difficult and occasionally precedent setting legal controversies. Many of his colleagues on the bench and lawyers who appear before him consider him a superior jurist who treats all parties who appear before him fairly and with dignity. His temperament on the bench is warm, thoughtful and respectful of the attorneys litigating the case. Moreover, he demonstrates an excellent work ethic -- consistently prepared and consistently judicious. For these reasons, the Commission believes that Judge Pellegrini should be retained.