Judge Seen as a Conservative--Usually : Supreme Court: Nominee Kathryn Werdegar is expected to fit in with the state’s justices but occasionally go her own way, especially on women’s issues.

California Supreme Court nominee Kathryn M. Werdegar is expected to follow a largely conservative course on the high court but also show flashes of independence, particularly on women’s issues.

Werdegar, selected by Gov. Pete Wilson on Tuesday, has voted on one abortion case, joining a conservative and a liberal on the Court of Appeal in ruling for a Planned Parenthood clinic that had won an injunction against anti-abortion protesters.

Soon after taking her seat on the Supreme Court, Werdegar probably will be called to help decide a case testing whether minors can be compelled to obtain a parent’s consent for an abortion. Though her views on the case are unknown, colleagues and friends describe her as a strong supporter of women’s rights.

“In terms of enforcing a woman’s right to privacy,” said a state Court of Appeal justice who knows Werdegar, “I don’t think (women’s groups) have anything to worry about.”

In tapping Werdegar, Wilson turned to an old friend who has contributed $4,000 to his campaigns, including $500 after the court’s vacancy was announced in early September.

Asked about pressure to appoint a woman or minority in an election year, Wilson said he based his appointment on “the best possible qualifications.”

But in secret ratings by a California State Bar commission, another candidate, Court of Appeal Justice Ming Chin, received the most votes as “exceptionally well-qualified” among the six finalists, according to two knowledgeable sources. One of them said Werdegar placed third in the number of votes for the highest rating, behind Court of Appeal Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian.

Werdegar, whose nomination has been widely praised, still scored high in the ratings, and the commission’s evaluations tend to be pivotal only when a candidate is found not qualified.

Bob White, Wilson’s chief of staff, said he was “shocked” that “rumors” are being spread about the closed evaluation process and refused to discuss any of the candidates’ ratings.

Werdegar also declined to discuss her ratings, saying only that she had been highly pleased with the rating she received from the bar commission when Wilson appointed her to the Court of Appeal in San Francisco three years ago.

Because of her scant experience as a judge, it is difficult to assess Werdegar’s philosophy on a wide array of issues. She is considered conservative but independent, more concerned about being viewed as a thoughtful, accomplished jurist than about promoting a conservative agenda.

Those who know Werdegar believe she will be more sympathetic to abortion rights and other women’s issues than her predecessor, retired Justice Edward Panelli.

Wilson has told reporters that Werdegar had trouble finding a job in a private law firm after law school because of sex discrimination, even though she graduated first in her class at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.

“I can’t say I know her position on any particular issue,” said San Francisco attorney Jill Schlichtmann, “but in my personal relationship with her I have found her to be a strong advocate for women’s rights.”

As former president of the Queen’s Bench, established in 1921 to expand opportunities for women in the legal profession, Schlichtmann became acquainted with Werdegar when she gave a speech to the group.

Werdegar was characteristically careful in her February speech. She talked about whether female judges would “fundamentally transform” traditional jurisprudence but declined to state her views.

Studies show that female judges are more sensitive to issues affecting women, she said, including sexual assault, the parent-child relationship and equal employment.

But she also quoted Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, confessing that she was troubled by generalizations about the differences between male and female judges.

California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, the only woman now on the court, was considered to be in the same conservative mold as Werdegar when Gov. George Deukmejian appointed her in 1989. But Kennard has steered a moderate course, irritating her conservative colleagues with her frequent dissents.

Like Werdegar, Kennard had been a judge for only three years when Deukmejian elevated her to the Supreme Court, and there was little in her record by which to assess her views.

But court analysts and judges believe Werdegar is less likely than Kennard to separate herself from the conservative majority. Werdegar worked as a research attorney for six years for Panelli, a conservative who recommended her for his seat when he retired.

“I frankly don’t think she is going to be as independent as Kennard,” said University of Santa Clara law school Dean Gerald Uelmen, who follows the state high court closely. “If there were similar dispositions, it would be very surprising.”

Panelli, appointed by Deukmejian, said Werdegar almost always produced research that supported his views. He could recall her challenging his legal analysis of a case but never the ultimate disposition he favored.

“We never really had any violent disagreements over issues, but she would tell me if she disagreed. . . . “ Panelli said. “She would say, ‘After the research I have done, I don’t think we can write it the way you suggest.’ ”

The affable Panelli was considered a skilled conciliator on the court, capable of swaying other members. Wilson’s advisers said he was looking for someone with similar skills. Werdegar, however, is reserved and guarded, a strong contrast in temperament to the justice she would replace. Judges disagree over how influential she would be on the court.

“She has been so new and so inexperienced,” said a judge who knows her, “and dealing from that position makes her very insecure. . . . I find her very pleasant but always defensive.”

Court of Appeal Justice Marc Poche, however, recalled that as a researcher for his court, Werdegar was persuasive in supporting her views.

“She is not a person who thumps on the table,” Poche said, “but she is a person who, once she has researched something and thought about it, can look you in the eye and be pretty devastating with her logic.”

Critics complain that the conservative majority on the court is pro-business and pro-insurance-company, more concerned about the outcome of individual cases than in applying the law to the facts.

In opinions Werdegar wrote on insurance disputes, she ruled against insurance companies two of three times.

The California Supreme Court later decided to decertify one of her rulings against the insurance industry, prohibiting its use as precedent.

In that case, a woman was injured by an airport transport service. She sued, and the company neglected to tell its insurance carrier. A default judgment was entered against the company.

The insurance company then learned about the default and tried to set it aside. A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the insurance company, but Werdegar reversed the lower court.

Werdegar’s ruling in the case “would worry insurance companies,” Uelmen said, “and the Supreme Court probably got a lot of petitions from insurance companies in response.”

Kennard, indicating she agreed with Werdegar’s decision, voted against reducing its impact.

But the insurance cases “don’t tell us much except there is not a knee-jerk reaction for an insurance company,” said Oakland appellate lawyer Peter Davis, who represents insurance companies and other businesses before the court.

Appellate attorneys who represent interests at odds with big business and the government generally favored Werdegar or Chin over more conservative candidates for the post.

The law is nebulous enough that a judge’s personal views can shape decisions in 75% of his or her cases, said San Francisco criminal appellate attorney Dennis Riordan. But if judges are truly applying the law, about one-quarter of their decisions will “go against their philosophical grain,” Riordan said.

He recalled Werdegar’s willingness to reverse herself in a criminal case after her ruling triggered furious protests from legal scholars.

“What that may be saying is that she is intensely concerned about her image as a judicial craftsman and thinker,” Riordan said. “If that is the case, she is cut from a different stripe than most of the members of the (California Supreme) Court.”

William Veen, a San Francisco personal injury attorney, remembered his apprehension when she sat on the case of a young man he represented who had become a paraplegic in an equipment accident at his job. “I was scared because I thought a conservative court might rewrite the law,” Veen said.

But Werdegar, hearing the case on appeal, upheld a $3.5-million judgment against a subcontractor who had been hired to repair the equipment.

By the time Werdegar heard the case, voters had approved a ballot measure that limited such damages. The accident, however, occurred before the proposition was passed.

Said Veen: “She came up with the conclusion the law is the law and applied it appropriately.”