Candidate: Jessica R. Brown

Court: Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Party: Democrat

Philadelphia Bar Association rating: Recommended

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

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

Jessica Brown: My overarching judicial philosophy is to first and foremost treat everyone who enters my courtroom with respect. I would examine each case from a neutral posture, considering the facts and law, and then apply those facts to the law as necessary. As a judge at the trial level, I would follow all relevant appellate precedents in reaching my conclusion.

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

Brown: My extensive litigation in both civil and criminal matters makes me the best candidate for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I have tried hundreds of cases. I have practiced in state court and federal court. I have represented individuals, groups and the government. This wide-ranging experience makes me uniquely qualified to preside over both civil and criminal matters.

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

Brown: The greatest threat to the practice of law is a loss of confidence by society at large in the fairness of our courts. If people do no believe that the courts treat everyone equally and that there is unequal access to justice, then the courts lose their legitimacy.

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

Brown: My party membership reflects my support of the Democratic party's progressive and forward-looking history. If I am elected, I will render a decision based solely on the facts and law before me. Party politics are irrelevant to that decision making process, hence I would never consider them.

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?

Brown: I believe that overall the courts in Pennsylvania do not currently have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized. One important task for all elected judicial officers is to continue to work to maintain an image of fairness and neutrality.

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?

Brown: Distrust in the judiciary creates challenges because it can undercut people's trust in the rule of law. Judges can work to combat distrust in the judiciary by being transparent, where allowed by the law, in their decision making process.

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?

Brown: I will consider follow guidance of the Code of Judicial Conduct and determining when recusal is called for, erring on the side of recusal where there could be an perception of impropriety or bias.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Brown: I have been shepherded by many people throughout my life. In particular, my parents who taught me that I had a duty to make my community better than I found it. My legal mentors have included attorney David Zuckerman, my first supervisor at the Defender Association; Jodeen Hobbs, my colleague at the U.S. Department of Labor; and Ralph Teti, my colleague at Willig, Williams & Davidson. All of them taught me how to use the law to help people and make our country a better place, while treating my opponents with civility and respect. Finally, my friend and former priest the late Rev. Carl Metzger served as a role model for the type of person I want to be as I walk through this world—one who always remembers that each of us is more than the worst thing we have done.