Bar to Go Over Procedures in Rating Judges’ Performance

The president of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. said Friday that in the future the Bar “needs to be more definitive in explaining” why it has seen fit to rate an incumbent judge anything less than “well qualified” for the bench.

Larry Feldman said in an interview that as far as he is concerned “everything’s up for review” on ratings procedures before the 24,000-member County Bar forms its next evaluation committee for judicial elections in 1990.

He said the review is scheduled to begin at a meeting of the present evaluation committee next Saturday, just four days after an election in which the Bar has rated more sitting judges “not qualified” than ever before in its history.

The 58-member committee gave two of the three Superior Court judges and four of the eight Municipal Court judges who were facing opposition less-qualified ratings than their challengers. One of the Superior Court and two of the Municipal Court judges were rated “not qualified,” while one Superior Court and two Municipal Court judges were rated only “qualified.”

The Bar explained its “not qualified” ratings in vague terms, such as “lacks judicial temperament” or “exhibits bias,” refusing to say further what it was talking about, and several of the judges involved were bitterly critical of its explanations and the procedures by which the evaluation committee arrived at the ratings.

For example, Superior Court Judge Henry Patrick Nelson, rated “not qualified,” called his rating “irresponsible and misguided” and said the process gave undue credence to “petty, baseless criticisms.”

Feldman said that he has no reason to believe the evaluation committee “did anything wrong or anything other than its objective best.”

But he said that “in making comparisons between a sitting judge and a challenger, I believe great pains need to be taken to eliminate any potential bias and to make sure a cross-section of the Bar is heard from.”

He said that he is especially concerned about findings regarding “judicial temperament,” particularly since it is difficult to tell what a challenger’s judicial temperament will be if and when he or she reaches the bench. The reason given for the Nelson rating was that he “lacks judicial temperament.”

Another matter that has “got to be looked at” is whether more than the present simple majority of committee members voting should be required before a judge is rated “not qualified,” Feldman said.

In this regard, one of the members of the evaluation panel, who asked not to be identified, said in an interview that some of the votes on adverse judge ratings this year had been close.

“If the vote is 18 to 17 against someone, and the other 23 members are absent, you wonder whether justice is being done,” this member said. However, he added that he was raising a hypothetical example, not reciting a particular vote.

Feldman said ensuring that an adverse rating does reflect a cross-section of the Bar membership is “a very serious issue.”

But he emphasized that he continues to support Bar ratings of judges and their challengers. “It’s not an infallible process,” he remarked, “but it provides more information than the voter will ever get otherwise. It’s needed, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.”

In other developments in judicial contests:

- The state Court of Appeal said it would not decide before Tuesday’s election whether votes in two Los Angeles Municipal Court races, for Offices 4 and 6, will be counted this time, or the votes thrown out and the elections rescheduled for November. The issue is a technical one over state statute in cases of judicial retirements.

- The latest campaign financial reports showed that through May 21, the biggest judicial fund raiser among the 56 candidates for 19 judgeships in the county was Los Angeles Municipal Judge Sherrill D. Luke, running for an open Superior Court seat, who has collected $106,655.

Second highest in contributions received was Los Angeles Municipal Judge Terry Smerling, running for a second vacant Superior Court seat, at $99,123. Third highest was Los Angeles Municipal Judge Malcolm Mackey, running for a third open Superior Court seat, at $95,012, and fourth highest was attorney Brian S. Braff, challenging incumbent Judith O. Stein for a Beverly Hills municipal judgeship, at $93,329.