Karlin Fails to Get Top Rating From Bar; Rival Is Called Unqualified

A leading black challenger to embattled Superior Court Judge Joyce A. Karlin has been found unqualified by a Los Angeles County lawyers group, while Karlin was given a rating of “qualified”--a notch down from the “well qualified” label that the panel often bestows on judicial incumbents.

The ratings, issued by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s Judicial Evaluation Committee, may help shape the outcome of the hotly contested Karlin race, in which the judge is under fire for having given a Korean-born grocer probation in the killing of a black girl.

The evaluations are important because judicial races receive scant public attention and the opinion of the Bar is one of the few measuring sticks the public can use in making decisions at the ballot box. In addition, media organizations often rely on the evaluations in making endorsements.

There are four candidates in the Karlin race; two were found not qualified and two were found qualified.

In addition to Karlin, Deputy Atty. Gen. Bob Henry, who is black, was found qualified. Challenger Thomasina Reed, a black lawyer who is a member of the Inglewood school board and has generated considerable support within the African-American community--was rated not qualified. Century City lawyer Donald Barnett, who is white, was also rated not qualified.

In giving Reed the not qualified rating, the committee said she had “not displayed the temperament, personal responsibility or ability to work with others” necessary for a Superior Court judge.

In an interview Monday, Reed sharply criticized the panel, saying its decision had an undercurrent of racism and sexism.

“As a black female, I feel like I’m being treated like Anita Hill,” she said, referring to the Oklahoma law professor who accused U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexually harassing her. “Nobody believes me.”

Reed complained that the committee had given too much weight to lawyers who said she was too adversarial in court, and to employees who complained that she had not paid certain bills on time. “I hope people see this for what it is,” she said. “It is certainly not an indictment of my capabilities.”

The committee also drew criticism from Karlin campaign manager Bob Stiens, who said the panel’s failure to give the judge the top rating was a political move, based on fear that to do so would create a backlash from Karlin’s critics in the black community.

“One question that they asked her,” said Stiens, “was: ‘If we rated you well qualified, what kind of message would this send to the community?’ Her response was that she should be rated on her merits and the Bar should not be taking into consideration the political consequences.”

The committee--both in its report and through its chairman, attorney Sheldon Sloan--would not elaborate on why Karlin did not receive the highest rating, and a letter sent by the panel to the judge did not make the reasons clear. The letter, made public by Stiens, said only that the decision was based on Karlin’s “experience, competence, integrity and temperament.”

Henry could not be reached. But Barnett--who the committee said lacked a thorough knowledge of legal principles--also had stinging criticism for the panel. He complained that it was biased because the co-chairwoman of the subcommittee that evaluated the candidates had worked with Karlin when the judge was a federal prosecutor.

Sloan defended the committee’s work, saying the woman and Karlin never handled cases together and were not friends. Of the criticisms leveled by all the candidates, he said:

“You know the old trial lawyers’ adage. If the facts are against you, argue the law, and if the law is against you, argue the facts, and if they’re both against you, call the other guy a jerk. Well, this is ‘call the other guy a jerk.’ ”