Stu Bykofsky: Judging the judicial candidates

LET'S KEEP IT simple for the embarrassingly small minority of you who will vote on Nov. 8 - and the even smaller number who will vote for judges:

*  Do NOT vote to retain James Murray Lynn and Robert J. Rebstock on the Common Pleas bench.

*  Do NOT vote to elect Jim DiVergilis and Ted J. Vigilante to the Court of Common Pleas.

*  Do NOT vote to retain James M. DeLeon on the Municipal Court bench.

That's me talking, but the advice to deep-six the shallow five comes from the Philadelphia Bar Association, rating them "not recommended."

Since 1977, the PBA's been providing a profound, nonpartisan civic service by scrutinizing the records of judicial nominees and sitting judges to decide if they are "recommended" or "not recommended." The oldest bar association in the country, it was among the first to do so.

The other judicial candidates are "recommended," so mix and match or go the Philadelphia way and vote for the ones who share your party, gender, race, ethnicity or even medical condition. (Restless-leg syndrome? Halitosis? Dandruff?) Tell me you have never done that.

A vote for the "not recommended" five is a vote against smart, fair and speedy justice. Tear this out, take it into the voting booth with you, and do NOT vote for James Murray Lynn, Robert J. Rebstock, Jim DiVergilis, Ted J. Vigilante or James M. DeLeon. Like Britney, oops . . . I did it again.

From personal observation and courtroom insiders, I know that behavior by "bad" judges includes opening court late; closing early; berating attorneys, witnesses or defendants; not meeting deadlines for writing opinions; being drunk on the bench; and/or just ignoring the law when they want to. Being a judge is like being a king, a pope or an editor. Your word is the law (until it is overturned on appeal, of course).

I don't like that the bar's Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention keeps its ratings reports as secret as Coke does its recipe. I'd like to see the reports on candidates. I'd like to know what was found - the good and the bad, the spoiled and the kosher.

Why the secrecy? I asked Rudolph Garcia, chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar.

"We have a strong interest in making sure our sources that we talk to are comfortable that nothing they say will leak to that judge or to the public - and the judges have privacy concerns, too, in baring their souls in these questionnaires," he says.

Each judge is asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire. Failing to cooperate gets a candidate an automatic "not recommended." Qualities the bar seeks include legal smarts, experience, integrity, temperament and, well, yes, judgment.

The investigation is, frankly, intrusive.

The 150-member investigative division, lawyers and nonlawyers, pores through tax and financial records, plus court dockets. Teams interview at least 15 people who know the judge (including a minimum of five not named by the judge), says Garcia. Investigators usually interview 20-25 people before grilling the judicial candidates.

Garcia estimates that this consumes about 2,000 hours, and no one is paid a cent. That's an amazing commitment, and not for naught. In the last primary, Garcia says, "no one made it on the Democratic ticket who was not 'recommended.' "

Let's keep it up! Take this paragraph into the voting booth on Nov. 8: Do NOT vote for James Murray Lynn, Robert J. Rebstock, Jim DiVergilis, Ted J. Vigilante, James M. DeLeon.

That's me talking, backed by the bar.