News
Judges and Judiciary
Mar. 8, 1996
Bar Releases Evaluations in Judicial Races
A Los Angeles County Bar Association committee released Wednesday its 1996 report on the 38 candidates running for local judicial offices. Among the candidates given an "unqualified" rating was Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian.
The candidate evaluations are not comparisons or endorsements, but simply a reflection of a candidate's ability to practice law and his or her qualifications for the judicial offices sought, according to the bar's Judicial Election Evaluations Committee.
Each candidate is given a rating of "well qualified," "qualified" or "not qualified" indicating "fitness to perform the judicial function." The committee based its evaluations on attributes such as integrity, judgment and intellectual capacity, fairness, experience, judicial temperament, professional ability and knowledge of the law.
Of the candidates who received a "not qualified" rating, Sohigian is the only person currently on the bench. Sohigian, 58, was appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1988 and elected in 1990 to the Superior Court.
Sohigian received his "not qualified" evaluation because "in the committee's opinion at this time he lacks the necessary judicial temperament."
The judge was not available for comment Wednesday, but called the committee's ratings "misleading and unreliable" in a prepared statement.
"The rating of me shows the differences between the requirements that bear on a judge and the desires of attorneys. The judge is obligated to be firm and fair to all in the proper discharge of judicial responsibilities - to be true to the law ... Lawyers' evaluations of a judge's temperament are, at best, highly subjective. The Committee's process is flawed," Sohigian said.
Appeals Allowed
Rex Heinke, the chairman of the Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee, said, "The committee is comprised of lawyers who represent numerous different and often conflicting points of view. ... The committee spends literally hundreds of hours conducting detailed reviews of the candidates' qualifications. Its opinions accurately reflect the results of those investigations."
Heinke added that the committee does this work "in an effort to improve the quality of the judicial system."
Criminal defense attorney Charles L. Lindner, one of two Sohigian challengers, received a "qualified" evaluation from the bar committee. Lindner said he believes he received that rating because he has spoken out against the judicial system and its policies in newspaper columns he has written - something frowned upon by those with a vested interest in maintaining the justice system as it is, he said.
Lindner said challengers to judicial seats must rely on the press to get the word out that there is something wrong with a sitting judge: "There must be a damn good reason to run against an incumbent judge."
In so doing, Lindner said that he and the other candidate, Ronald S. Smith, are risking not only their money but their careers to raise the consciousness of the legal community.
Smith received a "well qualified" evaluation.
California Judges Association President Paul Boland, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, said judicial races rely on the perspectives of organizations, like bar associations, to provide sufficient information to voters.
"Unlike other elected offices in urban areas, judges' backgrounds and records are not ordinarily subject to media scrutiny, except in situations regarding judges in high-profile cases," Boland said. "In all fairness to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, they devote an enormous amount of effort to the judicial evaluations process."
Boland added: "I regard myself as a friend and supporter of Judge Sohigian and, like many of my colleagues, I regard him as enormously talented and a tireless and dedicated worker."
In the other races, the bar awarded the highest rating for each race to the incumbent, except in the Alhambra Municipal Court's Office No. 2, where the incumbent, Michael A. Kanner and challenger Dennis M. Orfirer both received "qualified" ratings.
In the races for open seats, Michael S. Luros received a "well qualified" rating for Superior Court Office No. 25. His opponent, F. Bentley Mooney Jr., received a "qualified" rating. For Superior Court Office No. 58, Karl W. Jaeger and Stephen A. Marcus both received "well qualified" ratings, while Patrick B. Murphy received a "not qualified" rating.
In open Municipal Court races, both Allen D. Annis and Thomas Falls received "well qualified" ratings in the six-person race for Citrus Municipal Court Office No. 1. In the East Los Angeles Municipal Court Office No. 2 race, Armando V. Moreno received the best rating, a "well qualified," in the three-person race. In the Los Cerritos Municipal Court Office No. 2 race, Leland H. Tipton was rated "well qualified," while his opponent, Lance Haddix, was rated "not qualified."
During the evaluation process, a tentative rating was given to each candidate, along with a chance to appeal to the committee if a candidate received a "not qualified" or "qualified" rating.
Antelope Municipal Court candidate Larry H. Layton appealed his "not qualified" rating with letters of support from colleagues and judges. He was not successful.
Layton said in a prepared statement Wednesday: "The L.A. County Bar Association is wrong! They dislike me because I do not fit into their little cubby hole of what they believe a lawyer/judge should be."
Layton, who owns his own law school in Acton and is involved in numerous religious organizations, said he was attacked by the association for his beliefs and activities, especially his position as a staunch pro-life advocate, which he said should have nothing to do with qualifications for the bench.
Because of the confidentiality of the evaluations, Heinke said he was unable to discuss any of the specific comments or candidates, including the reactions and opinions of the candidates who had received less than favorable appraisals.
Candidates were involved in the committee's decisions to the extent that they were given a personal data questionnaire and a chance to review the committee roster for members who may have had a conflict of interest. In addition, they are asked to submit the names of 50 to 75 lawyers and judges "who could evaluate the candidate's legal skills and knowledge."
The 48-member bar committee is racially and ethnically diverse. Its membership includes attorneys who represent all aspects of the legal profession - including the public and private sectors, corporate counsel, sole practitioners and firms of all sizes.
#311956
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com