County Bar Finds Lynch Unqualified for Judgeship

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn., the most influential voice in the county’s judicial elections, has found former county Assessor John Lynch, who is challenging a longtime judge, not qualified to serve on the bench.

His opponent, Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Williams III, was rated well qualified after appealing the bar’s earlier, lower ranking of qualified.

The county bar’s Judicial Evaluations Committee would not comment on its findings. Committee Chairman Gerald L. Chaleff said the association would not release results of its evaluations until the membership had been notified, by early next week.

But Lynch and Williams told The Times that they have been informed of the findings made by the 60-member evaluations committee.

Williams said he received a letter from the bar late Wednesday that upgraded his rating. He had asked the committee last week to reconsider and said he was grateful for the improved status.

Lynch said the bar’s eleventh-hour reversal on his opponent “makes a joke about this whole process. I fail to see what new information could have arisen during the appeal process.”

Lynch did not seek an appeal. In fact, he refused to participate in the process, declining to appear before the panel.

The committee rates judicial candidates as either well qualified, qualified or not qualified. Those who fall short of the highest rating can appeal, as Williams did.

To win county bar approval, candidates must appear before the committee and submit biographical information, as well as the names of 75 personal references.

By winning his appeal, Williams now can claim the top rating enjoyed by many incumbents.

The Lynch camp conceded the importance of the bar approval. “It means you’ve got the blue ribbon,” said campaign spokesman Joe Scott. But he said he had expected his candidate to be snubbed by the group.

Lynch, a Northridge lawyer who is a member of the bar, has run a grass-roots campaign as a populist candidate taking on what he considers a flawed courthouse insider.

“I’m an outsider in this process, and I’m not ashamed of it,” Lynch said Wednesday. “Not qualified as compared to whom?”

Williams’ comments, on the other hand, were deferential.

“I am gratified that the bar had the vision to see the reality of my courtroom as it is today and the integrity to say so,” he said. “I will continue to try to be the best judge I can be.

The bar’s initial less-than-ringing approval of Williams appeared to reflect concern over a rare public admonishment he received last year from the state Commission on Judicial Performance.

The commission criticized Williams, 53, for using profanity in his downtown civil courtroom and for what it called “abusive and hostile actions” toward lawyers before him. Such conduct, the commission found, “reflected adversely” on the bench.

Williams has said the admonishment was humiliating, causing him to reexamine his priorities and “get a life.” He now says the humbling experience has made him a better person and a better judge.

Lynch, in a letter to the bar, stated that he did not wish to participate in its screening process because it did not give him adequate time to prepare or to challenge committee members who might have a conflict of interest.

“In his letter, Lynch said he “met the stated standards and candidate attributes” the bar seeks. “In the final analysis,” he added, “voters will decide the issues, including judicial integrity and character.”

With just a month until the June primary, the campaign is gaining a profile that is uncommon for a judicial race. The two candidates are preparing for what could be a lively televised debate being taped today by Century Cable.

Williams, a former federal prosecutor who has spent 14 years on the Superior Court bench, is likely to make an issue of his challenger’s lack of courtroom experience.

Lynch’s response: “A case is a case is a case. Your whole key in trying a case is you’ve got to get your pitter-patter down--your rules of evidence, your footwork.”

He expects to make an issue of the admonishment. “It’s called for in this case,” Lynch said.