Philadelphia, Pa – Along with the upcoming universal elections of November 4, the Selection and Retw Commission of the Court Court Philadelphia Bar of the Philadelphia Association published recommendations for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Philadelphia Municipal Court, who want to be detained for the next term of office at their current positions on the bench.
“Members of our committees and investigators for months worked on considering the qualifications of each candidate for retention in the light of their results on the bench,” Chancellor Katayun I. Jaffari he said. “We encourage voters to use our assessments for both candidates for the first time and retention to ensure the selection of qualified candidates in November.”
2025 recommendations for retention candidates are as follows:
Court of Philadelphia Common Comme
Recommended: Hon. Gwenlock of Bright, hon. Butttitut, hon. Michael Fleming, hon. Christopher Malieno, hon. Walter Olszwski, hon. Oriaana Papadyou, hon. Tracy romance, hon. Stephen Stephanie Sawyer and hon. Susan Ssanel
Not recommended: Hon. Daven Gray
Not recommended – he refused to participate in the investigation: Hon. Scott Diclaudio, hon. Frank Palumbo and hon. Lyris F. Younge
City Court in Philadelphia
Recommended: Hon. David Conroy, hon. Henry Lewandowski, hon. Wendy Pew and hon. Francis Shields
Not recommended: Hon. Sounds Jacqualen Frazier
The Association Political Committee, a campaign for qualified judges, has already started the voters’ educational campaign in order to raise awareness about the ratings of candidates for elections and retention at local and state level.
In addition to the ratings of the court committee, the campaign will publish assessments from the Pennsylvania Committee on the Court Association of the Adwokacki Association (JEC) for judges who are looking for a detention before the courts of appeal.
Judges of the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Hon. Christine DonohueIN Hon. Kevin DughertyAND Hon. David Wecht; Supreme Court judge Hon. Alice Beck Dubowand judge of the Court of the Community of Nations Hon. Michael Wojcik They are all recommended for retention by JEC.
“Every election is important, and the assessments of our committee are often one of the few impartial sources of information about candidates applying for a judge at the local level,” he said Matt OleshChairman of the campaign for qualified judges. “Recognizing the importance of this year’s retention elections for the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania and the wide attention they receive, we also thought that it is vital to promote the impartial assessments of Pennsylvania, which do not reach their work.
The court committee had previously assessed court candidates looking for the first term in the court of Common Pleas, a city court or fines regarding the Courts of Appeal in 2025. In May, the basic democratic May, only the common court of candidates evaluated with “recommended”. In this year’s main elections to the city court, the only “recommended” candidate received over 30,000 more votes than his closest competitor. This is the fourth year of elections in a row, in which only “highly recommended” and “recommended” candidates won places in a November vote for the Common Pleas court.
The Court Commission, which has been issuing the assessment of court candidates for over 40 years, consists of 36 members from a various set of government, legal and social bodies, including members of the judiciary, affinity groups and bar leaders. In 2025, over 100 volunteers helped in the work of the commission, sitting on investigative teams that are assigned to evaluate each candidate.
After submitting a comprehensive questionnaire and writing samples, they receive a court team for court candidates, which conducts the process of due diligence. Candidates for retention assembles similar materials, and the Commission probes the legal community regarding the performance and nature of each retention candidate. After reviewing the survey results, the Commission determines which candidates to stop, if they exist, justify the full investigation.
Each of the five -member committees’ teams conducted at least 20 interviews about each candidate with personal contacts, colleagues, community leaders, opponents and judges with whom the candidate interaction. Each investigation team includes a non-lawyer, and the commission itself designated places for community members.
The leader of the investigation team presents the findings of the Commission team, which then directly interviews the candidate. Commission members then vote with a secret vote, applying for A set of 11 criteria To assign one of three ratings: “highly recommended”, “recommended” or “not recommended”. In order for the candidate to receive a “highly recommended” grade, 80% of current committee members must vote in favor of this assessment. Candidates for retention only qualify for “recommended” or “not recommended” grades. This year, the committee members spent over 30 hours interviews, meeting the qualifications of candidates and issuing recommendations, in addition to many hours spent as connectors for investigative teams.
“We praise all candidates and court judges looking for retention who have devoted time to submitting their materials, appear before the commission and cooperate with our investigative teams. We are also grateful to everyone who served as confidential research sources. Without their honesty and readiness for interrogation, our investigators could be Hamstrung. those who try to take positions of such a huge power, “chairman of the court committee Marc J. Zucker he said. “While we, as a lawyer association, support the choice of merit as a long -term goal, the work of the commission in the meantime raises his merit and recognizes the role of policy in how we choose our judges as a community.”
You can see all candidates’ grades in 2025 Electqualifidjudges.com.
