The judicial race for Dallas County’s 95th District Court, in a sense, pits two incumbents against one another.

One candidate, Republican Mike Lee, is the incumbent in the literal sense: He is currently the judge who presides over that court. The other, Democrat Monica Purdy, is also an incumbent because for the past seven years, she has served as the associate judge of seven out of 13 of the county’s civil district courts, meaning she already handles many of the very day-to-day judicial tasks that she would face as the judge of the 95th District Court.

Lee has served as the judge of the 95th since Gov. Abbott appointed him to the position at the end of July. It was a position Lee was already seeking; he secured the spot as the Republican candidate after the primary season when he ran unopposed. Lee, who says serving as a judge is his dream job, has been running in judicial races in Dallas since 2010. He says his extensive civil litigation experience throughout his entire career has led him to the calling of the bench.

Purdy says her experience as associate judge demonstrates a proven track record of professionalism, fairness and understanding of the law, and that feedback from practitioners reflects that. According to the Dallas Bar Association’s 2019 judicial evaluation poll, 71% of lawyers gave Purdy an “excellent” rating for her overall performance, which is significantly better than most of her peers. Her approval rating — which consists of either an “excellent” or “acceptable” grade — is 92%.

Both candidates say they have what it takes for the job. The Texas Lawbook sought to learn more about each candidate. Below are their answers to a written questionnaire sent out to both.

Monica Purdy

Q: What led you to practice law?

A: I decided to become an attorney in the sixth grade. We had a close family friend who was a lawyer and neighbor. He was kind enough to introduce me to the practice of law. I spent summers working in his law office and accompanying him to court. I knew I wanted to advocate for those who could not advocate for themselves, and I ultimately wanted to be a part of a profession that trained you to figure things out and to get results. Lawyers are change agents, lawyers are leaders in their communities, and they are trained to solve problems. I wanted to be a part of a profession that represented all these things.

Q: Tell us a little bit about your career before taking the bench and how you decided to make the switch to public service?

A: My transition from my career as an attorney to judge was prompted by my desire to accommodate the needs of my growing family. I began my legal career at a national law firm rising to the ranks of partner and wanted a better work-life balance with two small children and a husband. Primary practice areas were civil litigation and bankruptcy matters. I loved the practice of law and the opportunities it has afforded, but I also wanted to have time to enjoy my family. Professionally, I knew at some point I wanted to become a judge, so when I left my law firm practice to achieve that balance, I served as local counsel for several law firms. After less than a year of being in my own practice, I had the unique opportunity to become an associate municipal court judge for the City of Dallas, which allowed to maintain my private practice. As a municipal court judge, I presided over matters arising under city ordinances and all state law misdemeanors punishable by fine only. I issued search and arrest warrants, juvenile magistrate warnings up through felony cases, set bail amounts and approved appearance and appeal bonds. Within three years of serving in that role, I pursued my passion and became an associate judge for the civil district courts. I have served in this role for the past seven years.

Q: If elected to the 95^th, how will your responsibilities differ from your current role?

A: I currently preside as an associate judge in our civil district courts. I am responsible for seven of the 13 district courts. I serve at the pleasure of the courts I am responsible for and support. I handle multiple day-to-day judicial tasks, which include both jury and bench trials, injunctions, temporary restraining orders, presiding over motions and discovery disputes. I was unanimously selected by a merit panel in February 2013, consisting of all the then presiding 13 elected civil court district judges.

If elected, my responsibilities will mostly be the same as my current role with the exception that I will have the ability to focus my efforts on one court as opposed to the seven I currently support and I will serve at the pleasure of Dallas County voters. Being the next judge of the 95^th Civil District Court will provide me with the autonomy to create policy and procedures that I have been able to hone from my years of experience as an associate judge in order to ensure an effective and efficiently run court.

Q:What are one or two of the most significant cases you handled as a trial lawyer?

A: The most significant case I have handled as a trial lawyer was at the very beginning of my practice of law. I was a newly licensed attorney and was appointed to represent a criminal defendant charged with burglary of a habitation which was enhanced to a third-degree felony. My client was indigent and was offered 25 years in a plea deal for allegedly taking a radio from a garage apartment that was being renovated. I was quickly educated that the offer of 25 years was so high because my client had previously spent time in the Texas Department of Corrections (thus the enhancement to a third degree felony); however, I struggled with the fact that his time served on an unrelated offense had nothing to do with the charge he was currently facing. In addition to an offer in my opinion that was inconsistent with the alleged offense committed, my client could not afford bail that was set in his case and as a result remained in county jail until his case could get to trial some nine to 10 months later.

I was determined to take his case to trial after visiting with my client who declared his innocence. Because there was not a budget to hire an investigator, I took on the job of attorney, counselor and investigator.  I discovered that my client was identified out of a lineup of suspects by an eyewitness. After personally interviewing the eyewitness it was discovered that she did not actually see my client take the radio from the garage apartment and did not identify him out of a lineup but that police suggested to her who the person was based upon their suggestion that he was known to commit other small property crimes in the area. I shared this information with the district attorney’s office and the prosecuting attorney, but they stood firm on their offer and indicated they would let a jury decide the outcome of the case.

I spent countless hours thoroughly preparing for my very first jury trial however on the morning of trial, the district attorney announced they would be dismissing the charges against my client for insufficient evidence. While I was pleased with the outcome of the case, it still resonates with me because I was introduced to all of the issues surrounding bail reform some 28 years ago for poor nonviolent defendants and also enlightened about the many criminal cases that lie stagnant in our criminal justice system because of the sheer volume of cases and bureaucracy prosecutors are faced with in getting cases dismissed.

Q: How many jury trials did you work on as a practicing lawyer?

A: As a practicing lawyer, I estimate that I have worked on and tried at least 50-75 bench and jury trials.

What’s the most valuable lesson you’ve learned so far as trial judge?  How are you currently using that lesson to run your court in the best manner?

One of the most valuable lessons that I believe I have learned so far as a trial judge is to rule. You know more about the case before you at the time of the hearing than you will ever know about the case once the parties leave your courtroom. If you aren’t ruling because you are afraid of being wrong, then you will never rule. A ruling helps the parties to move their case along. You owe it to the parties that have taken the time and energy to properly prepare the case before you; not ruling slows down the process and has a domino effect on all aspects of the parties’ case. Thus, I do my best to make a thoughtful, reasoned decision based upon the evidence before me and move onto my next case.

Q:What are the most proud of accomplishing during your time on your bench?

A: I am most proud of my consistent rankings as one of the top three civil judges in our civil district courts, even though I have been serving by appointment.  I continue to have a 90% approval rating of those that appear before me and it provides me with some feedback as to the job that I am doing and whether or not I am getting it right.

Q:What has been your most important decision/ruling as a trial judge and why?

A: My most important decisions/rulings reached as a trial judge have been in election contest cases which the district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction. They are of the upmost importance to me because the court is called to balance the will of the people with statues set forth in the Texas Election Code. Courts are called to determine the true outcome of elections and who are the proper parties to bring those actions before the courts which can prove to be a delicate balancing act. The decisions reached in these cases are important to me as a judge because it ensures we have a fair, transparent democracy.

Q: What are the biggest challenges your courthouse is facing, and what role are you playing to address those challenges?

A: The biggest challenge that our courthouse is facing is bringing back in person jury trials while ensuring safety for all the parties involved in the midst of a pandemic. The courts are also balancing technology needs as the pandemic has revealed a significant digital divide for many of its pro se litigants. I am addressing these challenges by staying abreast of each Texas Supreme Court order that provides safety guidance to courts and offering telephone hearings to any litigant that indicates they do not have internet or Wi-Fi access.

Q: There is a significant problem with (a) jury attendance and (b) jury pool diversity.  Less than one in five people summonsed to jury service shows up.  Those who do show up do not seem to be a representative cross-section of the community.  How is this impacting the administration of justice in Texas and what can be done about it?

A: The constitution forbids racial discrimination in jury selection, and courts favor diverse jury panels if we are to earn the public’s trust in the decisions reached by our judicial system. Only about 20% of Dallas County residents summoned to jury duty actually show up for jury duty. Potential jurors in our courts are paid $6 for their first day of service and parking typically is not free.

What can be done to ensure jurors that show up for jury duty are representative of a cross section of the community is to increase pay for jury service, educate the public about the civic responsibilities and the importance of having a jury of your peers and the lack thereof, ensure employers of small businesses understand their obligations to employees summoned for jury service and lastly have lawyers and courts to be efficient with their time involving jurors.

A lack of a cross representation of the community in our jury pools contributes to a lack of trust in our judicial system, juries that are representative of our communities restore public trust and confidence in our judicial system.

Q: What separates you from your from your opponent?

A: There is no other candidate in this race who has the on-the-job experience that I possess. I have 28 years of combined legal and judicial experience. Over the past seven years, I have presided over hundreds of cases as a judge in seven of the 13 Civil District Courts, including cases in the 95th for which I am campaigning. My understanding of the law, as well as my professional and unbiased ability to serve justice, has been tried and proven by colleagues on both sides of the bench. I am the only candidate in this race with a broad range of judicial experience, a long-standing record of community service and familiarity with the inner workings of the courts. I am ready to serve on Day One because this a job I have been performing for the past seven years.

Q: No matter what you say here, some voters will vote against you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same, but could be convinced otherwise.  What would you say to them?  Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?

A: What I would remind voters of when they go to the polls this election cycle, is to remember there is no straight party option when casting your vote, so voters will have to select each candidate they wish to vote for on their respective ballots. Although Texas elects’ judges, partisanship for judges should be left behind once she takes the bench. Fairness and justice are paramount and should be the sole guiding principle for a judge when reaching decisions.

Q: Is there anything else you would like voters to know?

A: I have earned a strong reputation with those that have appeared before me, including a consistent 90% ranking as one of the top three civil judges in Dallas County who resolves matters and moves cases along effectively and efficiently according to the Judicial Evaluation Poll conducted by the Dallas Bar Association.

I want to ensure justice is fair and balanced for those that appear before the court. I believe in public service and want to bring my knowledge of applicable law, strong work ethic, impeccable judicial temperament to the 95th Civil District Court. I am prepared and well qualified to serve.

Mike Lee

Q: What led you to practice law?

A: The simplest answer is this: I love politics and policy and I wanted to be in the courtroom, so the practice of law seemed a natural career. My undergraduate degree was in political philosophy, I was editor of the college newspaper, I love speaking in public, and I was a college athlete and love competition; the courtroom always seemed the natural place for me to be.

Q: What led you to enter this race?

A: In 2007, I was asked by the local Republican leadership to run for a district court bench, and I’ve been on the ballot every election since then as I recognized that the ideal place for me to be of service is on the trial court bench. As to this specific race, for the 95th District Court, the previous judge – who was on the bench due to a gubernatorial appointment – advised me he would be running this November for a Court of Appeals seat; so, I announced my candidacy for this bench. Then, a seat on the Court of Appeals opened, the previous judge of the 95th was appointed by Gov. Abbott to that court, and I received the appointment for the balance of his term.

Q: Tell us a little bit about your career and how your previous experience would help you during your service on the bench. 

A: I practiced law for 35 years before being appointed in July by Gov. Abbott to the 95th District Court. My career includes long stints with a couple large downtown firms, a significant time as insurance carrier staff counsel, seven years in solo and small firm practice, and the final 15 years in a two lawyer firm mostly representing a major national retailer and an interstate trucking company. I also have significant experience as local counsel, appearing in the local courts for out of town lawyers. One of the sitting judges in Dallas once called me a “courthouse rat,” which she meant as a compliment, as she said she too was a courthouse regular before taking the bench.

Simply put, this experience makes me perfectly suited to be a trial judge. I know civil litigation like the back of my hand, am well-acquainted with the rules of procedure and evidence and the unwritten rules of courthouse practice, and know and understand the operation of the courts.

Q: What do you wish you’d been taught in law school that you were not?

A: I wish the law school education spent more time teaching how to be a lawyer. Much of the law school experience was an academic pursuit, which I enjoyed very much, but I wish there had been more of a practical side to it.

Q: What are one or two of the most significant cases you have handled as a trial lawyer?

Easily the most significant case I’ve handled arose from an industrial explosion near Wichita Falls. I spent the better part of a year and a half representing a company whose employee was present at the site of the accident and who was, himself, severely burned. The case went to the Supreme Court of Texas on mandamus and resulted in a major discovery decision, National Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993). I was chosen by the various parties aligned with trial judge on the mandamus to do the lead briefing and argument before the Supreme Court.

Q: How often do you practice before the civil courts in Dallas County?

A: Every day. That obviously is true today as Judge of the 95th, but it was equally true before my appointment.

Q: How many cases have you tried before a jury in your career?

A: I have lost the exact count, but I’ve tried approximately 70 cases before a jury.

Q: Have you ever practiced before your opponent? If so, what was good and bad about the experience?

A: I handled a couple perfunctory matters before my opponent, who was sitting as an associate civil district judge.  There was nothing notably good or bad from those experiences.

Q: What kind of change would you like to see in the courthouse, and what would you do to promote change if elected?

A: Somehow, we need to have more access of the bar to the judiciary. When I was a young lawyer, it was very common to see lawyers in the halls behind the courtroom, so there was a lot of contact between the bar and the judiciary. Security concerns have eliminated that. My solution so far has been to do a majority of my nonhearing work from the bench, rather than in chambers, and I welcome lawyers to stop by and say hello if I am not in a hearing.

Q: What kind of feedback do you hear from fellow lawyers about your opponent and how would you do a better job?

A: I don’t hear any feedback about my opponent. As to doing a better job, I have a much broader and deeper array of experience in the civil courts.

Q: What else sets you apart from your opponent?

A: The length and breadth of my experience as a litigator in the civil courts. My opponent simply does not have the civil litigation experience I do. And, to be blunt, I have greater passion for the job. My entire career has been pointing to service on a trial bench; and, since my appointment, I’ve told my wife every day that I now have the greatest job I could ever imagine.

Q: One of the biggest challenges civil courts are facing right now is the backlog of jury trials due to COVID-19. What would you do to combat that challenge?

A: Right now I am serving on a committee of the civil district court judges working on the plans for resumption of jury trials. Frankly, the first task is simply to get juries back into the courthouse.  I believe we’ll get there very soon, but on something of a limited, perhaps experimental basis.

Once we get back to normal, the simple fact is it will need to be all hands on deck, including the use of the associate judges and assigned judges to get as many jury trials as possible underway.

There is a significant problem with (a) jury attendance and (b) jury pool diversity. Less than one in five people summonsed to jury service shows up. Those who do show up do not seem to be a representative cross-section of the community. How is this impacting the administration of justice in Texas and what can be done about it?

A: The effects on the administration of justice are obvious: a jury of one’s peers is not possible when the county as a whole is not represented in the jury pool. I don’t know what the solution is, but one possibility is something we will be trying as we endeavor to get jury trials started in the shadow of COVID-19. We likely will have the jury pool respond by remote means, be assigned to courts remotely and possibly even participate in voir dire remotely. Some have suggested we will see a greater response to the jury summons than the 18-20% we have been experiencing. We will only know if that’s the case by trying it.

No matter what you say here, some voters will vote against you simply because they’re straight ticket voters and you’re on the wrong side of their ballot. There is another group of voters who are inclined to do the same, but could be convinced otherwise. What would you say to them? Why should they vote for you even if your political party doesn’t match their values?

A: The Dallas judiciary is almost exclusively composed of members of the opposite party, yet they have welcomed my appointment and treated me like a full colleague. I believe this is the case because they know me well and recognize that I have the experience and temperament to serve well as a trial judge and that, even though I am a passionate member of my party, I will judge in a nonpartisan manner.

Is there anything else you would like voters to know?

A: My wife of 34 years, Linda, is the greatest woman I’ve ever met, and we have the two greatest kids in the world. We love each other, God and our country. Besides my family, the most significant aspect of my personal life is that I am a sober alcoholic, not having taken a drink of alcohol in 27 years.

Editor’s Note: Candidate responses may be edited to comply with Texas Lawbook style guidelines.