Superior Court Endorsements

Voters are asked to make choices in four Los Angeles Superior Court races. The Times endorses the following candidates:

Office No. 18: Ronald S. Smith

In a race that has attracted much attention, two attorneys are challenging Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian. The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rated Sohigian as “not qualified,” concluding “he lacks the necessary judicial temperament.” The judge has a record of making disparaging remarks about those who appear before him. His challengers include Charles L. Lindner, who is a criminal defense attorney and Times columnist, and appellate lawyer Ronald S. Smith. Either offers a positive alternative to Sohigian; the Times endorses Smith, who received a “well-qualified” rating, to Lindner’s “qualified.”

Office No. 25: Michael S. Luros

Municipal Court Judge Michael S. Luros and private practitioner F. Bentley Mooney Jr. are vying for this open seat. Since his appointment to the municipal court in 1981, Luros has grown as a judge; when he unsuccessfully ran for an open Superior Court seat in 1984, the Bar Assn. rated him as “not qualified.” This time, he received a rating of “well-qualified.” Mooney, with 23 years’ experience in business law, litigation, family law, estate planning and probate, received a “qualified” rating. The Times gives the nod to Luros.

Office No. 39: Reginald A. Dunn

Superior Court Judge Reginald A. Dunn is being challenged by attorney Kenneth G. Griffin, who was angered by Dunn’s behavior toward him and his clients during a trial before Dunn three years ago. Griffin does not make a compelling case for replacement of a sitting judge. Moreover, the bar rated Griffin as “not qualified,” in contrast to Dunn’s “well-qualified” rating. We endorse Dunn for reelection.

Office No. 58: Karl W. Jaeger

This is a difficult race. Three sitting municipal court judges each seek this open Superior Court seat. Judges Karl W. Jaeger and Stephen A. Marcus are both worthy jurists; the bar rates each as “well qualified,” and each would bring individual strengths to the bench. Patrick Murphy is another matter; the bar rated him “not qualified,” saying he “lacks the judgment” to sit on the court. We agree and endorse Jaeger largely because he would bring a slightly broader range of experience to the bench than Marcus.