TimesLeader.com

Most judicial hopefuls to take lawyers’ money

But four candidates say they won’t accept contributions from attorneys.

BILL O ’ BOYLE boboyle@timesleader.com

Of the 17 candidates running for judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 12 said they will accept donations from fellow attorneys, four said they would not and one qualified his position.

Read more Luzerne County Judges articles

Related headlines

• Lawyers’ donations to judges debated

The judicial candidates who said they will accept donations from lawyers are: Jennifer Rogers, Joseph Terrana, William Amesbury, Thomas O’Connor, Eugene Sperazza, C.J. Bufalino, Joseph Sklarosky Jr., Tine Polachek Gartley, Tony Lumbis, Stephen Menn, Richard Hughes and Michael Pendolphi.

The four who won’t accept money from attorneys are: Molly Hanlon Mirabito, Joe Musto, Daniel Zola and Thomas Marsilio.

Michael Blazick said he won’t accept donations from attorneys who practice in the county court system.

Blazick said he read a recent article in the American Bar Association Journal that stated surveys in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania found 80 percent to 90 percent of the public believe judicial decisions are influenced by campaign contributions.

“If we do not remove the taint of money created when attorneys give money to judicial campaigns, we will never restore the integrity of the courts. In light of the problems confronting our county’s judiciary, and the conversations that I have had with members of the community, it is patently obvious that the public trust must be restored,” Blazick said.

Mirabito said she won’t take money from attorneys because she wants to avoid “even the suggestion of impropriety,” she said, “An independent judiciary is imperative at all times and for Luzerne County, particularly now.”

Rogers said she views contributions from attorneys as affirmations of her candidacy from her peers and as expressions of their belief in her ability to serve efficiently and impartially.

“To suggest that a campaign contribution from an attorney would somehow buy that attorney a ‘favor’ in the future cuts against the very fiber of my character and everything I stand for,” Rogers said.

Musto said the surest way to insure a level playing field in the courtroom is to state unequivocally that as a candidate, he will not solicit or accept campaign donations from attorneys.

“That way, everyone who is in my courtroom knows I have no preference toward any party,” he said. “I will conduct a fair and impartial trial.”

Zola agrees, saying that he would have to recuse himself from any case that involved an attorney that would have contributed to his campaign.

Terrana said he has reinforced to everyone – lawyers and non-lawyers alike – that their contributions are voluntary and will have zero effect on his decisions as a judge.

Marsilio said, “I will under no circumstances accept campaign donations from attorneys or members of their immediate families either directly or indirectly.”

Amesbury said he isn’t “independently wealthy,” so he will accept contributions from those who wish to support him.

“I have been a district judge for over eight years,” he said. “I have never had any issues raised by anyone, regardless of which attorney appeared before me. The noble promise engraved above the entrance to the Supreme Court is ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ – not favoritism to the highest bidder.”

O’Connor said the issue for him is campaign reform. “How will people run a competitive campaign unless you’re a self-made millionaire,” O’Connor asked.

Sperazza noted that contributions to judicial campaigns are governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct and consistent with that code, judicial candidates have a long history of accepting contributions from lawyers.

Bufalino agreed that the judicial code provides that candidates’ committees are not prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions or support from lawyers.

“I call upon all judicial candidates, if elected, to voluntarily disclose in each and every case, the name of any lawyer or party whom has contributed to his or her campaign and to automatically recuse himself or herself from presiding over the matter upon motion of any party,” Bufalino said.

Sklarosky said attorneys donate to judicial candidates because they believe those candidates exhibit the qualities a judge should have.

“These attorneys understand the importance of courtroom experience, temperament, and integrity, so they look at their peers and determine who they believe would be most qualified to sit on the bench,” he said.

Gartley said no donation will influence her decisions.

“To not accept support from a particular group or profession implies that all members of that group or profession engage in misconduct or unethical behavior,” she said. “Regardless of who contributes to my campaign, there will be no preferential treatment in my courtroom – period. I do what is right, not what is popular or beneficial to any one person or special interest group.”

Lumbis said he is certain he won’t be “one of the best financed by the legal community.” He said he won’t be influenced by any donations – whether they are from attorneys or anyone else.

Menn said he won’t solicit donations from anybody. He said donations will have no bearing on how he would decide cases.

Pendolphi said he has friends who are lawyers. He said if his friends donate, they won’t receive any preferential treatment.

Hughes said he believes attorneys, just as any citizens, have the right to give to a candidate they feel is qualified to be a judge.

“I understand the question, but the long and short of it is if you’re an ethical person, the fact that someone has made a donation shouldn’t change your impartiality on any case,” Hughes said.

Bill O’Boyle, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7218.