Ratings of Candidates for Two Vacancies
Amanda Green-Hawkins
Rating: Not Recommended
The candidate has been an attorney for the United Steel Workers (USW) since 2002. Prior to working at the USW, she served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence Lawson on the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the USW, the candidate has served as an assistant counsel and, most recently, as director of the Civil and Human Rights Division, where she has been charged with providing advice and counsel, overseeing training and compliance, and developing policy. She has successfully argued cases in both federal district and appellate courts. Her peers, mentors and supervisors credit the candidate with having a strong work ethic. The candidate supports underserved communities, acts with integrity and displays an appropriate demeanor. However, the commission finds the candidate has not had the experience and preparation necessary to take on the role of judge on the Pennsylvania Superior Court and, therefore, does not recommend her candidacy at this time.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.
Megan McCarthy King
Rating: Recommended
The candidate began her legal career in 1996 with the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office where she focused on cases involving child abuse. The candidate then clerked for Justice Thomas Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from 1999 to 2001. In 2012, the candidate returned to the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office where she was integral in leading the Elder Abuse Unit and in maintaining duties in the Child Abuse Unit. In 2015, the candidate began working as the deputy district attorney in the Child Abuse Unit in Chester County. The candidate has extensive criminal trial experience. She is described by attorneys and judges as intelligent, articulate, fair, well prepared and diligent. In addition to her legal experience, she is involved in several charitable organizations. The commission finds that the candidate possesses the legal ability, experience, integrity and judicial temperament to perform satisfactorily as a judge of the Superior Court and recommends her candidacy.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.
Judge Daniel D. McCaffery
Rating: Highly Recommended
The candidate is an experienced jurist known for his high degree of professionalism and good judicial temperament. He is engaging, sincere, intelligent and affable with an admirable work ethic. His legal career has taken several paths. He served as an assistant district attorney for five years and then was in private practice for 16 years. The candidate has served as a common pleas court judge since 2014. He has a sound knowledge of legal principles, with his opinions and legal writings being well-reasoned. He also has extensive community involvement, including volunteering as a coach for the past 20 years. Because of his broad experience as a practicing attorney, proven record of judicial leadership, high ethical standards and dedication to the legal profession, the commission is confident that the candidate would serve with distinction as a Superior Court judge and highly recommends his candidacy.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.
Judge Christylee L. Peck
Rating: Recommended
The candidate has practiced law since 2001, first serving as an associate in private practice with civil trial litigation and business law duties and then as an assistant district attorney in Lancaster County in the Child Abuse Unit. From 2005 until her election in 2011 to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, she served as the senior district attorney in Cumberland County specializing in the prosecution of sex crimes, child abuse and other major crimes. The candidate has acquired a broad array of experience as a result of her duties as a prosecuting attorney and seven years on the bench. Her legal opinions are considered thorough, logical and well-reasoned. She is recognized as a hard worker, articulate and accomplished, as well as thoughtful, approachable and fair in her interactions with litigants and attorneys. The commission believes the candidate’s experience as a lawyer and as a judge will enable her to ably fulfill the responsibilities of a Superior Court judge and therefore recommends her candidacy.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.
Ratings for Two Retention Candidates
Judge Anne E. Lazarus
Rating: Recommended for Retention
The candidate has served as a Superior Court judge for the past 10
years. Her impressive career also includes service on the trial court
for a combined total of nearly 29 years on the bench. She has earned the
reputation as an extremely capable and hardworking jurist. Her judicial
temperament has been described as “perfect,” and her opinions are
thoroughly researched and well written. The candidate was active in
creating the First Judicial District’s Pro Bono Committee, out of which
the mortgage foreclosure committee and the custody conciliation
committees were created. In addition to her work on the Superior Court,
the candidate teaches courses to both law students and lawyers
throughout the commonwealth. She has earned the respect of both
litigants and lawyers during her time on the bench, and the commission
recommends her retention for the Superior Court.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.
Judge Judith F. Olson
Rating: Recommended for Retention
Having served on Superior Court for the last 10 years, the candidate
is regarded as a hardworking and extremely capable jurist. She has
authored well-written opinions that are easily followed and understood,
and which demonstrate appreciation of the effects legal decisions have
on the lives of the parties involved. She is described as talented,
bright, prepared and fair in her application of existing law to the
cases before the court. The candidate has actively participated in
community and charitable boards and is loyal to the missions and
purposes of the institutions. She also speaks at bar association
programs, giving practical advice to those in attendance. The candidate
has earned high praise and respect for her service on the Superior Court
and the commission recommends her retention.
Read the candidate’s questionnaire.