Maureen Lally-Green

Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Maureen Lally-Green

• Political party registration: Republican
• E-mail: Committeetoelectlallygreen@yahoo.com
• Daytime telephone: 724 367 8190

1. What in your background prepares you for service as a judge on the court for which you are running?

The following in my background, I believe, prepares me for service as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
A. Judicial experience as a Judge of the Superior Court since June 1998, when my appointment to the Superior Court was confirmed
· 1998-present Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Judge. (Appointed by Governor Tom Ridge in 1998 and confirmed by the State Senate (6/1998))
· Elected to a 10 year term beginning 1/2000.
B. Part-time Research Associate/Consultant experience regarding judicial matters with two Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for over ten years during the 1980s and 1990s
· Appeals Research Associate, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Justice Nicholas P. Papadakos and Justice John P. Flaherty. (My work involved assisting in the drafting of proposed allocatur petitions.)
· Consultant, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Justice and then Chief Justice John P. Flaherty. (My work involved assisting in the drafting of proposed opinions.)
C. Experience with the administrative work of the Supreme Court as a Supreme Court appointed member of:
o the Intergovernmental Commission on Race, Gender and Ethnic Fairness (Secretary and Commission Member since its inception);
o the Judicial Council's Gender Implementation Subcommittee (Chair);
o the Appellate Procedural Rules Committee;
o the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; and
o a Disciplinary Hearing Committee of the Disciplinary Board.
D. Teaching/academic experience. Since 1983, I have served either as a part-time or a full time law professor at Duquesne University School of Law. My experiences in the law school classroom give me a unique appreciation of legal theory and a familiarity of issues relating to the civil, criminal, and labor and employment areas of law:
9 /83-present Duquesne University School of Law, Hanley Hall, Duquesne University School of Law, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
-Adjunct Professor of Law (9/1983-7/1986)
-Visiting Professor of Law (7/1986-7/1987)
-Assistant Professor of Law (7/1987-7/1989)
-Associate Professor of Law (7/1989-5/1992)
-Professor of Law (5/1992-1/2000 and on leave 6/1998-12/1999)
-Adjunct Professor of Law (1/2000-present)
Courses taught over the years include:
· Federal Employment Discrimination (1983-1998; 2000-present)(co-teaching currently);
· Legal Research and Writing (1983–1994);
· Professional Responsibility (1986);
· Federal Environmental Law (one summer);
· Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure (1987-1998);
· Federal Labor Law (1994, 1996–2001, except 1999);
· Federal Labor Law and Employment Discrimination Seminar (Spring 1995);
· Appellate Practice and Procedure (2002-present)(co-teaching currently).
E. Diverse employment background in many areas of the law:
· 9/74-3/75 Attorney, private law practice with a law firm that dissolved in 1975, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (My work was in the securities, tax and estate planning areas.)
· 5/75-7/75 Instructor, Robert Morris College, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (now Robert Morris University) in Business Law. (My work was teaching a business law course.)
· 8/75-1/78 Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Divisions of Trading and Markets and of Enforcement.
(My work, among other things, included: participating in an investigation that resulted in the reorganization of a Chicago commodity futures exchange; working on commodity futures exchange rule enforcement reviews; and litigating cases.)
· 2/78-9/83 Counsel, Major Litigation Section and Corporate Law Section, Law Department, Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
(My work, among other things, included: counseling executives of, and managing litigation for, various divisions involving the transportation and other industrial segments; assisting in the defense of a major securities case; participating in the defense of counterclaims in Westinghouse's uranium antitrust litigation and of other related litigation matters, including governmental investigations of potential violations of securities and foreign corrupt practices laws; and presenting on product liability law for various corporate personnel.)
§ 1986-5/98 Lawyer, solo practice
(My work was limited to a very small client base in business and estate planning.)
F. My experience living in the Commonwealth as a Wife, Mother, Daughter, Friend and Citizen. 

2. Briefly describe the nature of your law practice or, if you are a lower-court judge now, your overall legal experience.

My overall legal experience is as follows, some of which is also addressed in the answer to Question 1).
The first year, 1974-75
This year included support work in the securities, estate planning and general tax/ corporate realms. I had no clients but I did work on the firm's clients in an associate/support capacity.
The early years, 1975-1978
These were years where my work was in the litigation arena, in either the investigatory or prosecutorial arenas. I worked for the federal government at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The areas in which I focused were the federal commodity futures and other relevant federal laws.
The next years, 1978-83
My years at Westinghouse Electric, 1978-83, were years where my work was both litigation- and business-related. For the first four years of my work there, my work was litigation-related in defense of a securities case and of the counterclaims in the uranium antitrust cases. Then, my work shifted to the business side where I both managed the "outside" litigation for segments of Westinghouse businesses and former businesses and provided counsel on primarily commercial matters. The areas in which I focused were the federal securities laws, federal antitrust law, multi-district litigation rules, federal rules of civil procedure, foreign corrupt practices law, the uniform commercial code, and contract, commercial and tort laws in many states, including Pennsylvania.
The next years, 1983-1998 (and adjunct 2000--2007)
My years at Duquesne University have been devoted to education of law students. From 1983-86, I taught part-time and from 1986 to 1998, I taught full-time. I also assisted with various Law School and University-wide programs. My course work is detailed above and included: Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure; Employment Discrimination; Labor Law; Professional Responsibility; Environmental Law; Labor and Employment Seminar; Legal Research and Writing; and Appellate Practice and Procedure.
During my time at Duquesne University School of Law, I served as a part-time clerk/consultant with the Supreme Court. My early work with both Justices was to review petitions for allocatur and to assist in the preparation of draft allocatur opinions that suggested either a grant or a denial of the petition for allocatur. My work as consultant with former Chief Justice Flaherty was to assist in the preparation of draft opinions respecting cases that were accepted for review by the Supreme Court.
1998-present: My work as a Judge of the Superior Court
My work now is the performance of all of the duties associated with the position of commissioned Judge of Superior Court. The jurisdiction of the Superior Court is quite broad. Litigants have a right of appeal from the Common Pleas Courts to the Superior Court unless, due to the Constitution, a statute or a determination of the Supreme Court, the matter is to be heard by the Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court. My work on the Superior Court has provided me with both a broad knowledge of, and experience with, the jurisprudence of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

3. Have your been rated by the bar association? If so, how were you rated? If you have not been rated, please explain why.

Yes, by both the Allegheny County and the Pennsylvania Bar Associations. The Allegheny County Bar Association rated me "Highly Recommended" for Supreme Court in December 2006, its highest recommendation. The Pennsylvania Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Commission rated me "Highly Recommended" for Supreme Court in 2003 and in 2007, its highest recommendation. The Commission said the following in 2007:
The Candidate has served as a judge of the Superior Court since 1998, having been appointed in 1998 and elected to a 10-year term beginning in January 2000. The Candidate has been a professor at Duquesne University School of Law and she has practiced law in the areas of securities, business and corporations. She also has served as a research associate for the Supreme Court. She has written extensively on a wide-ranging set of topics and her writings are scholarly and thoughtful. The Candidate also has written a variety of opinions during her tenure on the Superior Court that are noteworthy for their organization and structure and her clear analysis of the issues and applicable precedent. Her opinions are well-reasoned and provide very helpful guidance on difficult issues. In addition, her judicial temperament and impartiality in decision-making are outstanding. She is known for her fairness, courtesy and respect for counsel who appear before the Superior Court. The Candidate also has an outstanding record of meaningful community service. The Commission believes that the Candidate would be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court and highly recommends her.

4. How does/should an individual judge maintain his/her independence?

"Judicial independence" means that judges are able to perform their duties in a fair and impartial manner that comports with the requirements of the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States, and the law. Citizens turn to the courts to resolve disputed issues and/or to vindicate their rights. Judges who are able perform their duties in the described manner serve these needs of the citizens in a way contemplated by our Constitutions and the law.
A judge can maintain his/her independence when performing judicial duties by engaging in a disciplined analysis of the relevant Constitutional provision, statute or common law principle and relevant precedent, a careful and complete review of the record, an understanding of the appropriate scope and standard of review of the particular issue, and fair, impartial and respectful decision making and treatment of all involved. Likewise, a judge maintains his/her independence in the performance of administrative duties when those duties are performed in the context of what the Constitution requires and in an open and accountable manner. In these ways, a judge maintains his/her independence and thus best serves the public.
 
5. What are the most pressing needs of reform in our justice system?

The most pressing need of reform in our justice system relates to the need to improve the public’s confidence in the third branch of government. The public’s confidence exists when decision-making is done, and is perceived to be done, in a fair and impartial manner; and when administrative duties are performed in a transparent and accountable manner and in the context of the mandates of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Public confidence increases when the public understands the role of the Judiciary and its processes, when there are policies and procedures in place that assure fair and impartial decision-making and treatment in the Courts, and when the Judiciary addresses problems in a way that makes the Courts more accessible and assures the dignity of those who use the Courts.

6. Under what circumstances should a courtroom be closed to the public or the media?

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press." The Supreme Court and courts throughout the United States have held that the public and the press have a right to attend trials under the First and Fourteenth Amendments except where there is an overriding interest articulated in the court’s findings following adequate notice and a hearing. While the closing of the courtroom to the public or the media is permitted, such closure is rare. The circumstances existing for closure usually involve some highly protected constitutional interest, such as, for example, national security or the rights of a defendant to have an unprejudiced trial, and the absence of a less restrictive means to protect that interest.