Deciding for whom to vote for among the candidates seeking to be a Superior Court judge is notoriously hard for those of us who don’t know the ins and outs of the judicial system, but who you choose matters. These judges have the power to make decisions in the county’s criminal and civil cases and resolve appeals for small claims and misdemeanors.

But information about who’s running can be slim. Candidates usually have small campaign budgets, and since these are nonpartisan seats, you can’t just vote for someone in your preferred political party. So how do you know what values someone could bring to the courtroom?

The Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) can give you a peek into that. They evaluate and research Superior Court candidates every election, distilling the findings into a single, public rating. As one of the only consistent sources of information about judicial candidates, those ratings can hold a lot of sway. We include the ratings in our guide to the L.A. Superior Court Judge races, for example. So how does the Bar Association come up with those ratings?

What is LACBA?

LACBA is a voluntary bar association, meaning it’s a private organization legal professionals can choose to join, unlike the State Bar Association. L.A. County’s association is a nonprofit focused on providing resources for its more than 16,000 members, as well as legal help for people who can’t afford it.

How does the evaluation work?

Evaluating means a lot of back and forth with the candidates by phone, email and interviews. All candidates get a questionnaire to kickstart the process and eventually face a committee.

For this round, LACBA’s Judicial Elections Evaluation committee consists of 40 members. Susan Schwartz, who chairs the committee, said they come from a wide range of backgrounds and areas of law, like prosecution, civil and defense — all on the committee because of their reputation and availability to commit dozens of hours of work.

“Most recently, because we had an imbalance — we had so many defense lawyers — we reached out to the D.A.’s office,” she said. “So a lot of people have cycled off, but we've replaced them with people who have substantial experience in the practice of law.”

The committee is responsible for learning about the candidates and assessing their ability to join the bench. They dig into a candidate’s background, including gaps in employment, past cases and non-work activities. Much of that comes from a detailed questionnaire, where candidates are asked about things like:

• What courts and law firms they’ve practiced at
• Cases where they’ve tried to get a verdict or judgment
• If they’ve been sued for malpractice or disciplined for ethical violations
• What they’re doing to keep up with the law if they haven’t practiced in the past five years

They’re also asked to provide 50 to 75 references who can vouch for their skills and expertise. These are professional references of people, typically lawyers and judges, they’ve interacted with in the past 10 years. Schwartz said each committee member must speak to at least 25 people who are on and off that list.

Questions for candidates

References are asked about a candidate’s skill, personality and experience, such as whether the person is active in the community, what biases they may hold and how much of their work they’ve seen. The committee members also seek out concrete facts and details — not just general opinions — which LACBA says is crucial to determining how to weigh positive and negative interviews.

“ For example, if someone says that a candidate was rude in court or unprofessional in court, that is not accepted at face value,” Schwartz said. “Other people who should have been present in the courtroom at that time will be reached out to, and we have to make sure that any negative comment is based in fact and not based on sour grapes.”

When it’s time for the candidate’s interview, which comes after at least most of the reference interviews, each person has the chance to talk for at least an hour with a subcommittee. They go over things like aspirations and past cases. If the committee members learn any negative details in advance, the candidate gets a heads up about it because this is where the committee will ask about problems.

The full committee votes on a tentative rating for each individual candidate after reviewing the findings. These ratings aren’t based on comparisons of candidates vying for the same seat — they’re evaluated individually. There are four ratings to pick from: “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified” or “Not Qualified.”

Anyone who participated in the process and received one of the last two ratings can appeal and send more information. An appeal gets them a half-hour meeting with the full committee to lay out their case. Anyone rated as “Not Qualified” gets a letter detailing the problems found by the group. Sometimes, the appeals can lead to a new rating — but it could be better or worse.

The final ratings are settled with board approval. If a candidate doesn’t want to work with LACBA on the evaluation, the committee still proceeds using whatever information it can get. (And the committee’s evaluation report will note who did not participate.)

What do the ratings mean?

Exceptionally Well Qualified

This rating means a person has such remarkable qualities that there’s no real doubt about their abilities on the bench. To get that rating, more than 75% of the committee (present at the time of voting) needs to agree, according to the committee’s handbook.

Well Qualified

This rating means a person has the “professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament” to be a highly skilled judge. More than 60% of the committee members who vote have to agree.

Qualified

This rating means a person has the qualities to serve as a satisfactory judge. More than 50% of the committee members who vote have to agree.

Not Qualified

This rating means the person lacks one or more of the qualities that are key to serving as a satisfactory judge. Any candidate who doesn’t get enough votes to reach “Qualified” or above gets this rating.

Are the ratings fair?

While its rules and processes are publicly available, its candidate investigations are confidential. Schwartz previously told LAist that’s partly because some sources wouldn’t talk about a candidate without that protection. All the public gets to know is the rating itself — not the why behind it — and anything else a candidate decides to share.

“ We want people to be able to be candid in their assessment of someone’s qualifications to be a judge,” Schwartz said.

Some candidates have raised issues with the process in the past, questioning whether people who identify as women, people of color or those with defense experience get fairly evaluated. At the time, Schwartz said they took steps to remedy that with implicit bias training. The State Bar also now requires civility training,  which covers behavior in the courtroom.

"It’s so important in what we do that we be aware that the candidates who we’re interviewing — many of them are going to become judges. These are people who have had extensive professional backgrounds as lawyers,” Schwartz said. “We need to treat them with respect. We need to be sensitive throughout this process about our own biases, and we need to work hard to minimize them.”

Some of LACBA’s procedures are modeled after the California State Bar’s nominee evaluations, so vetting does happen at higher levels when the governor makes judicial appointments. LACBA’s evaluations are separate from California Constitution eligibility standards, which only require someone to be a member of the State Bar or have served on a court for 10 years before running for a seat.

Committee members are required to follow conflict-of-interest rules, but candidates can also ask that certain people not participate in their evaluation. Committee members aren’t allowed to publicly or privately say they’re supporting a candidate or join an organization that’s lobbying to help someone win or lose. They can’t donate money or services to candidates, either.