Bar’s Judicial Evaluation

Superior Court Judge Eric E. Younger (Editorial Pages, June 5) criticizes the Judicial Evaluation Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., calling it “well-intentioned” but “unfair” and “inherently defective.”

Judge Younger also aims several salvos at the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. and trades on several popular misconceptions about the association and its membership.

Younger implies that the association and its Judicial Evaluation Committee are dominated by a coterie of large-firm, downtown lawyers who know little of the candidates for judicial office.

He has his facts wrong. The association draws its strength not from a small group of large firms, but from serving as the voice for a diverse group of nearly 20,000 practicing attorneys from throughout Los Angeles County, many of whom practice on their own or in small firms.

The association operates under the guidance of a 30-member board of trustees, most of whom have offices outside downtown. Eleven trustees’ seats are filled by representatives from the association’s 25 affiliated bars, which operate in various geographic areas of Los Angeles County or represent a specific type of practice or ethnicity.

The association takes great care to insure that the Judicial Evaluation Committee is similarly heterogeneous. The committee is composed of distinguished practitioners from a wide cross section of Los Angeles County lawyers representing large and small firms, a variety of types of practice, and possessing diverse backgrounds. Women and minorities are also well represented. So-called “downtown, big-firm lawyers” hold relatively few of the committee’s positions and hardly control its work.

Younger largely ignores the evaluation process. Each candidate is asked to furnish a completed personal data questionnaire covering the candidate’s professional career and the names of 50 to 75 references. These references are then asked to respond to a questionnaire with additional information on the candidate’s qualifications. The committee also asks other sources for the same information. Committee members follow up on the information received by having telephone and personal conferences with judges, lawyers, and other persons who show knowledge of the candidate’s legal skills. In particular, negative reports are followed up to separate those who have substance and reflect broadly held opinion from those based on isolated instances or personal reactions.

All candidates are personally interviewed by subcommittees assigned to them. After the subcommittees complete their investigations and interview the candidates, the subcommittees report to the entire committee and recommend tentative evaluations.

The committee as a whole fully discusses these recommendations and reaches a tentative evaluation of each candidate. Candidates receiving less than a “well qualified” tentative rating are notified and told the substantive basis for the committee’s conclusions.

Each candidate dissatisfied with a tentative rating can appear before the full committee to present relevant facts and answer questions. Thereafter, the committee again discusses the information it has, reviews the tentative evaluation and makes a final evaluation.

To encourage the flow of candid information to the committee, sources of information are kept confidential. Candidates are not told specifics that would identify the sources of the committee’s information. Although that is less than is required in a trial, it is a practical necessity. Without the assured confidentiality, lawyers would hesitate to speak out for fear of judicial retribution.

The evaluation process is not perfect, but is as fair as any other system that could be used and still guarantee full exploration of a candidate’s qualifications to sit as a judge. Indeed, the process closely resembles that used by the governor to appoint judges to the Municipal and Superior courts and by the federal administration for appointments to the federal bench.

There is no question that a disgruntled lawyer may harbor resentment toward a given candidate and convey that resentment to the committee. However, the opinion of one lawyer, or even several, is unlikely to sway the entire committee. As we all know, lawyers are not easily convinced.

CHARLES S. VOGEL

President

DONALD M. WESSLING

Chair

Judicial Evaluation Committee

Los Angeles County Bar Assn.