On Nov. 5, Pennsylvanians are set to decide which two candidates will join the ranks of the state Superior Court. To get a better understanding of each candidate's background and judicial philosophy, The Legal has asked each to respond to a questionnaire touching on a variety of topics important to the legal community.

Responses to the questionnaires are set to be published in the weeks leading up to the general election. This installment comes from candidate Daniel McCaffery, a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

The following has been lightly edited for style.

1. What makes a good judge?

Empathy, a strong work ethic and the determination to make the correct decision for the right reasons.

2. How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

I always keep foremost in my mind that the case before me is the most important matter in the world to the litigants. Therefore, I demand that the attorneys who appear before me do so prepared, ready to try the case and with the requisite knowledge of the facts and the applicable law. Most importantly, I try to treat each party and their attorneys with dignity, respect and to demand professionalism.

3. What two decisions or cases are you most proud of, and why? Conversely, what two opinions or cases would you like to take back or revise, if you could, and why?

There are no two cases that I am able to single out as most or least proud. In my mind, to do so would diminish the importance of every other case that I have handled throughout my 28-year career. As mentioned above, I try to approach every matter as of equal importance with the understanding that to every litigant, the only outcome that matters is theirs.

4. How have your background, personal experiences and views shaped you as a lawyer or judge?

My parents are Irish Catholic immigrants from Belfast, Northern Ireland. They fled their home to escape religious persecution and sectarian violence in order to provide their children with opportunities not available in Northern Ireland. My father was literally beaten into a coma because of his religion. When he awoke, he lost his job as a printer and as a professional boxer. My parents understood that no one would fight for them so they immigrated to America looking for opportunity and equal treatment and they were embraced by their adopted country and community. My parents raised their children to understand that America gave our family an opportunity to succeed and that we should always be prepared to give back. I joined the U.S. Army at age 18, served on active duty with First Cavalry Division, was selected to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point Prep School by the officer corps and ultimately received an honorable discharge. I attended Temple University and its law school on a veterans scholarship while serving in the Army Reserve. I turned down offers from area law firms to accept a position as an assistant district attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. I served as a prosecutor from 1991 to 1997, assigned to several units ultimately ending my career in the major trials unit after trying over 50 jury trials and thousands of waiver trials. It was my honor to seek justice for crime victims including sexually exploited children, women who were victims of domestic violence and victims of assaults, robberies and rape. In 1997, I joined a small Montgomery County firm and helped it to grow to over 30 attorneys. I became partner after three years, chaired the litigation department and served on the management committee before being elected to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2013. Since my election to the bench, I have presided over thousands of trials including over 200 jury trials, pre- and post-trial motions, PCRAs and have authored over 200 opinions to the Superior Court. My unparalleled experience has resulted in a "highly recommended" rating by the Pennsylvania Bar Association—the only candidate to receive the highest rating. In addition, I have served my community as an active youth sports coach for over 20 years, community activist and volunteer and youth mentor. My overriding desire is to help people. I want to serve and think it is the most important calling one can have. That is why I always work hard to do the right thing and am willing to take a stand on matters of principle, no matter the consequences.

5. How do you differentiate yourself from others seeking to be elevated to the appellate bench?

See answer 4 above. No other candidate has my broad-based experience in both criminal prosecution and civil litigation—both plaintiff and defense. No other candidate has as much trial experience as a trial attorney or trial judge.

6. Does Pennsylvania need a separate court of criminal appeals to divide the massive workload of the Superior Court?

No. The Superior Court, as currently constituted, consistently issues well-thought-out, clear, concise and timely opinions on all matters, both criminal and civil. That said, the current caseload for each judge is massive and this question may be better posed to a sitting Superior Court judge.

7. What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

The greatest threat to the practice of law and our profession is the constant political attacks leveled against the integrity and independence of the judiciary. When members of the executive, the legislature or members of the bar publicly question the integrity of the courts or politicize its decisions, their comments threaten to influence the decision-making process and undermines the public's confidence in the entire profession and especially the courts.

8. How important is consensus—particularly unanimous consensus—in appellate court opinions and are there limits when a judge should only concur, or should they do it any time they feel like it?

Each judge must decide the case for himself or herself but only after engaging in a fair and impartial deliberative discussion of the facts and applicable law with their fellow panel members. Consensus is always preferable but not necessarily required on any particular manner. No judge should surrender their honest conviction because of the opinion of a fellow jurist.

9. How important is stare decisis and when should a court depart from it?

Stare decisis is a critically important legal principle for any intermediate appellate court judge. Litigants and their attorneys must fully understand the law and its practical consequences. Appellate courts must not lightly disregard existing well-settled authority except for cogent reasons and upon a clear manifestation of error.

10. Does the court need to become more open and accessible to the press and public?

All courts and all court officials should strive to be more open and transparent to the public they serve. The only exception is the deliberative processes engaged in by individual judge so as to shield decisions from outside influence. Nonetheless, courts should, and must, weigh the public's right to access with a litigant's rights to privacy and, in certain circumstances the safety of the parties.

11. What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Nothing.

12. What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct governs recusal. Although the rule establishes the criteria for recusal, the recusal question is largely left to the discretion of the individual judge. Thus, a judge must balance the black letter law with questions of conscience on all matters of recusal. Personally, I believe that the overriding concern on any question of recusal is and should be with protecting the integrity of the courts. The appearance of impropriety should be heavily weighted in favor of recusal whenever an individual judge's impartiality in a matter may reasonably be questioned.

13. Who are your role models and mentors?

My parents. I was taught to treat everyone with kindness and to follow the Golden Rule: "Love God above all else and do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This philosophy may sound simple in verse but is complicated in practice. I try to apply them to everyone in all things.

More from the Pennsylvania Superior Court candidates: