Transcribed by Christine D’Emidio.
Taking office in January as the newly elected judge of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, Katie Oliver brings more than 20 years of experience from her work as an attorney and partner at McQuaide Blasko Law Firm in State College. In her new role, she will be responsible for hearing and presiding over court cases of all types, marshalling the orderly progression of cases through the pretrial process to trial, and studying methods and programs to best serve those appearing before the court and the community in general.
Originally from Lewisburg, she started college at Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts. After two years, she transferred to Bucknell University and graduated cum laude in 1991, with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. In 1995, she was a summa cum laude graduate and class valedictorian of Penn State’s Dickinson Law School.
Town&Gown founder Mimi Barash Coppersmith sat down with Oliver at The Field Burger & Tap at Toftrees Golf Resort in State College to discuss why she ran for judge, how her experience will aid in her new position, and how she feels about the current judicial system.
Mimi: Why did you decide to run for judge?
Katie: Fabulous question, and I think I have to back up a little bit to say that practicing law for the last 20 years has been just a terrific experience and challenge. I am so lucky to work with a law firm that has such diverse clients, so I’ve worked on so many different kinds of matters, and I love that! Probably over the past maybe four or five years I have been thinking more about how I might branch out a little bit, if you will, looking at different community organizations, nonprofit organizations, just thinking about how I might share more of myself and make a difference. And so when this opportunity came up — and came up fairly unexpectedly — it just seemed like the right thing for me. It seemed like the right thing because it was a way that I could take the talents that I’ve developed over the last 20 years and really make a difference for our community, but I could also do it in a way that I could continue to do something I love so much, which is studying law.
Mimi: And mediating.
Katie: Yes, absolutely. So the mediation for me came about in 2006. I was invited by the federal court system to undergo a training program, so you’re trained and certified, and then to serve for the federal court as a pro bono mediator. I donate time and services in helping people to see if they can find common ground, and that’s been tremendous as far as a learning opportunity for me and the value I give to those parties and the lawyers who are sometimes really stuck in trying to find a creative solution with people who are, oftentimes, in very emotional situations.
Mimi: And you’re bringing that experience as a bonus to the county court.
Katie: Absolutely, and I hope it’ll be a real bonus. As far as what that brings for our court system, it really can save a lot of money. It can help to more efficiently resolve cases that otherwise might go through the court system for years before you get a final resolution. And it really empowers people, too. The parties sometimes need that person in the middle to help them evaluate their positions.
Mimi: What do you attribute as reasons for your substantial victory?
Katie: I really attribute it to just the immediate groundswell of support I have from close friends, colleagues, new acquaintances, and friends. It’s almost overwhelming to think about it, in a wonderful way.
Mimi: I am excited that in my lifetime, from a gender point of view, we now have a balanced courthouse in terms of two women and two men. That’s a great victory for women, in my opinion.
Katie: Well, thank you. Yeah, I’m very excited about it, too. I’ve had an opportunity to work with the other judges and start to get integrated into the court and the procedures there. I know Judge [Pamela] Ruest is excited, too, about that opportunity to have the balance on the court.
Mimi: Speaking of the election of judges, you’re on the winning side, and that’s wonderful. How do you really feel about our judicial system? Are we on the right track with all the complications that are involved in the delivery of justice?
Katie: The Pennsylvania Bar Association has studied for decades whether we should be electing judges or whether we should seek to amend our constitution so that judges would be appointed.
Mimi: How do most states do it?
Katie: I’m not sure what the majority does. There certainly are other states that elect. The federal system obviously appoints judges. I think nine weeks ago I would have said to you, unconditionally, “I think we should move to an appointment system.” I don’t think it’s the victory that’s making me temper that opinion — I won’t say I changed it. I do want to say that because we’re in a profession that has been historically male-dominated, I don’t know that we’re really at that place where an appointment system wouldn’t carry with it some of the vestiges of this tradition.
Mimi: The degree to which fraud is within the court system is striking. The new [state] Supreme Court justice is being asked to resign, and his lawyers are saying, “He’s not going to do that.” There’s some evidence of behavior that doesn’t befit a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. We have unrest in our court. Very often, politics are behind it.
Katie: Right, but that’s not a political position fundamentally. And even though there is that power with the Supreme Court justices, you really do want people on your court, and need people on your court, who are not making decisions based on party politics. It’s important. It’s critical. I mean, that’s why our judiciary needs to be independent. So, this time around, while I was saying that to people, and I believe it and I stand behind that, the parties were focusing on the fact that redistricting was an important issue this time, especially with so many seats open on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So it really became a political race, in a sense, and it was difficult.
Mimi: It’s most unusual for three Democrats to be elected to the Supreme Court in this state. But that whole questions of what’s better — appointed judges or elected judges — is a major social issue.
Katie: I agree with you. I’m not sure that appointment versus election would necessarily change some of the things that we’re grappling with today.
Mimi: Well is it the Internet that’s becoming too active in our total lives? Is that to be blamed for this?
Katie: (Laughs) You know, that’s such an interesting question. I don’t know that it’s the Internet per se, but I think the way we communicate today, even in business, is much faster. We can text in business, and we e-mail as a method of business communication. The legal profession, in my practice, people scoff at how lawyerly even the e-mails sound, but really, it’s important to keep that level of professionalism, especially in the legal profession. And because of the level of the brevity of the way we communicate now, we lose that. And then I think that it’s easy to kind of forget the gravity of the things that you are doing.
Mimi: Switching gears. You are a mother, a scout leader, a lawyer, a wife, a daughter, and now a judge, how do you see your life changing in terms of timing and responsibilities that are expected of us women? You no longer have clients who pay you money. Instead, you’re sitting in judgment. It’s a totally different practice of the law.
Katie: Yeah, absolutely. I think that I won’t have the business aspect of practicing law, which will be very different, as a business owner. I’ve been a partner with McQuaide Blasko for maybe 13 years now, and so all of those things that you worry about daily — thinking about the next clients while you’re appeasing the current clients — all of those things will be really nonexistent, in a sense.
Mimi: Do you care to share some of your thoughts on how the bench might change?
Katie: My reluctance about doing that is that I haven’t been there long enough. It almost seems a little bit presumptuous to suggest concrete changes. But I will say that I would like, on the civil side of things, for us to look at mediation programs and to increase the use of mediation on traditional civil cases. Also, talking with the folks about the way mediation is used and how it has to be important in family law. I’m excited about looking at programs on the criminal side of the house, too, but I feel like I need to really be up and working with the judges for a little longer before I could talk more concretely about that.
Mimi: I may be way out of my field, too, in my next comment, but it seems to me that, in many cases, good young people make a terrible mistake and they’re basically ruined for their life. It seems to me that there is this problem in the judicial system that makes it almost impossible for good people, who have made a bad mistake, to start all over again — and it’s not just young kids. What’s your thinking on that?
Katie: I can tell you that what I see is looking at cases that come before me — viewing individuals as individuals, examining the circumstances, trying to recognize when there are cases of people who have made a terrible mistake, recognizing that we’re all human, and one mistake shouldn’t be the end of your life — I think that’s where the compassion comes in. There has to be accountability and there has to be a balance. Sometimes there’s a need for treatment. Other times, there are social circumstances leading to crime, and maybe things like that can be addressed. I think that programs that satisfy both the accountability component and also look at a way to help resolve the underlying circumstances leading the person to that crime are really important — whether that be in the context of drug courts, whether that is trying to assist people with finding employment, all kinds of programs. I think that’s important.
Mimi: It’s a tough job that happens in courthouses all over the country, and some of the hostility in cities in recent times just puts an exclamation point on the complexity of decisions that are made for the wrong reasons — a person’s gender, a person’s race, a person’s religion. They all seem to be making the picture more complex. I think that public is stirred up about that.
Katie: The public, in my opinion, should get stirred up about that. None of those things should be playing any kind of role in decision-making by judges.
Mimi: How did your family feel about your becoming a judge?
Katie: I will say all of them were elated. We were all together, actually, when we got that phone call inviting me to put in my hat in the ring. My mother was there, too, so it was really wonderful because I could talk with all of them. And both of my daughters, their faces lit up just to hear that I had the invitation, and they immediately said, “Mom, this is just who you are, and you really need to do this.” I thought that it was the right thing, too.
Mimi: Well let me just tell you, it seems like the suit fits.
Katie: Thank you.
Mimi: I’m sure a lot of our readers wish you only good success at this. It’s a tough job.
Katie: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
