The Quiet Part Out Loud: What Do a Revoked Law License, Reckless Driving, Court No-Shows—and Silence—Say About Judicial Temperament?

Voters across our Commonwealth have made one thing clear: they’re tired of negative campaigns, backroom games, and character attacks. The public deserves campaigns that are driven by truth, law, and principle—not politics.

Over the past two months, individuals aligned with my opponent, including a consultant to his campaign, have circulated misleading allegations, including an alleged Judicial Conduct Board complaint based on my efforts to raise concerns about bribery and threats during the State Committee endorsement process. These individuals have also shared false claims about my character and confidential documents, hoping to discredit me personally. 

I plan to remain focused on the issues that matter to voters: my qualifications, my record, and the values I bring to the bench. But given the understandable and numerous requests for clarity, I believe it’s time to offer a thoughtful response—rooted solely in facts, not emotion.

Two months ago, Christine Gordon began sending my campaign a series of messages demanding personal responses and threatening to support my opponent if I didn’t comply. We’ve known each other for years, and I had previously considered her a friend. Several years ago, however, a matter arose between Ms. Gordon and her then-employer, a state representative. I decided to remain completely uninvolved in that dispute. Because I did not take her side, she has evidently carried lingering resentment, which has since shaped her posture toward my candidacy.

In March, I first became aware of a document being circulated that was described as a Judicial Conduct Board complaint filed by Ms. Jackie Kulback. I learned of its existence not through any official notice, but through an email to several people and thereafter again mentioned in public comments of a Facebook post made by Ms. Christine Gordon.The document was unsigned, undated, and marked confidential—yet Ms. Gordon had it in hand, was actively distributing it, and confirmed in the post’s comments that it was filed in February.

That raises serious questions: How was Ms. Kulback’s confidential filing obtained by Ms. Gordon when only the person filing it would have access to it? Why is it being used to influence an election? And why hasn’t the Board contacted me if a complaint was truly filed?

If such a complaint exists and has not already been summarily dismissed, I trust the Board will evaluate it fairly. But voters deserve to know that I remain confident in my record and the integrity of my actions. I believe in transparency and in meeting accusations with facts. And, as many of you are aware, over a dozen state committee members (and two other statewide candidates) confirmed my allegations, some even publicly.

Judicial temperament isn’t just one’s demeanor; it includes fairness, impartiality, humility, consistency, and a deep respect for the law and those that come before the court. Judicial temperament also isn’t measured by how relatable someone appears at a podium—it’s revealed by how they handle responsibility, conflict, and scrutiny. So I invite voters to consider a few facts that speak directly to my opponent’s readiness for the bench.

During the PA GOP endorsement process, which is intended to uphold standards and screen candidates for public service, my opponent, Matthew Wolford, admitted that his New Jersey license to practice law had been revoked. He initially said he didn’t know why, then pivoted in a terse letter to state committee, explaining it was due to a voluntary decision to stop paying dues; yet, stated that the mention of his revocation was “unscrupulous misinformation.” Rather than formally resign the license, as permitted, he allowed it to lapse into revocation. As of today, it remains revoked.

More recently, Ms. Gordon posted that “judge candidates don’t smear with unauthored bullet points that are nonsense.” I would’ve had no idea what she was referencing, but for a prior email she sent me almost a month ago demanding I identify whomever put it together. As a result, I decided to review the bullet points, as I didn’t know the veracity of them, and they have apparently become a hot-button issue for Ms. Gordon. While there were a couple typos, which initially caused me pause, I was astonished at the accuracy of the information.

As reflected in the bullet points, Court records show that he was convicted in Ohio for driving more than 30 miles per hour over the speed limit, a charge classified as a misdemeanor. In Virginia, he was cited for speeding again but failed to appear in court and was convicted in absentia. It is unclear whether the fines in that case were ever paid.

These are not personal attacks—they are matters of public record. And they raise reasonable questions. Is allowing a law license to be revoked—and failing to clearly explain it—a sign of sound judgment? Is missing a court hearing for an offense compatible with the seriousness required of judicial office? Is remaining silent while one’s allies circulate attacks and confidential materials a mark of impartial leadership—or political expedience?

These questions go to the heart of what judicial temperament truly means: personal responsibility, accountability, consistency, and a willingness to address facts directly and with integrity.

As the bullet points also point out, my opponent’s campaign materials describe his legal experience as spanning “all areas of the Commonwealth Court.” However, a closer look reveals that many of his recent cases have been resolved through consent decrees—agreements in which his clients accepted some or all of the demands made by the Department of Environmental Protection. While settlements are sometimes appropriate, they do not reflect litigated courtroom outcomes or demonstrate the kind of advocacy on which judicial candidates are typically evaluated.

This distinction is important, given my opponent’s deep and longstanding ties to the DEP. He previously served as both Assistant Counsel and Regional Counsel for the agency. He also served as a prosecutor for the Office of Attorney General’s Environmental Crimes Section and as a Special Prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in environmental matters. In addition to these roles, he is listed as a member of the DEP’s Environmental Hearing Board and on multiple DEP-affiliated committees.

These roles underscore a consistent professional alignment with government environmental enforcement. Voters may reasonably consider how that background—and its influence on his legal perspective—would translate to a position on the Commonwealth Court, especially when evaluating matters involving agencies like the DEP.

And as the the bullet points additionally point out, in one notable case, Mr. Wolford represented the Commonwealth in a suit against the Yackobovitz family. The Commonwealth Court ruled against the Commonwealth and in favor of the family, awarding $38,000 in damages, $22,724 in delayed damages for a frivolous appeal, and additional attorney fees.

By contrast, I have spent my career representing individuals and small businesses—never the government against the people. I’ve earned injunctions against both the Attorney General’s Office and the Pennsylvania State Police and prevailed in difficult constitutional litigation. My record is public. My work speaks for itself.

I’ve never had a law license revoked. I’ve never missed a court appearance. And as many of you know, I’ve never relied on silence when the truth needed to be spoken; it simply isn’t who I am. I have spent my career giving a voice to the voiceless and those too fearful to speak and that will never change.

This election is not about personalities. It is about principle. It’s about whether the people of Pennsylvania still believe that judges should be held to a higher standard—and whether they expect those who seek the bench to lead with transparency and courage.

So, I leave you with this: Do you believe our courts should be led by those who remain silent in the face of misconduct—or by those willing to stand for the rule of law, even when it’s hard? Do you want a judge who shrinks from accountability, or one who has demonstrated it—again and again—in courtrooms across this Commonwealth?

If you believe in the latter, I respectfully ask for your vote on May 20th.

Together, we can restore trust, raise the standard, and ensure justice for all.

Yours in Truth, Liberty, and Justice,
Joshua Prince, Esq.
Candidate for Commonwealth Court