BASF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE—
SCREENING JUDICIAL CANDIDATES Leslie A. Gordon
I
n 1990, attorney Donna Hitchens challenged an incumbent judge for a seat on the San Francisco Superior Court. Like all local candidates, she was screened by the Judiciary Committee of The Bar Association of San Francisco. “Of course, I was incredibly nervous,” Hitchens recalls. “It was intimi- dating. Twenty people were there throwing questions at you.”
The committee members were “a pretty diverse group” for two decades ago, she remembers. “I really appreciated that. And by and large, people were considerate, thoughtful, and asked good questions.”
Still, Hitchens recalls that the process was “not all rosy.” One person challenged her stated reason for want- ing to be a judge, namely, “that I wanted to be more resolution-oriented rather than fighting for a living.” After that lengthy interview session and significant due diligence into her background, the BASF Judiciary Committee awarded Hitchens a “Qualified” rating, and she won the seat. She spent twenty years on the bench before retiring earlier this year.
BASF’s Judiciary Committee is charged with evaluating candidates seeking appointment or election to the San Francisco Superior Court, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, the Supreme Court of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As set forth in the BASF bylaws, the committee rates every candidate based on character, temperament, professional aptitude, and experience but without regard to political affiliations.
The twenty-one committee members, appointed by BASF’s presidents, serve three-year staggered terms, so each BASF president appoints seven new members dur- ing his or her one-year term. Committee members are prohibited from donating to judicial campaigns and simi- larly don’t attend any BASF town hall meetings where judicial candidates participate in open forums.
In a lengthy questionnaire, the judicial applicants pro- vide the committee with references. “We solicit a few vol-
16 SPRING 201116 FALL 2011
unteers from the committee to conduct interviews with people listed as references in the application,” explains Mike Moye, a partner at Hanson Bridgett and this year’s chair of the Judiciary Committee. “Those discussions can lead to other people to speak with. The information is assembled and then we conduct an in-person interview with the candidate, which lasts at least a half hour.”
Specifically, the committee examines the applicant’s in- tegrity and character; judgment and intellectual capac- ity; professional experience; industry and diligence; ju- dicial temperament; decisiveness; ability to transcend personal biases; professional ability and knowledge of the law; health; general reputation in the community; and civic activities. While the committee’s process is open and transparent as described in BASF’s bylaws, everything about individual investigations and deliberations is en- tirely confidential.
“We have discussion among committee members and a se-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68