Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Holds Oral Arguments at Widener Law Commonwealth
When the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania brought a special session of oral arguments to Widener University Commonwealth Law School, students didn’t just observe legal procedure. They gained a front-row seat to the kind of preparation, professionalism, and precision that will shape their future careers.
Dean andré douglas pond cummings set the tone by reminding students of the court’s unique place in Pennsylvania’s judicial system. Established in 1970, the nine-member appellate court handles cases involving state and local government agencies, public sector legal questions, and statewide election disputes. It remains the only court in the nation devoted solely to administrative appeals.
“Democracy and the rule of law are at the heart of everything we do as lawyers,” cummings said. “Having the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania here shows our students just how central those principles are to practice.”
The panel of judges, President Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Judge Michael H. Wojcik, and Judge Matthew S. Wolf, shared that same commitment to engaging the next generation of lawyers.
“It always excites me to sit on a panel in a special session at a law school,” Wojcik told students. “Students here will see some of the best advocates in our profession.”
Wolf emphasized the teamwork that made the day possible, thanking Widener faculty, staff, and the court’s personnel for coordinating the session. Jubelirer underscored the value of the court’s outreach. “It takes a lot of coordination to make a special session like this happen, but it’s always worth it to engage directly with students and the public,” she said. For students, that engagement was the most valuable lesson of all.
Third-year student Max Oeler said he was struck by both the quality of advocacy and the demeanor of everyone in the courtroom. “I was amazed by the panel’s ability to speak eloquently and concisely on such a broad range of legal issues. I also appreciated and respected how every party involved was congenial and cordial. The judges spoke firmly with the attorneys while maintaining an informative and polite atmosphere,” Oeler said.
The experience showed him the importance of anticipating tough questions. “If there is a potential gray area or ambiguity in your case or argument, you must prepare to answer to those potential issues because there is a very real possibility that they will come up and could turn the tide in a case,” he said.
Fellow third-year student Paige Oustrich said she noticed how conversational the exchanges between judges and attorneys felt. “What stood out to me was how cordial the arguments were,” Oustrich said. “The lawyers seemed to be having conversations with the judges in a relaxed manner.”
She added that Jubelirer’s emphasis on procedure made a lasting impression. “It made me realize that I should dot my i’s and cross my t’s before filing anything with the court,” Oustrich said.
