Bar Gives Thomas a ‘Not Qualified’ Rating

Maxine F. Thomas, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court, and two other candidates for Superior Court seats in the June 3 primary election are “not qualified” to hold the office, according to controversial ratings released Thursday by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

The Bar association gave the same rating to six Municipal Court candidates, including two judges who are running for the same office.

Thomas and other candidates who received the low grade, as have other candidates in the past, denounced the rating process as arbitrary and unfair.

Controversy over Thomas has made her the most visible of the judges running in the primary. She has been criticized in recent months by fellow judges who claim that she has been derelict in her duties as presiding judge of the Municipal Court, has used her position to enhance her election bid, and has given the best bench assignments to friends.

Thomas, 38, has denied the allegations, calling them the results of “petty jealousies,” and says that efficiency at Municipal Courts has improved during her four-month tenure as presiding judge.

In response to the association’s rating--which said she “lacks the judicial ability as a trial judge and judgment necessary to be a judge of the Superior Court”--Thomas told a press conference that the rating process is “unfair” because candidates are not told who is making accusations against them and are not allowed to respond to specific complaints.

The association said another Superior Court candidate, William R. Pardee, “has not displayed judicial ability and judgment necessary to be a judge.”

In response, Pardee complained in a telephone interview that the ratings are “arbitrary and capricious and not based on fact.” Pardee, a court referee, was rated “qualified” by the Bar when he unsuccessfully ran for the Superior Court in 1982.

Ronald L. Grey, a Municipal Court commissioner running for Superior Court judge who was also rated Thursday as “not qualified,” could not be reached for comment.

The impact of the ratings is debatable. In 1980, a Municipal Court judge who was rated “not qualified” in his bid for a Superior Court seat defeated two other candidates who were considered “well qualified” by the association.

Nevertheless, the ratings are given wide publicity and are used by candidates against opponents and to gain endorsements. For many voters, the ratings are the only information that they get about candidates in the little-publicized, nonpartisan and often issueless judicial races.

“The Bar rating is the biggest single factor influencing what takes place in these elections,” said Joseph Cerrell, who heads a Los Angeles political consulting firm. Cerrell, who has run numerous judicial campaigns, likened the rating to a report card with an A, C, or F grade.

The association has rated judicial candidates since 1976. Using questionnaires and interviews with candidates, a Bar association committee ranks the candidates as being “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified” based on experience, temperament ability and integrity. Candidates who do not receive the highest ranking are invited to appeal to the Bar association.

In all, nine of the 25 Superior and Municipal Court candidates in the June election received “not qualified” ratings by the Bar, and 17 candidates appealed, according to the Bar association. The association declined to say how many ratings, if any, were changed on appeal.

The association does not disclose specific information that is involved in the ratings “because to do so would dry up our sources. . . .,” said Donald Wessling, chairman of the committee that evaluated the candidates.

In the race for a Municipal Court judgeship in San Pedro, both candidates, incumbent David M. Kennick and his challenger, Catalina Judicial District Judge Bob Furey, were rated “not qualified.” Kennick lacks the “diligence, judgment and temperament necessary to be a judge,” the association said, while Furey lacks the necessary “judgment and judicial ability.”

Kennick, who was appointed in 1972, said it is “difficult to defend yourself against undisclosed sources.” Furey said he was “very disappointed” and disputed the rating but said, “I’m going to let it go at that.”

(The district attorney’s office is reviewing a waitress’ allegation that Kennick offered to dismiss a drunk driving charge against her in exchange for sex. Kennick has denied the allegation.)

More than 100 Superior and Municipal Court judges whose six-year terms are up this year automatically won new terms because no challengers filed. Superior Court judges earn $77,129 annually, while Municipal Court judges are paid $70,888.

In contested races, 12 candidates are seeking election to three open Superior Court seats and 13 others are seeking Municipal Court seats in the June election. To avoid a runoff in the November general election, a candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes cast.

Times staff writer Paul Feldman contributed to this story.

JUDICIAL CANDIDATE RATINGS

Here is the complete list of judicial candidates in Los Angeles County and the Bar association ratings:

SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 1--Superior Court Commissioner John W. Dickey and Worker’s Compensation Judge Stanley S. Feinstein, “well qualified”; Municipal Court Judges Leon S. Kaplan and Alban I. Niles, “qualified”; Municipal Court Commissioner Ronald L. Grey, “not qualified.”

Office No. 2--Municipal Court Judge Judith M. Ashmann, “well qualified”; Malibu Court Commissioner Richard L. Brand, “qualified”; Superior Court Referee William R. Pardee, “not qualified.”

Office No. 12--Municipal Court Judges Bernard Kaufman and Michael B. Rutberg, and attorney Steven L. Pankratz, “qualified”; Municipal Court Judge Maxine F. Thomas, “not qualified.”

MUNICIPAL COURT Los Angeles Office No. 3--Catalina Judicial District Judge Bob Furey and incumbent David M. Kennick, “not qualified.”

Compton Office No. 2--incumbent Irma J. Brown, “well qualified”; lawyer John Ortega, “not qualified.”

Pasadena--Deputy Dist. Atty. Judson Morris, “well qualified”; Municipal Court Commissioners Robert Lutz and Kevil W. (Chip) Martin, “qualified”; attorneys William N. Paparian and Helen Bunt Smith, “not qualified.”

Rio Hondo Office No. 1--Municipal Court Judge J. B. Casas, Jr. and attorney Richard W. Van Dusen, “qualified.”

Whittier--Municipal Court Judge James A. McKechnie, “well qualified”; Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven Morgan, “not qualified.”