Primary 2013: 4 for Common Pleas
Thirteen candidates are seeking nominations in next Tuesday's primary election for four seats on Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. All of the candidates are cross-filed. We recommend the following four:
• Impeccable. That's the best word to describe the credentials of Bill Ward, 61, of Mt. Lebanon. He's Gov. Tom Corbett's former chief of staff and has extensive legal experience over more than 30 years, from an assistant U.S. attorney to the state Attorney General's Office. Mr. Ward was appointed to a vacant bench slot last year. He deserves election in his own right.
• The perfect temperament. That's the best phrase to describe P.J. Murray, 51, of Upper St. Clair. A quiet and humble man, his mantra during his 23-year legal career — much of it representing small and mid-sized businesses — is “Be prepared, know the law and be respectful.” Mr. Murray's philosophy is one that would serve the people and the court system well.
• Life's work. That's what Rosemary Crawford, 49, of Hampton, hopes to get on with. She says she knew she wanted to be a judge beginning at age 6. And she's certainly laid the groundwork for her chosen profession — a 23-year legal veteran known for tackling complex civil litigation. “Respect” is her byword, a perfect trait for the bench.
• Fair. That's the byword of Marcia Cooper, 51, of O'Hara. She's another well-rounded civil litigator. Ms. Cooper knows that the wheels of justice often move slowly and she'd like to make the Civil Division more efficient. That's an admirable goal to which we hope this 23-year legal scholar can contribute.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.