In the race for judge of the 14th District Court in Dallas County, incumbent Democrat Eric V. Moyé is being challenged by Republican Jessica Voyce Lewis.
Moyé was first elected in 2008. From 1993 to 1995, he was judge of the 101st District Court in Dallas, a, position to which he was appointed by Gov. Ann Richards.
Lewis, a bankruptcy attorney with Ross & Smith of Dallas, is running for office for the first time.
Moyé, a graduate of Harvard Law School, began his legal career at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld in Dallas. He was later a partner at Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox in Dallas and founding partner of Vincent & Moyé, a commercial litigation firm with offices in Dallas and Houston. Much of his work in private practice was representing school districts, including the Dallas Independent School District.
Moyé prides himself on running a tight ship. His court, he says, is “consistently most efficient of the civil courts sitting in Dallas.” Over the past five years, he says, the 14th “has moved cases more quickly than any other court in Dallas,” enabling him to maintain the smallest docket of active cases in the county.
His approach, he acknowledges, does not always endear him to the lawyers who come before him. In the Dallas Bar Association’s 2019 Judicial Evaluation Poll, 64% of respondents gave him the lowest of three possible ratings, “Needs Improvement,” when asked to assess his judicial temperament and demeanor. Only14% gave him the highest rating, “Excellent.”
While questioning the extent to which the bar poll reflects the views of lawyers who’ve had cases before him, he said in response to a written questionnaire from The Texas Lawbook:
“I have worked to establish a set of expectations for lawyers appearing before the court which require above all preparation and strict adherence to the rules of procedure. Additionally, maintenance of professionalism and proper decorum are always required in the courtroom.
“There are some lawyers who find my requirements more arduous than they are accustomed to complying with and, not surprisingly, these lawyers have not done well.”
Lewis said she decided to run for judge after noting with dismay in 2018 that an extraordinary percentage of judicial elections in Dallas County were uncontested, a function of the Democratic Party’s overwhelming electoral advantage in Dallas County. That year, in 22 of the 24 district court races on the general election ballot, the Democratic candidate had no opponent; in the other two, the Democrat won in a landslide.
“I recognized that this was not healthy for our county,” Lewis wrote in response to The Lawbook’s questionnaire.
“I first set out to support others willing to stand up for our communities in this way and, in the end, decided that if I truly believed in the mission of restoring faith in our Dallas County courts – which I do – then I needed to stand up myself.”
In her view, “local courts and government appeared to serve not all of its citizens but instead those with better resources, those who were politically connected and those whose goal was furthering personal gain (and not community interests).”
If elected, she said, she would be guided by the principles that “(1) all people are of equal inherent value and justice requires that the ‘deck not be stacked’ against anyone, and (2) unchecked centralized power breeds corruption.”
At Ross & Smith, her work is primarily in corporate reorganizations, representing debtors, creditors and purchasers.
After graduating in 2010 from Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, she was hired by Baker Botts, where she worked primarily on bankruptcy cases and business litigation.
She describes herself as “an attorney, wife, mother, Christ-follower and a regular volunteer and advocate in the Dallas community.”
Her husband, attorney Jordan Montgomery Lewis, is also on the Dallas County ballot, running as a Republican against Maricela Moore, the Democratic judge of the 162nd District Court.
The Texas Lawbook sought to learn more about each candidate. Below are their answers to a written questionnaire sent out to both.
Jessica Lewis
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: Before law school, the legal profession was not familiar to me outside of my extensive consumption of Perry Masonand Matlock reruns and, of course, Law & Order. I can only credit Divine intervention with the decision, as it came to me quickly and with great clarity after much prayer and reflection. One day I simply knew I was supposed to get my J.D. at SMU’s law school and serve our Dallas communities, even though I had no concept of how I would pay for it and what that service would look like. Once the idea landed, though, it made sense, as the practice of law melds my critical-thinking, problem-solving and advocacy inclinations with my deep-rooted passion for justice, truth and community service.
Q: What led you to enter this race?
A: For the same reasons that I decided to practice law. Serving on the bench would be a continuation of what I believe is my calling to pursue justice and reconciliation for our city and county. I have watched with concern as the operations of our local courts and government appeared to serve not all of its citizens but instead those with better resources, those who were politically connected and those whose goal was furthering personal gain (and not community interests). I believe strongly that (1) all people are of equal inherent value and justice requires that the “deck not be stacked” against anyone and (2) unchecked centralized power breeds corruption. In 2018, when I saw that about a dozen or so judicial races were uncontested, I recognized that this was not healthy for our county. I first set out to support others willing to stand up for our communities in this way and, in the end, decided that if I truly believed in the mission of restoring faith in our Dallas County courts – which I do – then I needed to stand up myself.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your career and how your previous experience would help you during your service on the bench.
A: My experience is varied and equips me well for resolving the disputes of both individuals and businesses in Dallas County. I started my career at Baker Botts L.L.P. where I represented corporate clients from various industries in bankruptcy, insolvency and litigation matters. My years there brought me experience drafting or otherwise participating in complex agreements, bankruptcy, trial and appellate court filings, client internal investigations, depositions and other discovery matters, etc. Throughout this time, I continued serving through volunteer opportunities such as local legal clinics and other pro bono representations, as well as through nonlegal church and community outreach programs. I then pursued that service on a full-time basis, joining nonprofit Act (Advocates for Community Transformation) as an attorney and ultimately West Dallas Field Director. There I represented brave individuals who sought to clear their neighborhood streets from oppressive criminal activity and became more aware of the divisions, injustices and other issues that could be addressed not just through community engagement via churches and nonprofits but by servant-hearted, intelligent and principled individuals serving in our local government and court systems. I’ve spent my most recent years back in private practice at the firm Ross & Smith, PC, where I have strengthened my legal expertise in representing small and midsized businesses in the DFW area and beyond. This range of experience has left me deeply invested in and informed about our Dallas County communities and equipped for administering justice in them.
Q: What do you wish you’d been taught in law school that you were not?
A: While law schools often cite how they teach their students to “think like a lawyer,” the practical skills of law practice and clearer descriptions and demonstrations of what different types of law practices look like on a day-to-day basis should be a more significant focus of law school curricula. During an internship after my first year of law school, I was asked to review summary judgment pleadings and provide my opinion on the positions of the parties. While such pleadings are familiar now, at that point (after one-third of my law school education), I had not been meaningfully exposed to motion practice or such filings, so I felt lost – and it showed. I am encouraged to hear that in at least some schools there has more recently been a stronger focus on practical skills.
Q: What are one or two of the most significant cases you have handled as a trial lawyer?
My practice has been too varied for me to describe myself as a trial lawyer, but two cases stand out as particularly significant given the contrasting experiences they provided me. First, I spent about four years representing a silver mine in Idaho in litigation of disputes of ownership over the mine. The case involved everything from cross-border discovery to billionaire hedge funds to local silver prospectors and mining operations and was set to be heard on appeal by the Idaho Supreme Court before we negotiated a last-minute settlement. I am also grateful to have been a part of a case addressing a well-established (i.e., for decades) drug house in the Cross Hampton neighborhood of West Dallas. The house brought a lot of traffic to its residential street where just a few houses down parents with young children were concerned about what the drug activity meant for the safety of their families. The case required our team at Act, partnered with a team of volunteer lawyers, to navigate estate issues, landlord-tenant issues and neighborhood relationships as we sought to represent our clients in their efforts to bring peace to their street. Now that house, what it stood for and the activity it brought to that neighborhood are no longer a burden on those clients or their community.
Q: How often do you practice before the civil courts in Dallas County?
A: I currently practice primarily in federal court, as opposed to state court. My pro bono and nonprofit work has been primarily in Dallas County state (versus federal) civil court. My career has permitted me to practice before various courts throughout our country.
Q: How many cases have you tried before a jury in your career?
A: I have observed numerous jury trials as a neutral party and been involved in several voir dire processes as a participant in addition to as an observer, but I have never had to take a case directly to a jury instead of to a judge. Trying jury trials is not necessary experience for a judge, though, just as a referee can call balls and strikes without having played as both a pitcher and a catcher. Having experience representing a diverse clientele in a variety of situations is more beneficial, as it better connects you with not only the issues on either side of a case in the courtroom but to the legal issues and motivations that brought those parties to the courtroom. And because a jury verdict is only as good as the information the jury is permitted to see and process, having fair and equitable jury trials rests on the judge protecting that process without bias based either on past experience, personal preferences or other potential influences.
Q: Have you ever practiced before your opponent? If so, what was good and bad about the experience?
A: I have not practiced before my opponent, but if I had, I would refrain from answering this question, as I believe it is inappropriate as a judicial candidate for me to critique a sitting judge in this manner. I have well-founded concerns about the strong one-party control over our courts in Dallas County (where voters often do not have another option on the ballot) and the principals and worldviews that such control has brought to the bench, and I think that I am the best choice for this particular position. I am not here to pick apart my opponent’s record in the same way as may be more appropriate in a race for a legislative seat.
Q: What kind of change would you like to see in the courthouse, and what would you do to promote change if elected?
A: I would like to see our courthouses more accessible to all people regardless of their resources. While I believe strongly in reconciliation and that we should seek to have peace with our neighbors, we all know that sometimes one or both parties in a dispute is unreasonable, greedy, powerful, well-resourced, etc., enough to take out-of-court reconciliation off the table. But in many instances, in-court resolution is also not accessible because of the cost. As a society, we need courts where individuals and small businesses can go for resolution of their disputes without leveraging their livelihood. Justice cannot prevail where monetary resources play such a huge part in our court system. And justice should not be for sale. Towards this end, on the bench, I would seek to create a courtroom environment where no more or less weight is given to someone’s words just based on the person’s connections, resources or influence outside the courtroom. Off the bench, I would seek to enhance community education on the court system, processes and related rights and to promote ways to facilitate more equal access to that system and the justice it should provide.
Q: What kind of feedback do you hear from fellow lawyers about your opponent and how would you do a better job?
A: I refer you to my previous responses, particularly regarding refraining from disparaging my opponent, who has had a prestigious career and who is considered a friend by many in the legal community, including by many whose worldview more closely aligns with mine and who support my campaign and a change in our courts. As to why I believe that I am the best option for this bench, that is covered in other responses as well.
Q: What else sets you apart from your opponent?
A: I am the best choice for this bench because I am a qualified and experienced lawyer with a worldview that calls me to pursue justice and reconciliation for all people in Dallas County and with a history of doing so in service of our Dallas communities both professionally and on a volunteer basis. My diverse life experiences and background, joined with my strong belief in the importance of truth and the inherent equal value of all individuals, regardless of their background, resources, political affiliations or spheres of influence, provides me with the foundation necessary to be a just, impartial and community-minded servant leader both on the bench and off. We need judges with this foundation in our Dallas County courts, especially at a time when our communities are wrestling with the division, injustice and corruption that can grow when we do not diligently invest in countering it.
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: The Dallas County courts are already trying to implement new processes to help the courts continue to function in the COVID-19 environment. This is another area in which technology and creativity are and need to be used to both encourage jury service in a safe environment and lower the costs associated with such trials to promote more equal access to justice. I have been told (and have ultimately admitted) that I have the “gift of administration.” Only rarely have I encountered a system that I haven’t been able to make more efficient and effective in some way. So while I’m encouraged that steps are being made, I would welcome the opportunity to assist.
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: Much of this problem is rooted in our failure to instill generations of individuals with not just a respect for a summons but with a healthy admiration for our country, our courts and the freedoms that our systems provide when they operate under the ideals and aspirations on which our country was founded. When you add the real financial and logistical hardship that jury service can cause for an individual, low participation can be expected. The result is that both our courts and the ability to receive justice and resolution through a jury verdict are called into question, undercutting that needed admiration and respect. There is not a quick fix, as it requires a cultural shift towards civic duty and public service (which starts at home and in our schools). But we also need some administrative rethinking of how we structure jury service to be less burdensome for those willing to serve, including the use of technology to streamline the jury placement and selection process and the consideration of requirements for lawyers and parties to help those administering the process know earlier whether or not a jury will be needed for their case.
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: As a threshold matter, serving as a judge requires the setting aside of party affiliations and preferences as any factor in facilitating the administration of justice in the courtroom. Under the current election structure, however, I am running as a Republican because I think that is the only party at this present time with room for my views on life, liberty and the pursuit of healthy, more united communities. If you similarly care about our communities, those most vulnerable in our society, seeing unity among people of all backgrounds, accessibility to justice for all, encouraging generosity and concern for one’s neighbor, and the freedom to live out your own beliefs, then I hope you would not only vote for me but that you would regularly vote for others with an “R” next to their name. To be clear, my faith is rooted in Christ and not a political party or leader. It is that faith that calls me to seek justice and an even playing field for those of all beliefs, backgrounds and resource levels. When I see what years of Democrat policies and mindsets have done to our communities of Dallas and elsewhere, I do not see evidence of the compassion and inclusivity the party touts. Instead I see division, hindrances to upward mobility and the suppression of hope in our younger generations – as well as the desire to silence competing views on how to solve these problems. So if the party I am running under gives you pause, I would simply ask that you consider whether reality lines up with the political rhetoric and consider whether more of the same is what we need to have a healthier, more just society in Dallas County.
Q: Is there anything else you would like voters to know?
A: If you made it this far in my responses, then I thank you for taking the time to get to know more about me, my candidacy and my vision for accessible courts, engaged and empowered communities and a more reconciled and just society. If you would like to connect with my campaign, please visit www.lewisfordallas.com. I’d appreciate your vote.
Eric Moyé
Q: What led you to practice law?
A: I became aware of the role which lawyers were playing in shaping our society since I was a youngster watching the struggle for Civil Rights play out in the late 1950s into the 1960s. I knew lawyers were at the vanguard of the most important issues of the day, and I wanted to participate as did they.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your career before taking the bench.
A: I commenced my legal career at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld here in Dallas. I subsequently formed a firm with a number of Akin Gump and other firm lawyers, when I was appointed to the bench in the end of 1992 by Gov. Ann Richards where I served until 1995. I then became a partner at Vial, Hamilton, Koch and Knox, until I became a founding partner of Vincent & Moyé, where I practiced until I ascended the bench in 2008
Q: What are one or two of the most significant cases you handled as a trial lawyer?
A: I spent much of my career representing school districts. I am particularly proud of defending the Dallas Independent School District in a case Fish v. DISD, in which I and my firm successfully prevented the distribution of significant amounts of personal information concerning students of the district via its publication on the web.
Q: What do you wish you’d been taught in law school that you were not?
A: How to engage with clients. When I was a law student back in the 1970s, the law was taught as principles and concepts only; with no regard to individuals or entities a lawyer must represent. (This is why I am particularly proud to have been a member of the Founding Board of Trustees of the U.N.T. School of Law, where there is an emphasis placed upon the actual “nuts and bolts” practice of law.)
Q: How many jury trials did you work on as a practicing lawyer?
A: I participated in dozens of jury trials in the state and U.S. District Courts. Of course, in successfully litigating literally hundreds of civil court cases over my career, of necessity the vast majority were resolved prior to jury verdict.
Q: What led you to become a judge?
A: After decades of litigating cases, I thought it would be a natural progression to making ultimate decisions as opposed to advocating a particular position. A vacancy revealed itself when a trial court judge moved to the Court of Appeals and the desire to return to public service was a particularly strong calling to me.
Q: What’s the most valuable lesson you’ve learned so far as a trial judge? How are you currently using that lesson to run your court in the best manner?
A: Not everyone understands the thousands of provisions of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, which often mandate decisions made by me as a judge each day. Therefore, particularly with self-represented litigants, I take time to explain in detail why certain decisions are made by the court as opposed to merely announcing findings from the bench or entering orders.
Q: What are you the most proud of accomplishing during your time on the bench?
A:I have made the 14th District Court into the consistently most efficient of the civil courts sitting in Dallas. For the past five years, this court has moved cases more quickly than any other court in Dallas, resolving and deciding cases in a manner which has maintained the lowest number of active cases of any court.
Q: What has been your most important decision/ruling as a trial court judge and why?
A: It is impossible to single out a particular decision over more than a dozen years of presiding over this bench. Many important decisions have been made such as affirming the city’s right to prevent the proliferation of short-term loan establishments which impact significant portions of the population. However, I recognize that decisions in individual cases related to residential home foreclosures which too often have proceeded improvidently (such as during loan modification) are among the most important decisions made by the court.
Q: What are the biggest challenges your courthouse is facing, and what role are you playing to address those challenges?
A: Ensuring that cases continue to move and courts continue to operate during the COVID pandemic is the greatest challenge which the courts face (here and elsewhere). As presiding judge of the civil district courts (elected by my 12 colleagues), I have led the initiative to establish emergency orders for continuing the operation of the courts during this crisis. We have successfully established procedures that permit the courts to operate via the use of advanced technology which has led each court to be able to function, adjudicating the vast majority of its ongoing cases just as if there had been no crisis while keeping the citizens of Dallas safe. The courts in this manner have continued to be able to serve the citizens of Dallas County, moving cases as expeditiously as possible in the face of the inability to gather juries to make ultimate determinations.
A: 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.
Q: How is this impacting the administration of justice in Texas and what can be done about it?
A: When I commenced practicing, jury panels were drawn from voter rolls. Moving years ago from this to driver’s license lists has led to a massive infusion of diverse individuals into the jury pool. We must continue to try to keep people from all parts of Dallas County serving on juries of our peers. We must also redouble our efforts to educate citizens with regard to the importance of jury service. Additionally, we should continue to encourage employers to pay their employees for the time when they are serving and at the same time, increase to daily stipend which jurors receive for their service.
Q: What separates you from your opponent?
A: Experience. I have 40 years of experience in litigating and adjudicating the very cases which come before the court. I have won awards from local bar associations, committees of the State Bar of Texas and the local chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates. My peers have selected me to lead our group as presiding civil judge. I teach newly elected judges as a member of the faculty of the State Bar of Texas College for New Judges.
Q: According to the Dallas Bar Association’s 2019 judicial evaluation poll, 39% of respondents indicated that they’d like to see improvement in your court — particularly with respect to judicial temperament. What is your response, and what actions if any have you taken to address those concerns?
A: For decades (even before taking the Bench), I have challenged the legitimacy of the Dallas Bar polls. There is nothing in the polls which ensures that individuals who respond actually ever appear in the respective courts which they now purport to judge. More substantively, I have worked to establish a set of expectations for lawyers appearing before the court which require above all preparation and strict adherence to the rules of procedure. Additionally, maintenance of professionalism and proper decorum are always required in the courtroom. There are some lawyers who find my requirements more arduous then they are accustomed to complying with and not surprisingly, these lawyers have not done well.
Unlike some other courts, everything that is done in our court is done on the record. If there were specific instances of misconduct or other inappropriate behavior, those would be a record and subject to action by the Commission on Judicial Conduct or the appellate courts. Neither objective entity has ever questioned my performance on the bench. I wonder how many choose to use this method to critique my “attitude” (and all that encompasses) because by objective standards, they can find no fault with my performance.
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: It is very rare that issues come before the court which can be viewed via the prism of “Democrat” or “Republican.” What voters want in the trial court are judges who will move their cases quickly – to vindicate the rights of plaintiffs who have been injured or the rights of defendants who have been accused. People want judges who receive the facts and apply the well-established law to those facts without favor to one side or the other. I have a record of being such a judge, calling “balls and strikes” without regard to political party or any other extraneous circumstance.
Editor’s Note: Candidate responses may be edited to comply with Texas Lawbook style guidelines.
Publisher’s Note: This coverage of the 2020 judicial elections by The Texas Lawbook is being made available outside our paywall courtesy of Thompson Coburn and Carter Arnett.