LACBA RATINGS ARE DECEIVING

By Larry H. Layton

The Los Angeles County Bar Association forms committees and submittees to rate judicial candidates, however, the ratings are flawed. Ignore them and make your own decision.

They are wrong, as they are always wrong when rating me. They are wrong as I am WELL QUALIFIED for the position of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.

I am WELL QUALIFIED as evidenced by the following:

1. I have practiced law for over thirty (30) years handling both civil and criminal cases in both state and federal courts. I have handled many jury trials from simple misdemeanors to murder. The jury trials included civil trials as well.

2. I have acted as a temporary judge, sometimes referred to as a judge pro tem, volunteering my services in hundreds of cases.

3. I have taught law in bar reviews and law schools for over thirty (30) years. I have been approved by The State Bar of California and The California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education to OWN AND OPERATE my own law school since 1994.

4. I have performed the duties as a court appointed arbitrator in numerous cases holding the hearing in the law library of my law school.

5. I am the author of the Larry Layton Legal Aids series used to prepare law students for examinations.

6. I have practiced extensively in administrative law before the California DMV and the FAA and DOD at the federal level.

HOW CAN THE LACBA CONSIDER THOSE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ONLY QUALIFIED OR AS THEY SOMETIMES CALL ME UNQUALIFIED, DEPENDING ON THEIR MOOD AT THE TIME? (FIRST THREE TIMES UNQUALIFIED; THEN THE NEXT THREE TIMES QUALIFIED; THIS IS NUMBER SEVEN AND BACK TO UNQUALIFIED)

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY WOULD THEY GIVE SUCH OBVIOUSLY WRONG RATINGS?

The answer is this is merely their popularity contest. They choose who best suits them for their own purposes and favor them. It doesn't hurt to be a member of their organization or to have a family relative, such as a spouse, who is a member. If their rules do not allow them enough discretion to give their unfavored a bad rating, they change the rule! They used to require a 60% vote to rate one unqualified. They changed it this year to 50%. They operate under a veil of secrecy so you can not verify their conclusions. Many fear to challenge them, as I do now, for fear of election retribution.

I can address these issues competently because I have more election experience with the LACBA and their committees and their subcommittees than probably any other lawyer in Los Angeles County. I have ran for judicial office in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and of course I am running again this year, 2006.

Three of times I was rated not qualified (1994, 1996 and 1998). Three times I was able to win (?) the popularity contest with qualified ratings. I place the question mark after win because in reality I was well qualified for the office.

In each of the contests I had to engage in the challenging wrath of their investigations. Early on they challenged my religious beliefs. When I learned to hide my Christian religion from them by citing the fact that it was not relevant to the office if one was fair to all, that issue seemed to subside. Early on I was also criticized by a subcommittee for not pleading one of my clients guilty against his will, the innuendo being allegedly resulting in the person getting a lengthy prison term. Prosecutors usually fair well at the LACBA evaluations.

The LACBA committee relented alittle in 2004 because they could not come up with any what they call "negative information". You can not know what that "negative information" is or even verify if it exists because it is their secret. At most they might tell you some ambiguous statement such as "we have heard you are not held in high esteem" or there is a problem with your "judicial temperament" or we worry about your ability to judge a certain type of case. I hesitate to use the word never, but in this case I will; never do they give you any specifics or factual basis for what they allege. They do not apply the same rules to each candidate. An example, rarely are prosecutors criticized for not having alot of experience in complex cases. Not so for others. Also, if they try to get you on one basis and can not do so, they change the basis of their claim so that you can't win the popularity contest. Their favorite fall back is the ambiguous allegation that you lack judicial temperament. Interestingly enough, they trapped me on that one in the nineteen-nineties, however I guess I improved on that one in the last few years. Of course that is probably over now. I mean, since I choose to write something like this, I must be lacking judicial temperament needed to be a judge. Of course I say that facetiously.

I incurred their wrath this time because I failed to be interrogated by their committee and subcommittee. They like to call it "exploring". The truth is they like to use their well trained "lawyer" methods to "bend the facts to what they want them to be", be that favorable for some or not favorable to others. Hence, their popularity contest.

MY ADVICE IS TO IGNORE THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL FOR THEIR FAVORITES AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION!

Vote for Larry H. Layton in office #144 if you believe I am qualified and/or the best candidate for the office.