Harris County voters will decide on November 3 whether to retain Democratic Judge Dedra Davis in the 270th Civil District Court or elect her Republican challenger, Brian Staley. Brian was kind enough to spend approximately 90 minutes discussing the race.
The race attracted additional attention when the Houston Chronicle endorsed Staley over Davis, citing concerns about the incumbent’s judicial evaluations, courtroom temperament, and case-management practices.
I spoke with Staley about his background, his reasons for seeking judicial office, and what he would do differently if elected. Our conversation covered a wide range of issues, including trial scheduling, judicial accountability, the treatment of attorneys and jurors, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the courts.
From the CIA to Civil Litigation
Staley’s path to the legal profession was somewhat unconventional.
He became interested in practicing law while still in high school and entered the University of Mississippi on a full academic scholarship, studying political science with the intention of eventually attending law school.
Instead of immediately continuing his legal education, he began working for the Central Intelligence Agency. He had interviewed with the agency while attending Ole Miss and started work the January following graduation.
His assignment was with the National Photographic Interpretation Center, where he worked as an intelligence research specialist and imagery analyst.
Interestingly, Staley did not attempt to characterize that experience as equivalent to legal training. He told me that the work introduced him to the professional world but involved a different skill set from the legal analysis required of an attorney.
He subsequently attended South Texas College of Law and has practiced law for nearly 30 years.
His practice has concentrated on commercial and consumer law, along with appellate litigation. He previously chaired the Commercial and Consumer Law Section of the Houston Bar Association.
When asked about his courtroom experience, Staley provided the following explanation:
“The practice is a mix of transactional and trial experience. I’ve appeared for trial or contested matters in over 100 Texas Counties. Also, have handled over 50 appeals and prevailed twice before the Texas Supreme Court.”
Staley previously sought judicial office in 2022 and 2024. He described those campaigns as valuable learning experiences, particularly regarding the practical and organizational aspects of local politics. He believes that experience has helped make his current campaign run more smoothly.
The Houston Chronicle Endorsement
The Houston Chronicle’s September 10 endorsement of Staley is notable because it crossed party lines in a partisan judicial election.
The newspaper was sharply critical of Judge Davis’s performance, pointing particularly to the Houston Bar Association’s judicial evaluation questionnaire.
In the 2025 evaluation, approximately 73% of responding attorneys rated Davis as needing improvement in overall performance.
The Chronicle also criticized aspects of her courtroom temperament and questioned whether the court’s exceptionally high case-clearance rate might sometimes come at the expense of adequate preparation and procedural fairness.
Staley told me he was pleased by the endorsement and particularly surprised by its substance.
He also noted that the Chronicle had endorsed Davis’s opponent in the Democratic primary and that Davis did not participate in the newspaper’s general-election interview.
We discussed the value of newspaper endorsements in judicial races. He noted Harris County has so many judicial positions that voters often have difficulty researching the qualifications and records of individual candidates. Staley views the Chronicle’s endorsement process as an effort to provide voters with information they might otherwise never encounter.
I also asked about the reliability of judicial evaluations, particularly given concerns over response rates and selection bias.
Staley believes voters should give those evaluations considerable weight. His reasoning is that attorneys who do not regularly practice in a particular court are less likely to complete its evaluation. Consequently, he believes the responses provide a useful picture of the court’s actual operation.
That interpretation is worth distinguishing from the survey’s limitations. The evaluations reflect participating attorneys’ experiences and opinions rather than a scientific sample of everyone who has appeared before the court.
What Would Staley Actually Change?
Staley’s central campaign promise is straightforward:
“I’ll do a better job than the incumbent.”
I asked him to explain precisely what that would mean in practice.
He identified three principal areas.
The first concerns the official record of courtroom proceedings. Staley wants to rely on a court reporter rather than electronic recordings. He believes that approach would produce a more accurate record and simplify the preparation of appellate records.
His second concern is the treatment of jurors.
Staley described reports of jurors being kept waiting in courthouse hallways well after ordinary business hours. He emphasized that jury service is a significant civic responsibility but also imposes real burdens on the people called to serve.
He believes a judge should make every reasonable effort to respect jurors’ time.
The third area, and perhaps the most substantial portion of our discussion, involved the trial docket.
Staley said complaints about trial scheduling are among the concerns he hears most frequently from attorneys.
He would like to establish a scheduling docket and maintain better communication with counsel so parties know where their cases stand.
He also discussed the practical problems that arise when witnesses must be arranged for trial without reliable information about when a case will actually be reached.
His proposed approach would emphasize advance notice, communication, and flexibility when legitimate witness-scheduling difficulties arise.
Efficiency Versus Due Process
One of the central issues raised by the Chronicle is the distinction between disposing of cases quickly and ensuring that litigants receive a fair opportunity to present them.
The newspaper acknowledged that Davis had the highest civil-case clearance rate among her Harris County peers while questioning whether cases were sometimes moving too quickly. Staley questioned the statistics noting they could be manipulated by tax docket trials which are exceptionally quick, and the discrepancy between county and state clearance rate reporting.
I asked Staley how he would balance the competing demands of judicial efficiency and adequate consideration of each case.
His response reflected a willingness to seek input from others and adjust courtroom procedures based on their effectiveness:
“I will seek input from experience of other judges and attorneys on how they view the best way to handle docket scheduling. Also, this is necessarily a flexible concern, what works for one judge may not work in other judges. A judge must be willing to adapt to how the process is actually working.”
This flexibility is an important part of his proposed approach to court administration. Rather than insisting that one particular docket-management system will work for every court, Staley recognizes that procedures may need to be adjusted based on their actual results.
We also discussed how long litigants should wait for rulings.
Staley distinguished between complicated motions, which may require substantial research and consideration, and routine matters.
For complex issues, he emphasized the importance of completing the necessary work rather than imposing an arbitrary deadline. Nevertheless, he believes judges have a responsibility to resolve pending matters as promptly as reasonably possible and communicate appropriately with the parties.
When I asked specifically about unopposed or agreed motions, his expectation was considerably more definite: generally, a few days.
As for obtaining hearings, Staley discussed the possibility of maintaining a daily hearing docket before the trial docket begins.
He also sees value in remote hearings, particularly when they can eliminate unnecessary courthouse appearances.
For discovery disputes, he would expect attorneys to attempt resolution before seeking judicial intervention. Any remaining disputes would then be handled through the court’s ordinary hearing process.
Judicial Temperament and the Right to Make a Record
I spent some time discussing how Staley would respond when an attorney disagrees with a ruling.
This is an important question because an attorney’s responsibility to represent a client sometimes requires challenging a judge’s interpretation of the law, requesting reconsideration, or preserving an objection for appeal.
Staley said he would not take those actions personally.
He recognizes that an attorney appearing before the court has professional obligations to the client, just as the judge has an independent obligation to apply the law.
In his view, attorneys should be afforded the opportunity to make the record necessary to preserve issues for appellate review.
One comment from this portion of the interview was particularly direct:
“Someone taking a case on appeal is not an attack on me.”
Staley acknowledged that a trial judge might disagree with an attorney’s position, but emphasized that appellate courts exist for a reason.
He also said that he makes a conscious effort not to take disagreements arising in either professional life or politics personally.
We discussed complaints involving court staff as well.
Staley has prior personnel-management experience and recognizes that administering the court involves supervising employees, not merely deciding motions.
He would investigate legitimate complaints, hear from the staff members involved, and provide coaching or corrective guidance where appropriate.
His stated expectation is that attorneys, litigants, jurors, and court employees should all be treated with courtesy and respect.
Public Confidence and Judicial Impartiality
The Chronicle’s criticisms of Judge Davis included concerns about courtroom temperament and the results of judicial evaluations, including questions concerning impartiality.
I asked Staley whether those criticisms matched anything he had personally experienced.
He said he believed concerns about temperament were influencing the attorney evaluations, but he was careful to acknowledge that he had no personal experience with the alleged behavior.
We also discussed a statement appearing in the 270th District Court’s official Justex biography.
The webpage describes Judge Davis as one of the “illustrious 17 African American females” elected to judicial office in Harris County in 2018.
I asked whether emphasizing a judge’s racial and gender identity on an official court website could cause some litigants to question the appearance of judicial impartiality, from a colloquial or public perception standpoint rather than as a matter of judicial ethics.
Staley declined to offer a judgment on that issue, saying he would leave the interpretation to the individual. His response avoided drawing conclusions about the incumbent’s impartiality based on the language of the biography.
Author’s note: As an attorney, I am especially troubled by the inclusion of this statement on an official court website. Courts are supposed to be impartial adjudicators, and their public communications should reinforce that impartiality. I believe that emphasizing a judge’s racial and gender identity in this context raises legitimate questions about the public’s perception of judicial impartiality and is a subject worthy of discussion. This is especially concerning because the identical language also appears on Judge Davis’s reelection campaign website. In my view, language used to promote a judicial candidate deserves particular scrutiny when it also appears on an official court website.
On the broader question of judicial philosophy, I asked Staley how he approaches the interpretation and application of law while avoiding personal biases.
His response was:
“You have to follow the law, and people need to be accountable for their actions. A focus on following the evidence where it goes helps to offset personal bias from influencing decisions.”
Mediation and Settlement
Staley also discussed a proposal concerning mediation.
He has considered establishing a system under which mediation would ordinarily be required, while allowing the parties to seek relief from the requirement through a joint objection.
His view is that bringing parties together to communicate can sometimes help resolve disputes that might otherwise proceed unnecessarily toward trial.
He also observed that one advantage of in-person proceedings is that they require parties and attorneys to interact directly.
The proposal would necessarily have to operate within the court’s legal authority and account for cases in which mediation would be inappropriate or unproductive.
Judicial Campaign Contributions
Judicial candidates face a difficult reality: they must campaign and raise money while seeking positions that require independence from political and financial influence.
I asked Staley how he would approach situations in which attorneys or other individuals who supported his campaign subsequently appeared before him.
Staley said he has received relatively few contributions during this campaign, although he recognizes that contributions may increase in the future.
He acknowledged that voters have raised concerns about the relationship between campaign contributions and judicial independence.
His approach would be to remain conscious of the issue, avoid considering donor status when deciding cases, and recognize the heightened responsibility that comes with judicial office.
A Promise Centered on the Job
At the conclusion of the interview, I asked Staley whether there was anything else he wanted readers to know.
He returned to the same promise that has characterized his campaign: he intends to do a better job.
He observed that judicial elections differ from elections for legislative offices. Judges are not elected to cast votes on the political controversies of the day. They are elected to perform a particular job, apply the law, and manage a courtroom.
Overall Thoughts
Overall Staley seemed ready to go from day one. While no judicial candidate can be prepared for all issues they will face he clearly had given considerable thought and clearly articulated methods he would use to administer his courtroom. He also came across as flexible enough to recognize when something wasn’t working and showed a willingness to listen to advice and change when needed.
Leave a Reply