County bar groups issue mixed ratings on judicial candidates

Four county bar associations have issued sharply divergent evaluations of candidates in this year's judicial elections, with the Los Angeles County Bar Association rating one sitting judge "not qualified" while awarding another incumbent its highest designation, "exceptionally well qualified."

The ratings, released ahead of the June 2 primary election, also included several unusually strong endorsements and critical findings. The Orange County Bar Association gave candidate Ami S. Sagel its top "exceptionally well qualified" rating while deeming Office No. 41 opponent Charles E. Pell "not qualified." In San Diego County, one contested race produced ratings ranging from "lacking qualifications" to "unable to evaluate" and "qualified," while San Francisco's bar association rated both candidates in a contested Superior Court race "well-qualified."

The Los Angeles County Bar Association's Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee evaluated 28 candidates competing for 11 Superior Court offices. Eight races are for open seats after judges declined to seek re-election. Three races involve incumbents, two originally elected and one appointed to the bench. LACBA did not evaluate four unopposed candidates seeking their first judgeships or incumbent judges who were re-elected without appearing on the ballot because they were not opposed.

Judge Robert Draper

Sitting Judge David Walgren, running for Office No. 81, received the committee's highest rating, "exceptionally well qualified," while his opponent, Dan Kapelovitz, was rated "qualified."

Incumbent Judge Robert Draper, seeking re-election to Office No. 2, was rated "not qualified." Tal K. Valbuena, his opponent, was rated "qualified."

In Office No. 116, incumbent Judge Patrick Connolly was rated "well-qualified," and his opponent, Paul A. Thompson, was rated "qualified."

Judge Patrick Connolly

Here are the other rankings for Los Angeles County Superior Court candidates:

Office No. 14: Angie Christides, qualified; Irene Lee, well-qualified

Office No. 64: Francisco Amador, not qualified; Maria Ghobadi, well-qualified; Rhonda Haymon, qualified

Office No. 65: Justin Clayton, qualified; Chellei G. Jimenez, qualified; Samuel W. Krause, qualified; Anna S. Reitano, qualified

Office No. 66: Benny Forer, well-qualified; Cheryl C. Turner, qualified

Office No. 87: Anthony (A.J.) Bayne, well-qualified; David DeJute, qualified; Sharee S. Gordon, qualified

Office No. 131: Carlos Dammeier, qualified; David Ross, qualified; Troy W. Slaten, qualified; Donna Tryfman, qualified

Office No. 176: Gloria Marin, well-qualified; Zachary Smith, qualified

Office No. 181: Ryan Dibble, well-qualified; Thanayi Lindsey, not qualified

In addition to the Office No. 41 contest, the Orange County Bar Association's Judiciary Committee evaluated both candidates Ann Cho and Robert Mestman as "well-qualified" in the race for Office No. 13.

The OCBA said its committee consisted of more than 30 attorneys with at least 10 years of practice experience. The committee said it evaluated candidates' character, temperament, professional aptitude and experience using information from candidates and members of the legal community while disregarding political considerations.

The San Diego County Bar Association evaluated eight candidates competing for five Superior Court seats.

The sharpest divide came in the race for Office No. 32, where Nicole D'Ambrogi was rated "lacking qualifications," David Gallo was deemed "unable to evaluate," and Tia Ramirez was rated "qualified."

For Office No. 31, Jodi Cleesattle was rated "exceptionally qualified," and Adam Noakes was rated "well-qualified."

Commissioner Leah Boucek for Office No. 11 and Tracy Prior for Office No. 18 were unopposed and received "exceptionally qualified" ratings. Laurie Hauf in Office No. 34 was also unopposed and received an "exceptionally qualified" rating.

The San Diego committee said it evaluates candidates using 15 criteria, including integrity, decisiveness, judicial temperament, legal knowledge, trial experience, writing ability, compassion and absence of bias. The 22-member committee said its process is modeled after the State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

The Bar Association of San Francisco evaluated the two candidates running for Superior Court Office No. 16 -- Phoebe Maffei and Alexandra Pray -- and rated both "well-qualified."

BASF said its Judiciary Committee interviewed candidates and required them to complete the same questionnaire used by the State Bar's Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission. The committee also interviewed judges, attorneys and others familiar with the candidates' work.

The San Francisco committee said it considered integrity, judgment, legal ability, decisiveness, temperament, diligence, health, reputation and civic activities in making its determinations.

The Los Angeles County Bar Association said its 39-member committee included attorneys from public and private practice, prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, plaintiff and defense firms, and practitioners from firms of varying sizes. The group said it reviewed confidential questionnaires, interviewed judges and attorneys, conducted courtroom observation of sitting judges and interviewed candidates who participated in the process.

The committee said candidates were evaluated on integrity, judgment, fairness, legal knowledge, temperament, diligence, reputation and community involvement, among other factors. Candidates receiving tentative "qualified" or "not qualified" ratings were permitted to appeal to the full committee. Eleven candidates sought reconsideration.

LACBA noted that Amador declined to participate in the evaluation process by failing to complete a questionnaire or participate in an interview, though the committee said it nevertheless attempted to evaluate him using available information.