Politics in justice: fuel for suspicion

When Municipal Court Judge Mitchell S. Lipschutz decided to run for Common Pleas Court in 1983, he did what nearly every candidate does: He formed a campaign committee to help him.

As it turned out, Lipschutz's bid to join the Common Pleas bench that year failed, and he remained a Municipal Court judge. But for seven lawyers who had joined his committee, it hardly meant the end of their contact with him.

Within months of being named to the campaign committee, these lawyers defended 18 clients in front of Lipschutz, according to court records. Fourteen of the defendants won their cases.

At no time in the courtroom did the lawyers or the judge publicly disclose their recent political relationship, according to interviews and court records. One lawyer served as Lipschutz's campaign treasurer and helped organize a key fund-raising event, but even that connection was not disclosed in the court case.

A comparison of criminal-case records and state campaign-finance reports shows that Lipschutz was far from alone in hearing cases from lawyers who had helped his campaign.

The records show that candidates for judgeships in Philadelphia routinely accept donations from lawyers - and then allow those lawyers to try cases in front of them a short time later.

From 1979 to 1984, 15 judges placed lawyers on their campaign committees or accepted sizeable contributions - $300 or more - from lawyers and then presided over cases involving the same lawyers.

According to an Inquirer study, lawyers appeared before these 15 judges in 64 cases within a year after their campaigns. Fifty-six were Municipal Court cases, and eight were heard in Common Pleas Court.

From a statistical viewpoint, these defense lawyers were highly successful.

In Municipal Court from 1979 to 1984, 35 percent of all the cases entering the system did not result in convictions. In the 55 Municipal Court cases where there was a campaign connection between the lawyer and the judge, 71 percent (39 of the cases) did not result in convictions.

Some of these cases resulted in not-guilty verdicts or were discharged by judges. Others were withdrawn by the prosecution, in some cases because witnesses had failed to appear and in other cases because judges had granted motions suppressing key evidence.

Lawyers say that contributing to judicial candidates and rallying to their political support are time-honored traditions in Philadelphia. It is a game, they say, and it is hard to find an active courtroom lawyer who isn't asked to play it.

There is an accepted understanding that what a lawyer does for a judicial candidate outside the courtroom may one day make a difference inside the courtroom. At the very least, lawyers don't want to take the risk of what will happen if they don't participate.

"Given the system we have to work with, if a judge asks you to buy tickets or be on a committee, you have a definite problem if you reject them," said lawyer Michael A. DeFino. "You better start practicing in front of another judge. "

Adam O. Renfroe Jr., another Philadelphia lawyer, said he has served on several judges' campaign committees. Campaign records show he donated $1,225 to 11 judges between 1981 and 1984.

"Anybody who doesn't is crazy," Renfroe said. "It may not necessarily help me, but I don't want to be hurt. We're the only thing that separates a defendant from jail. We need every club in our armor we possibly can. We have to do everything that is legal and above board to prevent him from going to jail. "

Many lawyers and judges believe that it is difficult to forget these relationships when a lawyer brings a case before a judge.

"If you're going to be really independent as a judge, I think they should pass a law that no lawyer can contribute to a judge," said Common Pleas Court Judge Albert F. Sabo. "Even subconsciously, you're going to feel you owe him (the lawyer who gives campaign money) a favor. "

In lengthy interviews, lawyers and judges said that the low number of convictions in cases handled by judges and lawyers with campaign ties did not necessarily point to anything improper. Nor is there anything illegal about the campaign donations; no law prohibits lawyers from contributing to judicial campaigns.

However, many lawyers say the very existence of the political and financial relationship between lawyers and judges taints the integrity of the justice system, offering at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"It astonishes me that the (state) Supreme Court has not imposed some type of regulation over that very type of thing," said Bruce A. Franzel, a

criminal lawyer who was 1985 chairman of the Philadelphia Bar Association

Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention.

"The appearance of impropriety is there, whether there is a $5,000 contribution or a $50 contribution," Franzel said. "It has the appearance that one or the other (the lawyer or the judge) is expecting a quid pro quo. "

Such relationships show up in the court system in cases ranging from theft to drunken driving to aggravated assault.

The Inquirer did a computer analysis of the campaign finance reports of the 55 Municipal and Common Pleas judges who ran for elections and formed fund- raising committees from 1979 through 1984. The study included candidates running for Municipal and Common Pleas Court, incumbent judges seeking to be retained, and Philadelphia judges who ran for statewide appellate courts.

Among the findings:

* In 63 criminal cases, defense lawyers appeared in front of judges within a year after serving on those judges' campaign committees or contributing at least $300 to their campaigns. Only two judges, Common Pleas Court Judge Charles P. Mirarchi Jr. and Municipal Court Judge Matthew F. Coppolino, said they remembered ever disclosing their prior political ties with defense lawyers during a case.

* Six judges named lawyers to the post of treasurer or chairman of their campaign committees and then heard cases from these lawyers without any disclosure during the case. In one instance, Municipal Court Judge Kenneth S. Harris, then running for Common Pleas Court, appointed attorney Ronald White as his campaign chairman and then tried three of White's clients just 21 days later. Harris found all three defendants not guilty of gambling charges.

* Two judges running for seats on higher courts accepted campaign donations of $500 or more from lawyers and then heard those lawyers' cases in court less than five weeks afterward without disclosure.

In no case is there an indication that a defendant was aware of the

financial relationship between the judge and defense lawyer. At issue is not the merits of the results of these cases, but the ethical questions raised for the lawyers and judges involved.

Under the state Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are held accountable even for the appearance of impropriety. Says Canon 2 of the judicial code: "A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. "

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the canon in 1973 as part of the code, it supplied the following commentary:

"Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. . . . (A judge) must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. "

The law does not require judges to disclose whether they have received campaign contributions from a lawyer trying a case in front of them.

In interviews, many lawyers and judges said the system of electing judges did exactly the opposite of the intent of the canon: Instead of inspiring public confidence, it inspires public suspicion.

"The whole situation is a troublesome one," Common Pleas Court President Judge Edward J. Bradley said in an interview. "I have advocated other systems consistently. "

So has Edward G. Rendell, whose tenure as district attorney ended Jan. 6. ''If you were a (crime) victim, and you learned that the lawyer was the co- chairman of a judge's campaign committee two years ago," Rendell said in an interview, "would you think you got a fair shake? "

Rendell added: "What goes on is influence peddling with no money passing hands. Influence peddling comes from the political system. It comes from lawyers who have close relationships with judges and may have helped in their political campaigns. "

But there are two sides to the coin. To get elected, judicial candidates turn not only to defense lawyers, but also to the district attorney himself.

Rendell was a very active player in the judicial election process. He routinely endorsed candidates, and on some occasions he has spoken on radio advertisements for judicial candidates and has sent out letters naming his choices to thousands of individual voters and civic organizations. Some who have won judgeships acknowledge openly that they could not have done so without Rendell's support.

Rendell maintains there are differences between his support of judicial candidates and financial support from private lawyers. For one, he said, he thinks it is in the best interests of the public for the district attorney to support the best judicial candidates. In addition, he said, his endorsements were always done in the open.

But a number of defense lawyers said in interviews that Rendell's active campaigning for judges created at least as much of an ethical conflict as the campaign contributions they make.

Defense attorney Dennis Cogan, who has been an active supporter of several judicial candidates, said his contributions had far less impact than endorsements from Rendell. The district attorney's office, he said, has ''more chips owed to it than I ever could have been owed. "

THE ALL-IMPORTANT

PARTY ENDORSEMENT

The quest for a judgeship in Philadelphia is rooted in politics from start to finish. To win election, a candidate needs money - thousands of dollars. To get that financing, a candidate turns to friends in the legal community. And that is where the process begins and the conflicts arise.

At the core of any election bid, lawyers and judges explain in interviews, is an endorsement from the Democratic or Republican city committee. Once endorsed, a candidate is expected to make a significant contribution to help defray the party's campaign expenses.

As part of the campaign process, judicial candidates pay money to party ward leaders in many of the city's 69 wards. The money is ostensibly for printing sample ballots to give to voters at the polls, or for so-called street money for various errands on election day.

But many judges say the system of giving money to wards amounts to no more than a poorly disguised form of bribery.

"They (the candidates) have to bribe ward leaders," said Common Pleas Court Judge James D. McCrudden. "That's a different way of saying it. The ward leader has his hand out. "

When Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo A. Guarino ran for retention in 1983, he said, one party's ward committee chairman in the Northeast told him: "You didn't pay your dues. " Guarino said that he was stunned by the brashness of the comment, and that his surprise was met with this response from the ward member: "Be realistic, not idealistic. "

In recent judicial elections, the going rate for an endorsement from the Democratic City Committee for the primary alone ranged from $3,500 to $12,500, according to candidates and party officials.

City Controller Joseph C. Vignola, a ward leader, says the money is needed. "It's just a matter of the sheer number of voting districts in the city and trying to have your name on that many (sample) ballots," Vignola said. "It pays for the printing and also pays for the election-day workers. "

He said he wouldn't call the contributions from judicial candidates ''bribery. "

"Is it insurance? " Vignola said. "Yes. "

To raise that money, most judicial candidates turn to the people they know best - other lawyers.

In any given election season, lawyers find themselves inundated with solicitations. The requests normally are in the form of an invitation to a cocktail party, with several tickets for $100 apiece.

Since the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from directly soliciting anyone, the crucial job of getting people to buy tickets to these affairs has to be given to someone else.

In many cases, a candidate for judge has entrusted that job to a Philadelphia defense attorney.

JUDGE HEARS CASES

BY HIS TREASURER

When it came time for Judge Lipschutz to have a fund-raising event in 1983, he held it at the Middle East Restaurant, owned by former City Councilman James J. Tayoun. The responsibility of promoting attendance at that party

went to lawyer Anthony J. DeFino.

"I was instrumental in sending out letters on his behalf and getting people to come to his affair. I'm not going to play it down," DeFino said in an interview. DeFino also served another function in Lipschutz's bid for the Common Pleas bench: that of campaign treasurer. DeFino was responsible for compiling campaign contributions and reporting them. All reports sent to the state Elections Bureau in Harrisburg carried his signature.

The cocktail party Defino organized at the Middle East was on May 13, 1983.

Exactly a month later, DeFino saw Lipschutz again - in City Hall Courtroom 196.

On June 13, 1983, DeFino appeared before Lipschutz representing defendant Victor Salio on a charge of drunken driving. The defendant had flunked a Breathalyzer test, court records showed. It was his third drunken-driving arrest.

Lipschutz found him not guilty.

Three months later, on Sept. 22, 1983, Anthony DeFino represented defendant Robert Constanzo before Lipschutz on charges of drunken driving, according to court records. On this date, Lipschutz discharged the case for lack of prosecution. (In both Salio and Costanzo's cases, the court record gives no details of why the defendants won. )

Asked about his role as Lipschutz's campaign treasurer and fund-raiser, DeFino said: "I never placed undue significance in it. I would like to believe he was impartial. " DeFino said that there may have been one occasion in which Lipschutz disclosed the relationship in the courtroom, but that ''most of the times the answer would be no."

Lipschutz, in an interview, said that he did not think disclosure in the courtroom was necessary in any cases where lawyers who helped his campaign later appeared in front of him.

"I think there's enough public disclosure," he said. "If the rules required someone to make it public, I wouldn't object to making it public.

"As long as the cases are moved, I don't care who appears in front of me and who doesn't."

DeFino wasn't the only lawyer with a campaign link to Lipschutz who later appeared in front of the judge.

Six other lawyers on the 26-member "Committee to Elect Judge Mitchell S. Lipschutz" also had cases in front of him, according to court records and campaign material.

Two of those lawyers - Michael A. DeFino and Dorothy S. Langton - were members at the time of Anthony DeFino's law firm. The four others were Adam Renfroe, Herman Bloom, Ronald White and Richard D. Atkins.

On May 3, 1983, all six were listed on the Lipschutz campaign committee's letterhead. During the next seven months, these lawyers took 16 defendants in front of Lipschutz.

In two cases - preliminary hearings on assault charges against attorney Atkins' client, and a murder charge against a man defended by Renfroe - Lipschutz ordered the defendants held for trial in Common Pleas Court. Another Renfroe client, accused of prostitution, got a year of non-reporting probation; still another got three years' non-reporting probation and a $220 fine for illegally possessing a loaded pistol.

In the 12 other cases tried by these campaign-committee lawyers, there were no convictions.

Lipschutz said that these six lawyers did virtually no work for his committee and were there only because he felt it was important to have as many names on the committee as possible. The committee letterhead listed all 26 members. Lipschutz said, however, that three or four members did all the work.

"The letterhead looks bad if there are only three or four on it," he said. "Most of the lawyers on my committee didn't do anything. They were just there. "

One lawyer alone, Renfroe, had nine cases before Lipschutz during the seven months after his name appeared on the campaign letterhead. According to court records, these were the cases:

* On May 12, 1983, Renfroe client Edward Henry was sentenced to three years' non-reporting probation and a $220 fine for illegally carrying a loaded .45-caliber gun.

* On May 24, 1983, Renfroe client James Oliver was found not guilty by Lipschutz on a drunken-driving charge.

* Also on May 24, 1983, prosecutors dropped a weapons-possession charge against Renfroe client Alexander Medley, after Lipschutz granted the attorney's motion to suppress evidence.

* On June 16, 1983, prosecutors dropped a marijuana-possession charge against Renfroe client Robert Brown, after Lipschutz granted Renfroe's motion to suppress evidence.

* On July 26, 1983, Renfroe client Joseph Weissinger was released after Lipschutz discharged the theft charges against him for lack of prosecution.

* On Aug. 22, 1983, Renfroe client Jeffrey Watson was held for court on murder and robbery charges at a preliminary hearing before Lipschutz.

* On Aug. 25, 1983, Renfroe client Chris Pendel was given a year of non- reporting probation by Lipschutz after being arrested for prostitution.

* On Sept. 14, 1983, prosecutors dropped charges of possession of a pound of marijuana with intent to deliver against Renfroe client Ronald Thomas, after Lipschutz granted the defense attorney's motion to suppress evidence.

* On Nov. 29, 1983, Renfroe client Jeffrey Citler was released when Lipschutz ruled that the formal complaint accusing him of drunk driving and

drug possession was defective.

In an interview, Renfroe said he did not even know he had been on Lipschutz's election committee. He said he could not explain how his name was included on the printed stationery listing Lipschutz's campaign members.

Renfroe did acknowledge that his sister, Patty-Michele, is Lipschutz's law clerk. Because of that relationship, Lipschutz said, he was told at one point by the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board that Renfroe could not try cases before him. However, Lipschutz said, the review board revised its decision and allowed him to hear cases involving Renfroe as long as the judge disclosed to the prosecution that Patty-Michele Renfroe was his law clerk.

Renfroe described Lipschutz as "one of the most fair and impartial judges I've had to encounter" and said he thought there was no reason he should not try cases in front of him.

On the evening of Jan. 3, 1986, after Lipschutz was sworn in as a Common Pleas Court judge, his supporters held a reception in City Council's high- ceilinged caucus room. Many of the guests - judges, lawyers, politicians - had departed by the time Renfroe arrived.

Renfroe walked across the room, hugged Lipschutz and kissed him on the cheek.

AVOIDING THE LOOK

OF FAVORITISM

William M. Marutani, who became a Common Pleas Court judge in 1975 and later ran unsuccessfully for the state Supreme Court, has a rule about the possibility of one of his campaign chairmen ever appearing in front of him:

He would not let it happen.

"They don't appear before me," he said.

The reason for that, said Marutani, was obvious:

"It clearly can be a basis for favoritism, or at least a basis for an accusation of favoritism. Even if the law and the facts were completely on the side of (the chairman's client) your decision is still vulnerable to an accusation of favoritism. "

For former Superior Court President Judge Edmund B. Spaeth Jr., the whole idea of a judicial candidate campaigning for office was enough to make him retire.

At the beginning of 1985, Spaeth said he was not going to seek retention in the November election because he believed that political campaigning by judges was "fundamentally incompatible with the judicial process. "

Spaeth said he could no longer participate in a system that he felt was ''distasteful. "

"I don't want to solicit contributions, and I don't want to seek political support," he said in an interview.

"Suppose you're before the court and you know your opponent's lawyer has made a contribution," Spaeth said. "That shouldn't be. It's inconsistent with the appearance of impartiality. A court must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair. "

But other judges' actions suggest a different attitude.

Records show that six judges in the Philadelphia court system who ran for election from 1979 to 1984 heard cases with lawyers who served as either treasurer or chairman in their campaigns.

Campaign records also show 32 cases in which lawyers contributed $300 or more to judges in campaigns, and then appeared in front of them within the next year.

And in some instances, the amounts of the contributions were much higher.

JUDGES AND BACKERS:

SOME CASES IN POINT

When Kenneth S. Harris ran for Common Pleas Court in 1981 from the Municipal Court bench, he named lawyer Ronald White as his campaign chairman on April 1 of that year. Harris lost in the primary but later, in 1983, was elected to the Common Pleas Court bench.

"I guess what I tried to do was maybe raise money for the candidate," said White of his involvement in Harris' 1981 campaign. "I may have asked a few people to contribute, or just sent out a bunch of letters. "

Twenty days after White became his campaign chairman, Harris ordered a verdict of not guilty for co-defendants Robert Coleman, Ronald Bonner and Kenneth Hill on charges of conspiracy and illegal lottery - in other words, running a numbers game. Their attorney was Ronald White.

Within the next year, White represented at least three other defendants before Harris:

* On Sept. 17, 1981, White represented Anthony T. Jones at a preliminary hearing before Harris on charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and terroristic threats. Witnesses said that on April 9, 1981, Jones shot a 23-year-old man in the back at 60th and Sansom Streets, critically wounding him. According to court records, Harris discharged the case because the victim twice failed to appear and testify.

* On Jan. 21, 1982, White represented defendant Anthony Davis on charges that he had resisted arrest and assaulted two police officers, punching one in the chest and kicking another in the groin. Davis was charged with aggravated assault. Harris convicted him of simple assault and gave him one year of non- reporting probation.

* On March 10, 1982, White represented defendant Thomas McBurnette on a charge of drunken driving. At trial, Harris found McBurnette not guilty.

In an interview, White said he did not think his relationship to Harris made any difference in the cases. "I think a good judge basically administers justice on the basis of what the facts are," he said.

Harris, however, felt that in hindsight, he should not have heard the cases. He said that White's participation in his campaign was minimal, but that nonetheless it was a mistake for him to have heard the cases. During the campaign, White advanced $423 to the campaign that later was reimbursed.

"From appearances, and appearances alone . . . if I had to do this again it would be something that I would not do," Harris said.

*

When Victor J. DiNubile Jr. ran for Common Pleas Court in 1981, one of his co-chairmen was City Councilman John C. Anderson, a lawyer. The following year Anderson had two cases in front of DiNubile.

In the first case, on Feb. 16, 1982, DiNubile found defendant Aubrey Bango not guilty of conspiracy, assault and reckless endangering. The victim had identified Bango as one of five men who had beaten him with car antennas.

In the other case, on July 12, 1982, the judge acquitted defendant Stanley Jones of simple assault, burglary and trespassing charges in a dispute with his former girlfriend.

DiNubile said Anderson's campaign role had been that of a figurehead to give his campaign a Democratic presence. DiNubile's other co-chairman, Vito F. Canuso Jr., was a Republican. As lawyers, Anderson and DiNubile shared offices from 1973 to 1978 and had worked on several cases together, DiNubile said. Anderson died in October 1983.

DiNubile said he saw no reason to disclose that Anderson had been one of his campaign chairmen. "It wasn't going to make a difference," he said.

But he said the whole appearance of asking lawyers to help a judge's campaign worried him. "It's bad," said DiNubile. "You're asking people that come before you (in court), and it may not look proper. Judges should be out of politics."

*

When Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph P. McCabe successfully ran for retention to the Municipal Court bench in 1979, his official campaign treasurer was lawyer Francis J. Moran, according to reports signed by Moran and filed in the state Elections Bureau. He ran the fund from his own Center City law office, and he donated $350 to the campaign.

Moran was treasurer from Jan. 1, 1979, until Jan. 16, 1981, campaign reports show, and handled more than $16,000 in donations and expenses. Records also show that in 1980, the year after McCabe's re-election, Moran collected $5,325 to pay campaign debts.

On June 23 of that year, defendant Daniel Rodriguez appeared before McCabe on burglary charges. His court-appointed lawyer was Francis Moran.

The prosecution was ready, but the court record indicates that the judge postponed the case because Moran arrived late. After various factors caused three more postponements, Moran's client was back in front of McCabe on Oct. 20, 1980.

This time, records show, McCabe dismissed the case because the prosecution's key witness had twice failed to appear in court.

In a recent interview, McCabe described Moran as a "close, personal friend," but said he did not think it necessary for him to disclose in court the lawyer's role in his campaign. He said the prosecution witness had actually missed three court dates.

When asked if any appearance of impropriety arose from Moran's appearing in front of him, McCabe said, "You can stretch those words so a judge in a courtroom would not be able to try a case. "

The assistant district attorney on the case, Elizabeth Chambers, disagreed. She said she didn't remember the case, but said she surely would have asked McCabe to disqualify himself if she had known that Moran was then the judge's campaign treasurer. "That's outrageous," Chambers said.

Despite the fact that his signature appears on official 1980 campaign records as McCabe's treasurer, Moran said in two interviews that he was no longer McCabe's campaign treasurer during the 1980 Rodriguez case. In fact, he said, McCabe had done him a "distinct disfavor" by dismissing the case before Moran could earn more hourly fees in the case.

*

When Municipal Court Judge Ricardo C. Jackson ran for the Common Pleas Court bench in 1979, his chairman was Philadelphia lawyer A. Benjamin Johnson Jr., according to campaign records. Jackson failed in his bid and remained on Municipal Court. The following year, Johnson had two cases in front of Jackson.

On April 16, 1980, Johnson represented defendant Ulysses Ware. Jackson held the defendant for court on five charges stemming from a shooting at a bar during a fight. Ware later was found guilty of reckless endangerment in Common Pleas Court and sentenced to two years' probation.

On Nov. 7, 1980, Johnson appeared in front of Jackson, representing defendant Reginald Hart on charges that he had been stopped by police with a loaded .38-caliber revolver in his possession. Jackson found Hart guilty and sentenced him to two years' probation.

Jackson said he saw no reason to disclose in court Johnson's role in his campaign because of the rights of appeal afforded to both sides in Municipal Court cases.

"If I was going to make a final disposition (in a case)," said Jackson, ''I would disclose it."

*

When Eugene Clarke ran for Common Pleas Court in 1981, one of the most active members of the "Lawyers for Eugene H. Clarke Jr." committee was Bruce A. Franzel.

Subsequently, on Jan. 25, 1982, Franzel represented defendant Dwayne Moore before Clarke. Moore, charged in a gunpoint robbery, pleaded guilty; in April 1982, Clarke gave him a 1 1/2-to-five-year sentence. Moore served four months

because of time already served awaiting trial.

Clarke, in an interview, said he did not remember Franzel's involvement in his campaign, although Franzel said he had been a co-chairman of a committee.

Of his campaign's administration, Clarke said: "I stayed away from it. . . . I stayed away from any finances that went in and out. "

But Franzel, on his own, did something highly unorthodox in the Philadelphia court system. He made a point of disclosing his involvement to the district attorney's office.

After working for Clarke's campaign, he wrote a letter on May 29, 1981, to prosecutor Arnold Gordon notifying him of his campaign work for Clarke.

"I wish to avoid any potential appearance of impropriety and, therefore, will continue to ask that my cases be listed elsewhere if the Commonwealth has any objection to my appearing before (Clarke)," Franzel wrote.

Gordon wrote a reply on June 2, 1981, saying he had no objection to Franzel's appearance before Clarke, but leaving open the option to object to his appearance if a case were "especially sensitive. "

Gordon, in an interview, said he could not remember receiving any other letter in which a defense attorney disclosed his involvement in a judge's campaign.

A LAW FIRM'S

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

After 2 1/2 years on the Municipal Court bench, James G. Colins decided it was time for a change - not of careers but of judicial scenery.

Tired of Municipal Court and becoming increasingly frustrated with the daily rigors of life inside City Hall, Colins decided to run for a seat on the Commonwealth Court. Because it was a statewide election, his bid required enormous amounts of time - and money.

Lawyer Dennis Cogan, a partner at that time in a law firm called Kogan & Cogan, said he remembered Colins' campaign problems well.

"When Colins came to me and said, 'I think I'm going to lose because I don't think I have the money,' sure, I contributed," Cogan said.

Cogan and Colins were friends. They had gone to Northeast High School together and had worked in the district attorney's office together. Later, when Colins practiced law privately, he had rented space from Cogan's firm.

Starting in 1981 when Colins ran for Municipal Court, the contributions made through the Kogan & Cogan firm totaled $1,900 over two years. Contributions were made in the name of the firm, and individual donations came from Cogan and his wife, and partner Mark Kogan and his wife.

On May 2, 1983, 15 days before the Commonwealth Court primary, Colins' campaign received $500 from Kogan & Cogan, bringing the total that was donated by the firm and its partners and their wives to $1,400.

Eight weeks later, Dennis Cogan tried a theft case in front of Colins; the judge dismissed the charges. And on Sept. 1, 1983, Colins found a client of Cogan's not guilty of trying to sell marijuana. Records and interviews show that the contributions were not disclosed in court in either case.

Twenty-one days after the not-guilty verdict in the drug case, Colins' campaign received another $500 from the Kogan & Cogan firm, bringing the amount contributed to $1,900, according to public records at the state Elections Bureau.

"I don't think there was an appearance of impropriety," Colins said in an interview. "But looking back in retrospect, I can see how someone can make an arguable case.

"I think that when the public reads this, their eyebrows are going to be arched," Colins said. He added, "If I was going to do something improper, I wouldn't have filed it in the public record. "

Cogan said his contributions played only a minor role in Colins' campaign.

"Without my contributions," Cogan said, "Colins would have gotten elected anyway. " He said he believed that members of the district attorney's office were aware of his relationship with Colins.

The firm of Kogan & Cogan also supported the candidacy of Judge Jackson when he made a second run for Common Pleas Court from the Municipal Court bench in 1981. On May 8 of that year, Jackson's campaign received a $500 donation from the firm.

On Sept. 22, 1981, campaign-finance reports show, the two lawyers made a $453.89 "in-kind" donation. (In-kind donations are services or supplies - for example, printing leaflets or buying food for a fund-raising party. ) That brought their total contributions to the Jackson campaign to $953.89.

Six days later, Dennis Cogan appeared before Jackson for the sentencing of Joseph Stanish. Jackson had convicted Stanish and two other men of aggravated assault for attacking a man at Sixth and South Streets. "They were kicking him and hitting him, and there was blood everywhere," a neighbor had testified. Jackson sentenced each defendant to two years' probation and ordered each to pay $626 restitution.

Seven days after that, on Oct. 5, 1981, Cogan represented defendant Louis Torres before Jackson on charges of attempting to steal a Cadillac on Bayard Street in West Oak Lane. Jackson determined that prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence, and he threw out the charges.

On Oct. 29, 1981, Jackson's campaign committee received a $300 donation

from a secretary at Kogan & Cogan, bringing the amount of contributions made by the firm and its employees to $1,253.89.

On Nov. 25, 1981, Dennis Cogan represented defendant Carlos Melendez before Jackson on charges of attempted theft and conspiracy. According to the complaint, Melendez was charged with trying to steal a Pontiac Trans-Am from an A&P supermarket parking lot at 9900 Bustleton Ave. Jackson discharged the case.

In an interview, Jackson said he did not look at his campaign-finance reports and was not aware of the contributions made by the Kogan & Cogan firm.

"A candidate for a judgeship should not know who has contributed to his campaign," Jackson said. He also said that, in the future, he intended to disclose any campaign contributions by lawyers who may appear before him in court.

Cogan said of the contributions to Jackson's campaign: "He wasn't a friend of mine, but I always respected him as a lawyer. He was having tremendous

financial problems when he was running. When we were told there were serious

financial problems, we came through. "

'GET ME OUT

OF THE MIDDLE'

On July 13, 1983, Judge Lipschutz's campaign for Common Pleas Court received a $500 contribution from lawyer Daniel-Paul Alva and his partner, Stephen R. LaCheen.

Thirteen days later, Alva appeared in Lipschutz's courtroom representing defendant Jerome Blatch. Blatch faced various charges and was accused of aiming a loaded .38-caliber revolver at a man and woman at Clarissa and Dalkeith Streets in the Nicetown section and threatening to kill them.

Of the nine charges against Blatch, Lipschutz discharged six that day for lack of prosecution. A month later, Lipschutz threw out one more charge for lack of evidence, and on the remaining two, he found Blatch not guilty.

Alva said in an interview that he did not think it necessary to disclose the campaign contribution in court because the case was simple and contained no credibility issues. He said the bulk of the case had been discharged

because a prosecution witness had failed to appear.

Alva also said he could see why the contribution he and LaCheen made to Lipschutz's campaign might appear improper. But he said it was up to state courts or the legislature - not him - to pass laws that would prevent this

from happening.

"It may look two years later that it did not look correct," he said of the failure to disclose the donation in court. "So don't put me in a position where I can give money. Get me out of the middle. "

If the court system restricted how much a lawyer could contribute to a judicial candidate, Alva said, the system's image would improve. Lawyers ought ''not to be able to give to judges they're going to be in front of," he said.

"I think the image of attorneys is not that great," Alva said. "I think if you remove the appearance of impropriety (by restricting contributions), it will help judges and lawyers in the long run. "

SUCCUMBING TO

SOLICITATION SEASON

"Yeah! Let's talk about it!" said criminal defense lawyer Nino V. Tinari when he was asked about donating to judges' campaigns. To make his point, he scooped up a stack of letters and envelopes and tossed them across his desk.

It was solicitation season - about a month before last May's primary - and the pleas for Tinari's financial support were hot and furious.

Among the sampling:

A letter from the campaign committee of then-Municipal Court Judge Joseph McCabe, who was running for Common Pleas Court; a letter from Common Pleas Court candidate Mario Driggs that said in part: "Any contribution you can make will be greatly appreciated"; a letter from defense lawyer Joseph Santaguida inviting Tinari to a cocktail party for Common Pleas Court Judge William Porter, who was running for Superior Court; a letter from Lipschutz's campaign committee enclosing three $100 tickets for a fund-raising event.

Tinari said his gut reaction to these solicitations was, "Hey, f- all of you. "

But Tinari doesn't always do what his gut tells him.

From 1979 until 1985, according to campaign-finance reports, Tinari had contributed $2,420 to various judicial candidates. One of the donations, $500,

went to the Common Pleas Court campaign of Nelson A. Diaz on Oct. 16, 1981.

On July 26, 1982, Tinari represented defendant John Galiczynski before Diaz on charges that included two counts of theft, unauthorized use of a car, illegal removal of the car's identification number and possession of a controlled substance, according to court records.

Diaz found Galiczynski not guilty of the theft and auto charges, and guilty of the drug charge. On Sept. 15, 1982, he sentenced him to one year's probation and ordered in-patient treatment at Eagleville Hospital & Rehabilitation Center.

When asked about Tinari's donation and whether it had been disclosed in court, Diaz said: "I think it should be disclosed and I do disclose it at sidebar. " Later in the interview, Diaz said he had no idea if he had in fact disclosed the contribution during the Galiczynski case. "It wouldn't have made a difference anyway," Diaz said. "I wouldn't have taken it into consideration. "

Diaz also noted that Tinari's contribution came after the judge had already won the May 1981 judicial primary. With the city's overwhelming Democratic majority, a judicial candidate who wins the Democratic primary is all but guaranteed a judgeship in November.

"Who the hell cares in that situation whether he contributed? " Diaz said. ''I didn't need him. "

While saying he had no doubts about Diaz's integrity, Tinari said that the combination of events - donating to Diaz's campaign and then having a case in front of him - gave the public a right to question the outcome.

"To use the language of the law, it appears to be an appearance of impropriety," said Tinari. "It's what the layman says: 'It just doesn't seem fair. ' "

So why did he contribute to Diaz's and other judges' campaigns?

"We're a fraternity," Tinari answered. "You see these guys (judges), you know these guys. . . . They ask for help, and they're a part of the system, and who can they turn to but their pals? "

FOR HELP, TURNING

TO THOSE HE KNOWS

When Municipal Court Judge Nicholas M. D'Alessandro decided to run for Common Pleas Court in 1979, he recalled, he didn't have the instant financial backing that could be offered by one of the city's large law firms. He said he also didn't have enough money to finance his campaign independently. So he did what most judicial candidates do: He turned to lawyers he knew for

financial help.

Some of those lawyers later appeared before him. D'Alessandro, who was elected to Municipal Court in 1977 and later won a Common Pleas Court judgeship, did not think any courtroom disclosure of their contributions was necessary.

"I don't think things like that should be mentioned in a courtroom," he said. "It doesn't influence my decision, and I don't have any problem with it. "

One of lawyers who helped D'Alessandro move from the Municipal Court bench to the Common Pleas benchwas a longtime friend, Robert S. Blasi. They lived in the same Manayunk neighborhood, and D'Alessandro said he sought advice from Blasi, who was active in ward politics, about what to do during the campaign.

Blasi donated $350 on April 26, 1979, according to D'Alessandro's campaign reports.

On June 13, 1979, Blasi appeared in front of D'Alessandro representing defendant Edward J. Xander on drunken-driving charges. Police said Xander's breath had smelled of alcohol when he was pulled from his car after weaving through Manayunk for several blocks and striking a utility pole on Henry Avenue.

After the prosecution made its case, Blasi asked D'Alessandro to drop the charges for insufficient evidence, and D'Alessandro agreed.

Less than a month later, according to campaign records, Blasi's wife, Alice, loaned the D'Alessandro campaign $1,000; she was repaid in October. Robert Blasi donated an additional $260 to D'Alessandro in September and October 1979.

"I worked exceptionally hard for Judge D'Alessandro because he was a friend," said Blasi. "I don't think that a contribution to a judicial campaign has any influence on the judge. Certainly not those types of contributions. I don't consider $350 or $500 a lot of money. "

D'Alessandro, in running for Common Pleas Court, also accepted contributions of $300 or more from two other lawyers who later appeared in front of him.

According to campaign reports, D'Alessandro received $500 from defense attorney Joseph Santaguida - $300 on April 22, 1979, and $200 on Oct. 25. From June 1979 to June 1980, Santaguida represented 10 defendants before D'Alessandro.

Prosecutors withdrew charges in two of the cases before D'Alessandro had taken any action. Three other cases, involving three co-defendants accused of beating and robbing a man, were dismissed because a witness failed to appear.

Four of Santaguida's cases resulted in verdicts of not guilty or were dropped because of Judge D'Alessandro's rulings. Three of the defendants had been charged with minor drug offenses; D'Alessandro found the fourth defendant not guilty of shooting a man six times.

In that case, the victim could not convince D'Alessandro that he had accurately identified the assailants, who had worn handkerchiefs over the lower halves of their faces, according to court records.

In the 10th case that Santaguida had in front of D'Alessandro - by then a Common Pleas Court judge - a defendant was found guilty by the judge on charges that he and an accomplice had robbed a man near 22d and Ellsworth Streets and had broken his jaw. D'Alessandro sentenced the defendant to six to 12 years in prison; on Santaguida's motion, he later reduced the sentence to three to six years.

In an interview, Santaguida said that requiring a judge to disqualify

himself because of a campaign contribution or a personal relationship would create an almost absurd situation in the Philadelphia court system.

"If a judge is going to disqualify himself from a case with every lawyer he's had a personal relationship with," Santaguida said, "there are not going to be many people he can hear cases from. "

On April 19, 1979, the D'Alessandro campaign received $100 from defense lawyer Barry Denker. On Sept. 14, 1979, Denker donated $300, making the total $400.

On Oct. 2, 1979, Denker appeared before D'Alessandro representing defendant Kareem Nasir at a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court on charges that Nasir and a co-defendant had tried to sell 25 packets of heroin to a plainclothes police officer for $75. D'Alessandro dismissed the charges.

Denker said in an interview that the charges were dismissed because the police officer testifying, Richard Jumper, had not seen Nasir pass anything.

On Nov. 5, 1979, Denker represented defendant Nicholas T. McNeely in Municipal Court on charges of assaulting a police officer, illegally possessing a shotgun and making terroristic threats. McNeely pleaded guilty to simple assault and was placed on one year's probation. Denker said the charges had stemmed from a domestic dispute and that he had negotiated a plea and a recommended sentence with the district attorney's office.

"I don't think there's any correlation between the contributions and the cases," he said. "I don't think it has any influence at all on the outcome. "

But, said Denker: "If they want to have a rule limiting contributions to $100, that's fine with me. "

ARGUMENTS FOR

AND AGAINST CHANGE

Despite the appearance of impropriety created by the election of judges in Philadelphia, and despite the vocal criticisms of judges and lawyers alike that the system harms - rather than helps - the public perception of justice, there is little indication that anything will change.

Calls for selecting judges by appointment through the so-called merit selection system have been frequent, but they have never gotten far, due in part to a perception that the power to select a judge would shift from the voters - or at least, the political parties - into the hands of an elite few sanctioned by the governor.

"I don't want to see an elitist system," said D'Alessandro. "Nick D'Alessandro would never have become a judge under it. "

But others feel it has to change.

"The election of judges is a process that is fraught with evil," said lawyer Cogan. "I'm in favor of a rule which limits contributions. Even that is an imperfect middle ground. This system will never work right until the manner in which we select judges is completely abolished. "

In the meantime, Cogan said, "do we remove ourselves from having any part? The answer is no, how can we do that? "

So judges keep getting elected, and their campaigns keep creating appearances of impropriety.

In 1985, Municipal Court Judge Lipschutz ran again for Common Pleas Court. Again facing the familiar financial obstacles, his committee sought and received contributions from lawyers. One of them - for $500 - was received

from Natale Carabello Jr. by Lipschutz's committee on March 27.

Two weeks later, on April 9, Carabello appeared in Lipschutz's courtroom representing defendant William Dillon on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Dillon allegedly had been speeding through traffic lights when police stopped him on April 21, 1984, at Second Street and Washington Avenue in South Philadelphia; he had refused to take a Breathalyzer test.

The case was delayed five times at the defense's request, according to court records. Finally, on Feb. 20, 1985, Carabello was ordered by Municipal Court Judge Ronald Merriweather to be ready for trial on April 9.

When the case got to Lipschutz on that date, the judge heard no evidence. He discharged the case for lack of prosecution.

The district attorney's file indicates that Lipschutz asked twice during the morning whether the case was ready and dismissed it because the officer who arrested Dillon was not present to testify.

Five minutes after that dismissal, the file also shows, the police officer arrived in court.