Candidate: Thomas McCabe

Court: Chester County Court of Common Pleas

Party: Democrat

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

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

Thomas McCabe: Pragmatic—it is important to remember that the litigants in front of the court are there advocating over their livelihoods, liberty and/or matters impacting their lives. A court's decision should recognize that the applied law impacts real people in concrete ways.

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

McCabe: I am one of the best candidate's for the role of Court of Common Pleas judge as my career as a litigator in both criminal law and civil litigation make me uniquely qualified on the matters that come before the court. I have handled matters ranging from traffic tickets up through First Degree Homicide jury trials, appellate oral arguments, Orphans' Court litigation, land use/municipal matters, juvenile delinquency hearings, and civil bench trials. I am chair of the Chester County Bar Association's Criminal Defense Section and co-chair of the Civil Litigation Section, and I received the Chester County Bar Association's highest rating of "qualified." I am experienced in a wide range of practice areas, and ready to serve on day one.

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

McCabe: The greatest threat to the practice of law is the perception of impartiality of the court – namely that the judge will not be impartial in his or her decisions. The judicial branch retains its importance, influence and authority, based largely on its credibility to render just decisions that are accepted as being fairly decided regardless of whether the litigant wins or loses.

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

McCabe: As a Democrat, I believe in the Constitution, the rule of law and equality of all persons who come before the court and, if elected, would treat all litigants fairly and impartially.

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?

McCabe: No.

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?

McCabe: Distrust in the judiciary creates the challenge for the bench that its decisions are not fairly and impartially rendered. Judges should respond by avoiding anything that would lend itself to the appearance of impropriety—and thus call into question the impartiality of the decisions made by the judge.

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?

McCabe: The factors in deciding whether recusal is necessary include but are not limited to a personal connection with the litigant or attorney and the involvement of the litigant or attorney with the judge's campaign. With respect to recusing myself regarding campaign contributors being involved as a party or attorney, I would follow the judicial ethics guidelines and be sure to disclose the contribution and connection to all parties and attorneys involved before the court.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

McCabe: Former Chester County Public Defender John (Jack) Merrick—working in his office trained me to know the statutes, rules of procedure and case law cold, but to also keep an eye toward the practical impact on the client. The office culture was one of great comradery, where you worked together defending the Constitution for the indigent and by extension for society at large. My pragmatic legal philosophy stems directly from my experiences as an assistant public defender.