HARRISBURG (May 7, 2001) - In the interest of educating voters about the statewide judicial candidates running in the May 15 primary election, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Commission today re-issued its ratings and informational paragraphs about the candidates.

The ratings are:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania -
Highly Recommended
Judge J. Michael Eakin, Cumberland County
Judge Kate Ford Elliott, Allegheny County

Superior Court of Pennsylvania -
Highly Recommended
Judge Richard B. Klein, Philadelphia County

Recommended
Judge Cyrus (Palmer) Dolbin, Schuylkill County
Judge Lydia Y. Kirkland, Philadelphia County

Not Recommended
John Bender, Esq., Allegheny County
Mary Jane Bowes, Esq., Allegheny County
Judge Stephanie Domitrovich, Erie County
David N. Wecht, Esq., Allegheny County

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania -
Highly Recommended
Irwin W. Aronson, Cumberland County
Mary Hannah Leavitt, Esq., Dauphin County
Judge Robert E. (Robin) Simpson Jr., Northampton County

Recommended
Renee Levine Cohn, Esq., Lehigh County
James J. Dodaro, Esq., Allegheny County
Gerald W. Langan, Jr., Esq., Luzerne County

Not Recommended
Mary Flaherty, Esq., Allegheny County
Deborah Miskovich, Esq., Allegheny County

Candidates are eligible to receive a rating of �Highly Recommended,� �Recommended� or �Not Recommended.� The ratings are defined as:
Highly Recommended: The candidate possesses the highest combination of legal ability, integrity and temperament, and would be capable of outstanding performance as a judge or justice of the court for which he/she is a candidate.

Recommended: Based on legal ability, integrity and temperament, the candidate would be able to perform satisfactorily as a judge or justice of the court for which he/she is a candidate.

Not Recommended: Based on legal ability, integrity or temperament, or any combination thereof, at the present time, the candidate is inadequate to perform satisfactorily as a judge or justice of the court for which he/she is a candidate.

�This will be a significant year in the reshaping of Pennsylvania�s appellate courts,� said Philadelphia lawyer Michael A. Bloom, chair of the PBA JEC. �When citizens enter the voting booth, they will be faced with a long list of candidates from which to choose. It is our job to provide the guidance and information needed to help voters make informed choices when they select Pennsylvania�s judiciary.�

The PBA JEC based its ratings for each candidate on a two-part evaluation process. Investigative panels conducted the first phase of the process through personal interviews with the candidates and with individuals who have had professional or personal dealings with them. Upon completion of the interviews, the panels submitted confidential reports to the Commission.

Upon receipt and review of the investigative panel�s report, the Commission conducted the second phase of the evaluation process. The Commission interviewed each candidate in Harrisburg, discussed his or her qualifications and reached consensus on each candidate�s rating.

The PBA JEC is a nonpartisan panel composed of 17 lawyers and nonlawyers that is responsible for rating appellate judicial candidates.

JUDGE J. MICHAEL EAKIN
Supreme Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate has earned a reputation for unquestioned integrity, outstanding character, compassion and intellect. He is an experienced, sincere, incisive, fair and impartial jurist who displays a unique sensitivity to, and respect for, all litigants and advocates who appear before him. He has a humble, courteous manner, a refreshing sense of humor, and a strong sense of community and professional involvement. His opinions demonstrate sound reasoning and clear analysis and he has a strong commitment to advancing the public's understanding of the law. Judge Eakin is ideally suited and prepared for the increased responsibilities of a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He possesses all of the traits necessary to make significant contributions to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the administration of justice in the Commonwealth.

JUDGE KATE FORD ELLIOTT
Supreme Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate was elected to a 10-year term as a Judge of the Superior Court in 1989 and was retained for a second 10-year term in 1999. Prior to becoming a judge, the Candidate served as a law clerk at the Superior Court and as its Chief Staff Attorney. Her career in the judicial system has afforded her significant insight into the appellate process. The Candidate is courteous, well-prepared, articulate and intelligent. Her legal ability and scholarship are evidenced by her well-reasoned and sound opinions. She has maintained a visible presence in both the legal and outside communities. Her many endeavors with civic and cultural organizations have convinced her that the quality of justice is improved by the courts� maintaining contact with the public to avoid the �ivory tower� syndrome. The Candidate is personable and self-effacing and has an ideal judicial temperament. She possesses the highest combination of skills and traits that would permit her to serve with distinction on the Commonwealth�s highest Court.

(Commission member Riley did not participate in the evaluation or rating of this Candidate.)

JUDGE RICHARD B. KLEIN
Superior Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate is highly recommended based upon his outstanding legal intellect, his dedication to the improvement of the justice system and the development of the judiciary and his active work in improving the skills of lawyers. The Candidate combines superior legal skills with a passion for the law and a solid judicial temperament which he has demonstrated through his long and distinguished tenure as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas. In addition to his responsibilities as a trial judge, the candidate has long been actively involved in efforts to improve the quality of justice. He is involved in restructuring the court system in the 21st Century as a member of the Futures Commission. The candidate possesses the character, integrity, fairness, administrative ability, and varied background, including exemplary community service and a long-term commitment to teaching, which represent the best qualities in an appellate judge.

JUDGE CYRUS (PALMER) DOLBIN
Superior Court
Rating: Recommended
The Candidate is a third generation judge who has earned respect as a thoughtful, even-tempered and considerate jurist. Prior to becoming a Common Pleas judge in 1991, he served as an assistant district attorney for 7 years and maintained a varied, general law practice for an additional 10 years. The Candidate has presided over a broad range of cases and has been an active participant in many community organizations. Cautious and deliberate in his decision-making, Judge Cyrus Dolbin is competent to fulfill the responsibilities of a Superior Court Judge.

JUDGE LYDIA Y. KIRKLAND
Superior Court
Rating: Recommended
The Candidate is an extremely hard-working judge who serves on the Philadelphia Municipal Court, handling as many as 50-80 cases, both civil and criminal, each day. She is recognized for being well-prepared and having good administrative skills that would serve her well as a judge of the Superior Court. She is one of only five judges who has been certified to sit on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to assist that court with its very heavy trial docket. While the nature of her work on Municipal Court has precluded her from developing a body of written opinions, she has a demonstrated capacity and desire to learn and the requisite legal knowledge, energy and ability to produce written opinions of quality. The Candidate receives very high reviews for her judicial temperament and is recognized for her fairness both to litigants and lawyers. She has a clear understanding of the role of the judiciary in administering justice. She understands that the law involves people as well as principle. The Commission believes that the Candidate would bring a unique and needed perspective to the Superior Court and recommends her candidacy.

JOHN BENDER, ESQUIRE
Superior Court
Rating: Not Recommended
The Commission issued a �Not Recommended� rating to this candidate for failure to participate in the evaluation process.

JUDGE STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH
Superior Court
Rating: Not Recommended
The Candidate, a sitting Common Pleas Judge in Erie County, is acknowledged as both hard-working and highly motivated, with substantial and continuing involvement in many community activities. However, the Commission received numerous and consistent reports concerning the Candidate�s shortcomings as a judge that were found credible and were neither acknowledged nor sufficiently refuted by the Candidate. Specifically, the Commission found that the Candidate lacks proper judicial temperament and decorum, often exhibiting a lack of proper respect for lawyers and litigants in her courtroom. There was a significant concern that she frequently adopts one side of an argument presented to her, failing to give proper weight and consideration to the opposite position. Reports also suggested that the Candidate can and does lose her temper in the courtroom. Most significantly, the Commission observed that the Candidate was a poor listener, a critical weakness in a prospective appellate court judge. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the Candidate lacks the skills necessary to serve adequately as a Judge of the Superior Court.

(Commission member Riley did not participate in the evaluation or rating of the Candidate.)

DAVID N. WECHT, ESQUIRE
Superior Court
Rating: Not Recommended
The Candidate has a sound and impressive academic background and a keen intellect. He possesses a varied legal background, having served as a law clerk to a federal circuit court of appeals judge, a practitioner in civil and criminal matters and appellate work, an adjunct law professor and lecturer and now as the elected Register of Wills of Allegheny County. His 13 years of private law firm association have given him experience in various areas of litigation. However, his experience in appellate work has been limited, and his position as Register of Wills, while quasi-judicial in nature, further limits his ability to spend more time in the trial and appellate arenas. Persons interviewed by the Commission expressed very mixed views about the Candidate. While some commended him for his intellect, energy and ability, others questioned his temperament and judgment. While his work generally appears good, the Commission concludes that, at this time, he lacks the requisite experience, temperament, and breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to fully meet the responsibilities of a Judge of the Superior Court.

IRWIN W. ARONSON, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate is bright, conscientious, dedicated, diligent and hard-working, and over 19 years, has had extensive experience practicing before the Commonwealth Court. His broad practice includes administrative agency, labor and employment, employee benefit, election and campaign finance, small business organization, government relations, legislative drafting and appellate practice. He is regarded as a thoughtful and candid professional of the highest integrity who enjoys a very positive reputation as an effective advocate, particularly in administrative law matters. His facilitative skills are considerable. His written work reflects an excellent combination of legal scholarship and hard work. His history of extensive community involvement is further evidence of his sensitivity and commitment to enhancing the quality of justice. His sound intellect and even temperament, coupled with his considerable exposure to the work of the Commonwealth Court, make the Candidate ideally suited for a seat on that court, and the Commission highly recommends him for that position.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate is extremely bright and articulate and has a strong academic background. She brings to the candidacy 23 years of experience in administrative practice and procedure both in the public and private sectors. Her experience as counsel to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, in particular, has provided precisely the type of background that one should bring to the work of this Court. Her writing is clear and concise and demonstrates excellent critical analysis skills and legal ability. By all reports she is regarded as intelligent, organized, pragmatic, prepared, and persuasive. She possesses the intellect, professionalism, scholarship and temperament to serve with distinction as a judge of the Commonwealth Court.

(Commission member Turner recused himself from participation in the evaluation or rating of this Candidate.)

JUDGE ROBERT E. (ROBIN) SIMPSON JR.
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Highly Recommended
The Candidate has served with distinction on the Court of Common Pleas for eleven years. He previously practiced in a private firm where his practice included municipal law, zoning matters and workers� compensation, all matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. The Candidate is intelligent, courteous, fair and possessing excellent writing ability, knowledge of the law and judicial temperament. He has been highly innovative and instituted mini-trials in order to reduce case backload and effect the settlement of civil cases in his County. He has been active in both civic and bar association affairs. In recent years, he has taught and continues to teach as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Dickinson School of Law of the Penn State University. The Candidate is at once thoughtful and decisive. Having served as a law clerk in the early years of the Commonwealth Court, the Commission believes that the Candidate would bring commitment, enthusiasm, excellent perspective and depth of experience to the Commonwealth Court.

RENEE LEVINE COHN, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Recommended
The Candidate has had a sterling academic background during which she has demonstrated her keen intellect. She is a very bright and articulate person who has obtained valuable experience teaching at two law schools. Her 12 years of private sector law firm experience as an associate and a partner has exposed her to many varied litigation matters. More specifically, her subsequent positions in the public sector and as senior in-house legal counsel of a regulated telecommunications company have provided particularly apt experience in the types of matters that are within the appellate and original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. By all reports, she is regarded as hardworking, well organized and extremely honest. The candidate has the proper temperament, demonstrated commitment and high intellect to serve as a judge of the Commonwealth Court.

JAMES J. DODARO, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Recommended
The Candidate has a solid academic and an extensive legal background, particularly in representing political subdivisions. He combines those backgrounds and experience with administrative skills that have helped garner him a reputation for being confident, motivated, decisive, intelligent, articulate and a leader. In that regard, he has held, or continues to hold, a number of high profile legal positions, including Allegheny County Solicitor, where he directed a staff of forty-five (45) attorneys, as first director of the Allegheny County Department of Development, where he headed a staff of ninety (90), and as Solicitor to the newly formed Allegheny Council. The Candidate also has an outstanding record of public service and community involvement. He is held in high regard by his peers. While he has supervised trial teams of lawyers, Mr. Dodaro has not had recent in-depth trial or appellate experience. The Commission has concluded that Mr. Dodaro possesses the legal ability, integrity and temperament which would enable him to perform the responsibilities of a Judge of the Commonwealth Court.

GERARD W. LANGAN JR., ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Recommended
The Candidate has practiced law in Pittston and Scranton since 1986. A summa cum laude law school graduate, the Candidate�s practice has been concentrated in workers' compensation, social security, disability, and personal injury matters. He has a moderate amount of trial experience, and more extensive experience in appellate work in his chosen areas of practice, principally before the Commonwealth Court. He has written and lectured on workers' compensation and social security disability issues. He has a solid and long-standing record of community involvement. The Candidate is regarded by his peers as hard-working, dedicated, intelligent, courteous, and even-tempered. He has a very high energy level and an enthusiasm about the law which is contagious. He has earned a reputation for integrity and high ethical standards. The Candidate's professional experience to date has demonstrated an ability to grow both personally and professionally. His skills only will be further enhanced with time. Based upon the foregoing, the Commission finds the Candidate has the requisite skills to serve as a Judge of the Commonwealth Court.

MARY FLAHERTY, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Not Recommended
The Commission issued a �Not Recommended� rating to this candidate for failure to participate in the evaluation process.

DEBORAH MISKOVICH, ESQUIRE
Commonwealth Court
Rating: Not Recommended
The Commission issued a �Not Recommended� rating to this candidate for failure to participate in the evaluation process.