[Mike McKee]
State Bar governors are getting tired of taking the blame for the JNE Commission’s bobbles — such as leaking judicial nominees’ ratings or issuing ratings that discount a person’s full experiences.
So they’re talking about taking the bull (headed) JNE by the horns.
During a State Bar Board of Governors committee meeting this morning, ideas were thrown out beyond those suggested in an interim report by a State Bar task force, which already recommended making ratings of trial judges more transparent, changing the “not qualified” rating to something less demeaning and quickly naming a committee to investigate leaks when they happen.
Among the ideas discussed: Change the composition and numbers of the current 3-person panel that reviews JNE Commission ratings, and issue a statement that ratings not be limited to a nominee’s legal work experiences.
Richard Rubin, a non-lawyer member of the board who chaired a committee looking into JNE, said there are talks about expanding the current 3-member JNE Review Committee by a greater number and making sure it is diverse. Currently, the review committee is comprised of two former JNE commissioners and a sitting member of the Board of Governors.
Rubin, of San Francisco, noted that the review committee has “unbridled” authority to reverse JNE Commission ratings. “That’s a lot of power,” he said.
Rubin expressed the view that former JNE commissioners might have an “over-weaning interest” in protecting the review panel’s previous processes and that “diversity” of membership could make a difference.
Bar governor Angela Davis, an assistant U.S. attorney in L.A., also suggested issuing a statement demanding that the JNE Commission consider experience beyond legal work. Last year, the commission rated Chuck Poochigian not qualified for the appellate bench, mainly because he had been a legislator for more than two decades.
Experience such as that can be “invaluable,” Davis said.
When a staff lawyer noted that evaluation of broad experience is already in the JNE rules, Bar governor Jon Streeter, a partner with Keker & Van Nest, said: “Maybe we just need to add an exclamation point.”
No action was taken on the report today.
The rating system is false. Anyone who has been a member of the State Bar for either 5 or 10 years is qualified to be a judge. The word qualified simply means that a person has the legal qualifications for that office. Anyone with the time in as an active bar member is qualified, so that the phrase "not qualified" is misleading and FALSE! The ratings should be two ONLY, Qualified and Well Qualified, period.
Saying a qualified judicial candidate is "Not Qualified" misleads the non-Law School Trained public into thinking such person does not qualify to hold that office, which isn't true at all.
This is just another example of the unhealthy political agenda of the State Bar to control poitics in California.
The two Chairs of the State Senate and Assembly are lawyers who rubber stamp ALL legislation the State Bar wants passed, which makes legal services cost too much for the average citizen to afford.
The State Bar is supposed to be a public corporation, but does not itself follow or obey corporation laws in CA. Moreover, the State Bar Corporation spends around $300,000 a year lobbying the state legislature to keep it's monopoly on legal services so that paralegals cannot deliver low cost legal services to the public in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act.
The State Bar was fined $2000 for violating the State Political laws on lobbying in 1998 and it's real estate director was just convicted of stealing 2/3 of a Million dollars over 7 years, not noticed by the State Bar officials.
There is a reason people don't trust lawyers, and the false statements made by the JENE commision is a good example.
Posted by: Brad Henschel, JD | May 17, 2010 at 07:59 PM