American Judicature Society

FBI Director William S. Sessions said yesterday that the nation's judges and lawyers must work harder to improve the state and federal court systems and "do a better job" of handling heavy caseloads and guarding against corruption. Sessions, who spoke before hundreds of people who attended a forum on court reform, said the legal community should not tolerate unethical practices, and he urged members to join professional groups working to improve the profession. "I think we must do a better job so we can convince society all across this great land and really across the world that we are worthy of the trust and confidence that has been placed in us," he said in his speech at the Rittenhouse hotel in Center City.

The collection of unsubstantiated assertions by Gerald J. Fitzpatrick in a Feb. 13 Op-ed Page article added little of substance to the merits or demerits of judicial merit selection. Some jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, have turned over all or much of the selection of judges to political party leaders on the threadbare theory of "democratic" election at the polls. All too often the citizens end up with the twin evils of demeaning political campaigns by candidates for judgeships and financing by those who hope for special favors from the winners.

In his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Arlin M. Adams has advanced the cause of justice with distinction, blending legal scholarship with jurisprudential activism. A teacher and writer, he has served as president of the American Judicature Society, an organization devoted to improving the quality of the nation's courts and judges. Twice he narrowly missed being nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his career he has demonstrated that wise and careful interpretation of the Constitution - regardless of whence it emanates within the judiciary - benefits all citizens.

Donald A. Curtis, 73, who practiced law in South Jersey for 33 years before being appointed an administrative law judge for workers' compensation cases, died Saturday at Underwood-Memorial Hospital, Woodbury. Judge Curtis, of Deptford, was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1940 and to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960. He also was executive vice president of the South Jersey Manufacturers Association and executive director of the South Jersey Industrial Safety Council for seven years before his 1973 appointment as a judge in the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry's Division of Workers' Compensation by Gov. William T. Cahill.

Is it too early to question Gov. Casey's enthusiasm for tackling the gritty, politically explosive issue of housecleaning in the Pennsylvania judiciary? In the four weeks since his own judicial reform commission issued its detailed report - the American Judicature Society quickly called the report a model for other states - Mr. Casey has been, well, quiet on the subject. No public reaction has been forthcoming and, apparently, Mr. Casey has made no private promises of action. For the record, the governor is still reading the report, and he has been preoccupied with tax reform, a new budget and his health.

When Pennsylvania's top judges rule on a case, their decision shouldn't be second-guessed just because the lawyers or litigants who appear before them have donated to their political campaigns. But that cloud is going to hang over almost every state Supreme Court justice - and many lower-court judges - until the state scraps partisan judicial elections. A new study reveals that campaign contributors appear regularly before Pennsylvania's high-court justices. The nonpartisan American Judicature Society (AJS)

Gov. Casey did a lot to put minds at ease with his appointment last week of Deputy City Solicitor Kathryn S. Lewis to Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court. Ms. Lewis is described as an intelligent and decisive lawyer - one who would bring to the bench a varied experience of working with a nonprofit housing agency, the state Public Utility Commission and the city's Law Department. Judging from his opening move, Gov. Casey means to nominate qualified candidates to fill the slew of vacancies on the Philadelphia courts.

THREE TIMES OUT OF FIVE, at least one party to a civil case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 had given a campaign contribution to one or more of the justices. That's not saying that money had anything to do with an individual justice's decision, said the American Judicature Society, which released this analysis in a report last month. A justice may not even know if he or she was a beneficiary of one or more of the litigants, lawyers or law firms. Getting elected to the state's highest court takes a boatload of money, after all: The court's six elected justices had raised a combined $8 million to get where they were sitting.

Like many states, Pennsylvania has witnessed a long struggle over judicial selection. It provides a particularly interesting battleground, being just one of 14 states that select judges in partisan elections. Furthermore, state law places no limits on who can contribute to judicial candidates' campaigns. Judicial candidates seek campaign money under the same rules that govern all candidates for office in Pennsylvania. These rules are the most lax in the United States. In a study I did for Judicature, the American Judicature Society's bimonthly publication, I discovered that not only large sums of money, but the patterns of who gives how much to Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidates poses a new dilemma for those trying solve this contentious issue.

How can we put this politely? As much as we applaud Gov. Casey's new-found support for an appointed judiciary in Pennsylvania, his plan to push for public financing of judicial elections as a short-term fix leaves us cold. That's not to take anything away from Mr. Casey's proposal for a constitutional amendment to abolish statewide judicial elections, which he unveiled Monday. Indeed, he's acted with impressive speed in following up on a pledge made in his January state-of-the-commonwealth message, and his proposal contains the essential elements for a workable judicial merit-selection process.

By Drew F. Cohen As legislators in Harrisburg consider moving away from the state's controversial judicial elections and toward merit-based selection of judges, they might turn their attention to an unlikely model: Baghdad. When the Iraqi judicial structure began to take form shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. State Department officials who played a major role in creating the system insisted that no Iraqi judge would be chosen by election. Their concerns included corruption and nepotism, but also competence and legitimacy - the same issues raised in the debate over judicial elections in Pennsylvania.

THREE TIMES OUT OF FIVE, at least one party to a civil case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 had given a campaign contribution to one or more of the justices. That's not saying that money had anything to do with an individual justice's decision, said the American Judicature Society, which released this analysis in a report last month. A justice may not even know if he or she was a beneficiary of one or more of the litigants, lawyers or law firms. Getting elected to the state's highest court takes a boatload of money, after all: The court's six elected justices had raised a combined $8 million to get where they were sitting.

When Pennsylvania's top judges rule on a case, their decision shouldn't be second-guessed just because the lawyers or litigants who appear before them have donated to their political campaigns. But that cloud is going to hang over almost every state Supreme Court justice - and many lower-court judges - until the state scraps partisan judicial elections. A new study reveals that campaign contributors appear regularly before Pennsylvania's high-court justices. The nonpartisan American Judicature Society (AJS)

Like many states, Pennsylvania has witnessed a long struggle over judicial selection. It provides a particularly interesting battleground, being just one of 14 states that select judges in partisan elections. Furthermore, state law places no limits on who can contribute to judicial candidates' campaigns. Judicial candidates seek campaign money under the same rules that govern all candidates for office in Pennsylvania. These rules are the most lax in the United States. In a study I did for Judicature, the American Judicature Society's bimonthly publication, I discovered that not only large sums of money, but the patterns of who gives how much to Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidates poses a new dilemma for those trying solve this contentious issue.

John Q. Stranahan, 79, a retired Mercer County Court judge, died of cancer Friday at Buchanan Commons, a nursing home in Grove City, where he had been a resident for two weeks. Judge Stranahan served on the court for two decades. For 17 of those years, he was president judge, retiring in 1985 to become a senior judge. He continued to hear cases until his illness was diagnosed in January, but even then, he regularly went to work. Edmund Spaeth, a retired president judge of the Superior Court, called Judge Stranahan a colleague and very good friend.

We respectfully submit this open letter in response to the report filed recently with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by the Special Commission to Limit Campaign Expenditures in judicial elections. We hope others will do likewise. With the court's leadership, the report can take the first step toward a constitutional amendment providing that judges and justices of the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts will not be elected but appointed on the basis of their qualifications.

Judge Levy Anderson, 83, of Northeast Philadelphia, a retired senior Common Pleas Court judge and former city solicitor, died Sunday at Abington Memorial Hospital. He was appointed a judge by Gov. Milton J. Shapp in 1971, when 25 judgeships in the Philadelphia area were created in a statewide expansion of the Common Pleas system. He was elected for a 10-year term in 1973 and in 1983 was retained for another 10 years. He became a senior judge in 1980. Judge Anderson was also a calendar judge, working in Room 625 in City Hall.

How can we put this politely? As much as we applaud Gov. Casey's new-found support for an appointed judiciary in Pennsylvania, his plan to push for public financing of judicial elections as a short-term fix leaves us cold. That's not to take anything away from Mr. Casey's proposal for a constitutional amendment to abolish statewide judicial elections, which he unveiled Monday. Indeed, he's acted with impressive speed in following up on a pledge made in his January state-of-the-commonwealth message, and his proposal contains the essential elements for a workable judicial merit-selection process.

Although he retired from the bench in 1984, bankruptcy Judge William Lipkin has retired neither from the legal community nor from the charitable work with which he has long been associated. For his many contributions, the 82-year-old Pennsauken resident - who still maintains a full schedule at a Cherry Hill law firm - has received the Camden County Bar Association's Peter J. Devine Jr. Award. "Peter Devine was one of the best trial lawyers and judges I ever knew," Lipkin said, "so to receive an award in his honor means a great deal to me personally.

FBI Director William S. Sessions said yesterday that the nation's judges and lawyers must work harder to improve the state and federal court systems and "do a better job" of handling heavy caseloads and guarding against corruption. Sessions, who spoke before hundreds of people who attended a forum on court reform, said the legal community should not tolerate unethical practices, and he urged members to join professional groups working to improve the profession. "I think we must do a better job so we can convince society all across this great land and really across the world that we are worthy of the trust and confidence that has been placed in us," he said in his speech at the Rittenhouse hotel in Center City.