Joshua Prince Runs for Commonwealth Court

Candidate: Joshua Prince

Court: Commonwealth Court

Party: Republican

Pennsylvania Bar Association rating: Not recommended

The following has been edited lightly for length and style. 

The Legal Intelligencer: Tell us about your background, where you went to law school, what firms you have practiced at, and areas of law you focus on.

Joshua Prince: Roger Williams University, 2000 (transferred to McGill University); McGill University, 2001-2004, Bachelor of Arts, double major, Political Science and World Religions, graduated with honors; Widener Law School, 2006-2009, Juris Doctorate, graduated cum laude and as a member of law review.

Attorney at Prince Law Offices, 2009-present; civil rights practice defending victims of civil rights deprivations at the local, state and federal levels. Founder, sole owner and chief counsel at Civil Rights Defense Firm, 2016-present; beyond handling all civil rights issues at the state and federal level, Civil Rights Defense Firm has several divisions, including one concentrating on firearms law and Second Amendment issues.

The Legal: What is one major thing about your career experience that most qualifies you for this position, and why?

Prince: Over the past 13 years, I have handled the gamut of civil and criminal matters, including everything from general civil (including landlord/tenant), to family law, to Right to Know Law, to workers’ compensation and Social Security disability law, to mental health law, to zoning law, to election law, to administrative law, to constitutional law, to class actions, and the list goes on. Unlike other candidates, I have experience—absent bankruptcy, state tax law and admiralty law—in almost every area of the law that exists in Pennsylvania, including having handled four class actions, of which I have already been successful in three of them and tentative settlement terms were reached April 11 in relation to the fourth (John Doe v. City of Philadelphia, A.R.  v. City of Philadelphia; John Doe 1 v. Monroe County; and John Doe 1 v. Franklin County).

Perhaps more importantly, the majority of my experience is in areas of the law covered by the Commonwealth Court. I respectfully submit to you that I have handled more areas of law than almost any other attorney seeking a judicial vacancy, and my experience also includes federal court litigation, inclusive of general civil rights litigation, which tends to be a niche area of practice. In relation to the Pennsylvania state appellate courts, I’ve litigated over 45 cases.

Focusing my experience solely in relation to Commonwealth Court and just over the past four years, you will see that I have or am in the process of litigating 10 cases (Pennsylvania State Police v. Sama, Firearm Owners  v. City of Harrisburg, Firearm Owners Against Crime v. City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County Sportsmen League v. City of Pittsburgh, Landmark Firearms v. Colonel Evanchick, Armstrong v. City of Phila., Doe v. Franklin, Fick v. PSP, Firearms Owners v. Evanchick, Firearm Owners Against Crime v. Shapiro).

As I am sure you know, for a nongovernment and nonappellate-only attorney, that is an extremely high number of cases to have litigated before any appellate court. Of those 10 cases, I have already been successful in eight, which, statistically, is virtually unheard of for an attorney, especially one who is frequently representing the petitioner/plaintiff or appellant. And, I would respectfully submit to you, if an attorney has been that successful before the Commonwealth Court, he or she must have the depth and breadth of experience to warrant such results and to sit on that court.

Moreover, I have been successful in arguing a number of cases of first impression (e.g., Commwealth v. Hicks, Fick v. PSP, Firearms Owners v. Evanchick, Commonwealth v. Goslin, Doe v. Franklin County). While I can cite to a number of additional cases of first impression, where the appellate courts have ruled consistent with the arguments that I have made, I believe these already sufficiently reflect that I not only have the requisite depth and breadth of experience, but that my arguments are grounded in the law and, as a result, adopted by the courts.

Lastly, if you review my amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Hicks, as well as the public defender’s brief for Mr. Hicks and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority opinion and take the time to compare the arguments I made in the amicus brief to those not made in Mr. Hicks’ brief but ultimately included in the Supreme Court’s decision, I believe you will see that I clearly have the depth of legal experience, grounded in the law as written, necessary to sit on the Commonwealth Court.

The Legal: What is the main reason Pennsylvania voters should pick you?

Prince: As an experienced litigator, in both the trial and appellate courts in Pennsylvania, who will only ever uphold the law as written and the constitutions as intended and whose arguments have been affirmed on countless occasions by the appellate courts, I have shown that like any decisions I would render as a judge, my arguments are grounded in the law and not in politics. In this vein, it is imperative that we only elect those judicial candidates who understand and respect the three co-equal branches of government and never seek to legislate from the bench.

The Legal: What will be your approach to moving matters efficiently through the case management system? 

Prince: As an attorney who frequently litigates in the appellate courts and is frequently frustrated with the delay in decisions by the courts, I will do everything in my power to ensure that any outstanding decision before me is handled as expeditiously as possible, with great consideration given to the parties and their right to have decisions rendered in a timely manner.

The Legal: What would you say to voters regarding your plans to ensure the equal administration of justice for all people?

Prince: As an attorney that has spent my entire career defending our civil rights in the state and federal courts, I am especially sensitive to ensuring the equal application and administration of the law for all. While justice is supposed to be blind, in many occasions, unfortunately, it is not. However, I can assure you that as a judge, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the court treats every person equally, with respect and dignity. And if you want proof of my position, just look to all the cases I’ve litigated, defending the right to equal application and administration of the law for all.

The Legal: Where can voters go for more information about you?

Prince: https://www.princeforjustice.com/