Candidate: Daniel G. Ronca

Court: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Party: Democrat

Montgomery Bar Association rating: Highly recommended

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Daniel Ronca: My judicial philosophy is not easily categorized. I believe, generally speaking, that it is the duty of the judiciary to fairly and, without prejudice, apply the law enacted by the legislature to the facts presented as those facts are determined by the finder of fact. However, for various reasons, not all of our statutes are always well-defined on particular important points. In addition, a law enacted many years prior may no longer make sense due to changes in technology or in society. At those times, it is incumbent on the judge to use his or her best efforts to reasonably interpret the language of the law so that a ruling will make sense.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Ronca: In order to preside over trials, I believe that it is necessary for a trial judge to have extensive trial experience as an attorney. I have been a trial attorney for over 37 years and have tried many cases to verdict in the areas of criminal, civil, and family law. In addition, the Independent Judiciary Committee of the Montgomery Bar Association has rated me as "highly recommended" to serve on the Court of Common Pleas, which is the highest rating available. This rating means that at least 80% of the committee found that I have "superior qualifications" to serve on the court "with distinction." I am the only bar association recommended candidate in this race.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Ronca: In my experience, particularly in family law, but not necessarily limited to that area, the greatest threat to the practice of law is the rise of the "do-it-yourself" mindset, which I believe has grown along with the nearly universal access to the internet by the public. Attorneys must often battle against incorrect legal notions and unrealistic expectations that clients glean from general information websites which may or may not even represent the law in their jurisdiction. Attorneys must often remind clients that they were hired by the client for their knowledge and experience and that the client should trust the attorney's expertise and judgement. Anything that interferes with the relationship between attorney and client is a threat to the practice of law.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Ronca: After a through interview process, I was recommended for endorsement by the Montgomery County Democratic Committee (MCDC) Judiciary Committee and then unanimously endorsed by the MCDC Endorsement Convention. As a result, I must assume that my party supports both me and my legal outlook.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Ronca: It is impossible for the courts to be completely divorced from politics, particularly at the appellate court level. While I believe that politics have always been present in the judiciary to a certain extent, in recent years, decisions by, most notably, the appellate courts on hot-button issues have put the courts in the middle of the polarization that has gripped our nation. While trial courts are not immune to claims of politics and polarization, I do believe that the public perceives common pleas court judges as being less politically involved due to the types of cases that those judges hear and their inability to bind the entire state or nation with their rulings. I do believe that any such perceptions are ultimately corrosive to our judicial system and that all judges should do their utmost to avoid any hint of political motivation in making rulings. Judges should apply the facts to the law in a fair manner and without favor and, wherever possible, leave the political battles to the executive and the legislative branches.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Ronca: In a democracy, all branches of government, including the courts, rely heavily on the goodwill and trust of the people. Once that trust is broken, it is very difficult to get it back. If the public does not respect the judiciary, it will not respect the court's rulings. If it does not respect or follow rulings, our system of justice grinds to a halt. Each judge must run his or her court in a manner that is as transparent as possible. Each judge must speak to and act toward parties in a respectful manner. Each judge must remember that the goal is always to do justice and to allow parties to try their cases, when necessary, even if a settlement would be more convenient or advantageous for the court.

The Legal: 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?

Ronca: Even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided. Certainly, any close personal connections with a litigant or attorney would give rise to recusal, as would any business relationship. With regard to campaign contributors, both sides should be made aware that a contribution was made and be given the opportunity to request recusal, which should be granted upon request.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Ronca: I have had a number of role models and mentors. One was the late JoAnne Epps. I was fortunate enough to have attended the first class that she taught, criminal procedure, at Temple Law School, in 1985. She was fresh out of the U.S. Attorney's Office and had the procedural insight that can only be gained through extensive trial experience. She was the best teacher that I have ever had, and she inspired me and countless others to be trial attorneys. Another was the late Honorable Toby Dickman, who, as a well-regarded family lawyer and later judge, was willing to teach a 38-year-old litigator virtually everything that he now knows about family law. I am forever grateful to both of them.