Deukmejian’s 3 Court Nominees Get High Ratings

An influential State Bar commission has given top ratings to two of Gov. George Deukmejian’s Supreme Court nominees and the second-highest rating to the third.

The ratings of “extremely well-qualified” for Court of Appeal Justices Marcus M. Kaufman and David N. Eagleson, and “well-qualified” for Justice John A. Arguelles add weight to predictions that all three easily will win confirmation before the Commission on Judicial Appointments next week.

The appointments commission, composed of Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and appellate Justice Lester Roth, almost always confirms nominees, particularly when the Bar’s evaluation team rates them well-qualified or higher.

Kaufman, generally viewed as the most controversial of the three nominees, had his rating improved a notch since he was last evaluated by the State Bar Assn.’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, which investigates all gubernatorial nominees to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Second-Best Rating

In 1985 when Deukmejian was considering Kaufman for a Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Justice Edward Panelli, the commission found Kaufman to be well-qualified. That is the second-best of four ratings, which also include “qualified” and “unqualified.”

A veteran of 17 years on the appellate court in San Bernardino, Kaufman has long been lauded for his legal prowess and the craftsmanship of his opinion writing. However, it is not clear why his rating escalated because he has become more controversial since that last evaluation.

In 1980, he was accused by the farm labor advocates of being biased in favor of ranchers. A retired judge assigned to hear the case in which his objectivity was challenged ruled that he had demonstrated bias, but the Supreme Court in 1982 found that Kaufman had not acted improperly.

More recently, the attorney general’s office questioned him for urging the Board of Medical Quality Assurance to issue a decision that may help a friend, an immigrant physician, practice medicine in this state. Kaufman has said he acted on his own time, was not paid and violated no ethical standard.

But both issues are expected to be raised at the confirmation hearing.

Nearly all of Deukmejian’s nominees to appellate courts have received high marks from the Bar team. Panelli was found to be extremely well-qualified. Lucas, the governor’s first appointment to the high court, was rated well-qualified when he was appointed associate justice in 1984 and extremely well-qualified when he was elevated to chief justice earlier this year.

Same Rating as in ’85

Arguelles’ rating of well-qualified is the same rating he received in 1985 when he was considered for the seat held by Panelli. Attorneys who appear before him have described him as a hard worker but have criticized him for working slowly.

Still, the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation found Arguelles has “qualities and attributes considered to be worthy of special note.” Those qualities suggest he will serve with a “high degree of skill, effectiveness and distinction.”

The commission concluded that Kaufman and Eagleson of Los Angeles have “remarkable or extraordinary superiority so that without real doubt they are deemed to be able to perform the judicial function with distinction.”

James D. Ward, a Riverside attorney who chairs the 27-member evaluation team, declined to discuss the findings. He will issue the commission’s full report at the confirmation hearing next Wednesday.

Kaufman, Arguelles and Eagleson were nominated to fill vacancies created when Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Joseph R. Grodin and Cruz Reynoso were unseated in the election last Nov. 4.