HARRISBURG (March 13, 1997) -- Pennsylvania Bar Association President James F. Mundy today pledged to do "whatever it takes" to preserve the integrity of the PBA-sponsored Pennsylvania Judicial Evaluation Commission, in response to a lawsuit asking the court to order the PBA to turn over the Commission's confidential documents.

"Once again, this citizens' commission has come under attack," said Mundy. "Since the critics didn't like the ratings, they are now trying to discredit the process and the people on the Commission."

The suit, filed by Attorneys Richard Sprague of Philadelphia, William Lamb of Chester County and Alvin Lewis of Lancaster, is claiming that as PBA members, they have a right to see the confidential records of the Commission.

"This Commission is an independent group of nine lawyers and nine laypersons dedicated to providing voters with information on the men and women running for election to our highest courts," Mundy said. "Confidentiality is critical if they are to have candid interviews with lawyers, judges and clients who have in-depth knowledge concerning the candidates. We will not be bullied by the political bosses, but will stand firm in our commitment to support the Commission's process and findings."

Mundy also took exception to the attorneys' concerns with laypersons on the Commission. In the lawsuit, Sprague et al., state that they "have grave concerns about the ability of the Commission laymembers to ...judge the respective professional qualification of those seeking judicial office."

"Basically what they are saying is 'voters stay out -- only lawyers are qualified to judge judicial candidates,'" Mundy said. "For years, non-lawyers have served on evaluation and judicial nominating committees, as well as the Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board. Not only are laypersons qualified -- they bring a practical and fresh perspective to the law."

According to a PBA-commissioned poll conducted last year, 68 percent of the public thought the bar ratings were determined by "insider politics." As a result, the PBA revamped the system to boost public confidence in its ratings, by creating an independent commission with an equal number of laypersons and lawyers.

The decision came after a year-long review of the previous state bar ratings system which had been in place for more than 25 years.

"The basis of this restructuring was to make the process more voter friendly and open," said Mundy.

The new Commission follows a two-phase evaluation process starting with a preliminary interview conducted by a three-member panel, which includes a review of the candidate's questionnaire, writing samples and inquiries of individuals who know the candidate.

A second interview is then conducted before the Commission followed by a public announcement of the candidate's rating of Highly Recommended, Recommended or Not Recommended.

The Commission reaches its decision on its ratings much like a jury --- by discussion, debate and consensus.

"The work of the Judicial Evaluation Commission must go on," Mundy stressed. "The citizens of this Commonwealth deserve nothing less than a fair and thorough assessment of the men and women who will be sitting on our state courts.