With the November 4 general election approaching, the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention has released its recommendations for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Philadelphia Municipal Court judges seeking to be retained for another term in their current positions on the bench.
“Our Commission members and investigative volunteers have worked for months to consider the qualifications of each retention candidate in light of their performance on the bench,” Chancellor Katayun I. Jaffari said. “We encourage voters to use our ratings for both first-time and retention candidates to ensure that qualified candidates are elected in November.”
The 2025 recommendations for candidates seeking retention are as follows:
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Recommended: Hon. Gwendolyn Bright, Hon. Ann Butchart, Hon. Michael Fanning, Hon. Christopher Mallios, Hon. Walter Olszewski, Hon. Oriana Papademetriou, Hon. Tracy Roman, Hon. Stephanie Sawyer, and Hon. Susan Schulman
Not Recommended: Hon. Daine Grey
Not Recommended – Refused to Participate in Investigation: Hon. Scott DiClaudio, Hon. Frank Palumbo, and Hon. Lyris F. Younge
Philadelphia Municipal Court
Recommended: Hon. David Conroy, Hon. Henry Lewandowski, Hon. Wendy Pew and Hon. Francis Shields
Not Recommended: Hon. Jacquelyn Frazier-Lyde
The Commission previously released its ratings for candidates for election:
Commonwealth Court
Highly Recommended: Hon. Stella Tsai
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Recommended: William Braveman, Irina Ehrlich, Larry Farnese, Kia Ghee, Sarah Jones, Leon A. King, II, Brian Kisielewski, Jennifer Santiago, Anthony Stefanski, Deborah Watson-Stokes
Not Recommended: Joseph J. Russo
Philadelphia Municipal Court
Recommended: Amanda J. Davidson, Michael Parkinson
Not Recommended: Sherrie Cohen, Cortez Patton
The Association’s political action committee, the Campaign for Qualified Judges, already has begun a voter education campaign to raise awareness about the candidate ratings for election and retention at the local and statewide levels.
In addition to the ratings by the Judicial Commission, the Campaign will publicize ratings from the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Commission (JEC) for judges who are seeking retention to statewide appellate courts.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Hon. Christine Donohue, Hon. Kevin Dougherty, and Hon. David Wecht; Superior Court Judge Hon. Alice Beck Dubow, and Commonwealth Court Judge Hon. Michael Wojcik are all Recommended for Retention by the JEC.
“Every election matters, and our Commission’s ratings are often one of the only nonpartisan sources of information about candidates running for judge at the local level,” said Matt Olesh, chair of the Campaign for Qualified Judges. “Recognizing the importance of this year’s retention elections for Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the widespread attention the races are receiving, we also felt it was important to promote the Pennsylvania Bar’s nonpartisan ratings for statewide retention candidates. Voters deserve information sources that look beyond politics and at the objective qualifications that these judges bring to their work.”
The Judicial Commission previously evaluated judicial candidates seeking a first term on the Court of Common Pleas, Municipal Court or seats on statewide appellate courts in 2025. In the May Democratic primary, only Court of Common Pleas candidates rated “Recommended” earned spots on the November ballot. In this year’s primary election for Municipal Court, the sole “Recommended” candidate received over 30,000 more votes than her closest competitor. This is the fourth election year in a row in which only “Highly Recommended” and “Recommended” candidates won spots on the November ballot for the Court of Common Pleas.
The Judicial Commission, which has been issuing judicial candidate ratings for more than 40 years, is made up of 36 members from a diverse set of governmental, legal and community bodies, including members of the judiciary, affinity groups and bar leaders. In 2025, more than 100 volunteers aided the Commission’s work by serving on the investigative teams that are assigned to evaluate each candidate.
After submitting an extensive questionnaire and writing samples, judicial candidates are assigned an investigative team that conducts the due diligence process. Candidates for retention submit similar materials, and the Commission polls the legal community regarding the performance and character of each retention candidate. Upon review of the polling results, the Commission determines which candidates for retention, if any, warrant a complete investigation.
Each of the Commission’s five-person investigative teams conducted a minimum of 20 interviews about each candidate with personal contacts, colleagues, community leaders, adversaries and judges with whom the candidate has interacted. Each investigative team includes a non-lawyer, and the Commission itself has designated seats for community members.
The investigative team leader presents the team’s findings to the Commission, which then interviews the candidate directly. The Commission members then vote by secret ballot, applying a set of 11 criteria to assign one of three ratings: “Highly Recommended,” “Recommended” or “Not Recommended.” In order for a candidate to receive a “Highly Recommended” rating, 80% of Commission members present must vote in favor of that rating. Candidates for retention only are eligible for the ratings of “Recommended” or “Not Recommended.” This year, the Commission members spent more than 30 hours conducting interviews, deliberating candidates’ qualifications and issuing recommendations, in addition to the many hours spent as liaisons to investigative teams.
“We commend all of the judicial candidates and judges seeking retention who took the time to submit their materials, appear before the Commission and cooperate with our investigative teams. We’re likewise grateful to all of those who served as confidential sources for our investigations. Without their candor and willingness to be interviewed, our investigations would be hamstrung. We also thank all who participated in our biannual judicial poll. These efforts show the deep commitment of our entire community to educate the public about the judiciary and those who seek to hold positions of such tremendous power,” Judicial Commission Chair Marc J. Zucker said. “While we as a bar association support merit selection as a long-term goal, the Commission’s work in the meantime elevates merit and deemphasizes the role of politics in how we as a community select our judges.”
You can view all of the 2025 candidate ratings at ElectQualifiedJudges.com.
