Samantha Williams Runs for Seat on Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Candidate: Samantha Williams

Court: Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

Party: Democrat

Philadelphia Bar Association Rating: Recommended

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Williams: As a recently appointed judge of the Court of Common Pleas, my judicial philosophy has been centered on the pillars of respect and fairness, with a focus on taking an individualized, fact-specific, holistic approach to every case that comes before me. Courtrooms are inherently stressful environments for all parties involved. In my courtroom, I ensure the appropriate application of the law, and take pride in the fact that I’ve fostered an environment where anyone that walks through my door is met with patience, treated with dignity and has the opportunity to be fully heard.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Williams: I’m the best candidate for the role because I have the practical experience and life experience to truly make a difference. Beginning my career as a prosecutor provided me with a wealth of trial experience, as well as insight on courtroom operations, judicial protocols and the effective management of caseloads. As a director of legislation and policy [for Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. of the Philadelphia City Council], I was able to then use my knowledge of gaps within our systems to write laws that were aimed at making them fairer and more efficient. In terms of my life experience, I am a product of this city in every sense of the word. I was born, raised and still live in West Philly. I’m Philadelphia educated: through our city’s public school system and Temple University. I’ve dedicated my entire legal career to public service to the city that I will call home for the rest of my life. My well-rounded background and demonstrated dedication to Philadelphia gives me the ability to appropriately apply the law while remaining cognizant of the needs of, and issues facing, those who may appear before me.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Williams: A long-standing threat to our profession is an overall lack of diversity. When I speak of diversity, I am not just speaking in terms of gender diversity or racial diversity—I see the need for diversity in age and experience as well. Increasing diversity within our systems enhances the broader opportunity for fairness in our processes.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Williams: While I have chosen to run as a Democrat, who I am, and my outlook on the law, is based upon my upbringing in Philadelphia, my dedication to public service and my experience reforming systems for the betterment of our residents.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Williams: There is a public perception problem when it comes to Pennsylvania courts appearing partisan, which I attribute to the partisan nature of our state’s judicial elections. This can be combated if every judge commits wholeheartedly to the duty of maintaining independence and applying the law fairly to all, regardless of their individual political beliefs. As a sitting judge, I have fully embraced the non-partisan aspect of our judiciary, and realize its importance in ensuring fairness and impartiality.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Williams: Distrust in our systems is rooted in the inequality of outcomes and is a persistent issue that goes far beyond the judiciary. When race, gender, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status are pitted against implicit biases that decision makers may hold, it undermines true fairness and impartiality in courtrooms. It is important for judges to acknowledge that these disparities exist and be devoted to rooting out any potential bias in their decision making. It is equally important that the judiciary reflects judges from diverse backgrounds, which ensures the presence of individuals that are already aware of these nuances and how they may present themselves in courtrooms.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Williams: Recusal is required in any circumstance where impartiality could reasonably be questioned. If I were to ever have a case that involved a contributor to my campaign, I consider the nature of any preexisting relationship with the contributor and whether the amount of the donation was one that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I would not be impartial.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Williams: My role model is my father, Leon A. Williams, Esq., a civil rights attorney and public education advocate. He instilled in me many things that have made me a more thoughtful jurist: the need to be passionate about public service and community; the duty to use my voice for others who cannot; and the confidence to reject the status quo and embrace my individuality.