back to Screen-Friendly page

Newsroom

Share

BASF Releases Evaluations for Superior Court, Seats 6 and 15 Candidates

May 28, 2010  – San Francisco – The Judiciary Committee of The Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) today released its findings of their evaluation of the seven candidates for San Francisco Superior Court, Seats 6 and 15 in the June 8 General Election.

Following the Judiciary Committee's investigation, interview of the candidate, and deliberations, the Committee finds the candidates for Seat 6:

Linda Colfax — “Well Qualified.” She is not a member of BASF.

Harry Dorfman — “Well Qualified.” He is a member of BASF.

Roderick A. McLeod — “Well Qualified.” He is a member of BASF and was a member of the BASF Board of Directors from 1986-1987.

Robert Retana — “Well Qualified.” He was a member of BASF from 1999-2005.


Following the Judiciary Committee's investigation, interview of the candidate, and deliberations, the Committee finds the candidates for Seat 15:

Daniel Dean — “Well Qualified.” He is a member of BASF and has served as a member of the BASF Board of Directors from 2008 to present.

Michael Nava — “Qualified.” He is a member of BASF.

Hon. Richard B. Ulmer Jr. — “Well Qualified.” He has been a member of BASF in the past and is a member currently by virtue of the fact that all local judges are granted membership in the association.


The Judiciary Committee is charged with the task of evaluating candidates seeking appointment and election to the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Krystal Bowen, a partner at Bingham McCutchen, is composed of a diverse cross-section of the San Francisco legal community. Members come from large, medium, small, and solo practitioner law firms; government legal offices; a corporate legal department; and a legal nonprofit agency.

Each candidate was asked to complete and submit the same questionnaire used by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) Commission, in addition to appearing for a personal interview with the Committee. The Committee also conducted its own investigation by interviewing judges, lawyers and others having knowledge of the candidate's attributes. The Committee's investigation and deliberations are completely confidential.

The Committee inquired into, among other matters, the following attributes: (i) integrity and character; (ii) judgment and intellectual capacity; (iii) professional experience; (iv) industry and diligence; (v) judicial temperament, including whether the candidate would be courteous and considerate of counsel, parties, witnesses, and jurors, and whether the candidate is even-tempered; (vi) decisiveness; (vii) ability to transcend personal biases; (viii) professional ability and knowledge of the law; (ix) health; (x) general reputation in the community; and (xi) civic activities.

In assessing the qualification of a candidate, the Committee members assign one of following categories defined in the bylaws:

(i) “Qualified” — meaning that the candidate possesses the attributes listed above so as to indicate the ability to satisfactorily perform the judicial function for which she or he is being considered.

(ii) “Well Qualified” — meaning that the candidate possesses all the attributes required for a rating of "Qualified" and possesses one or more of those positive attributes to such a high degree as to be indicative of superior fitness to perform the judicial function for which she or he is being considered.

(iii) “Exceptionally Well Qualified” — meaning that the candidate possesses the attributes of integrity and character, judgment and intellectual capacity, professional experience, industry and diligence, judicial temperament, decisiveness, ability to transcend personal biases, professional ability and knowledge of the law, health, general reputation in the community, and civic and community activities to such an extremely high degree to be indicative of exceptional fitness to perform the judicial function for which he is being considered.

(iv) “Not Recommended for Appointment/Election At This Time” — meaning that the candidate lacks one or more of the attributes required for a rating of "Qualified" at the time of the evaluation, but the committee members consider the deficiency one which is capable of correction in the future based upon additional experience.

(v) “Not Qualified” — meaning that the candidate lacks one or more of the attributes required for a rating of "Qualified" to such an extent that the Committee doubts the candidate's fitness to perform satisfactorily the judicial function for which he or she is being considered.

(vi) “No Action” — meaning that a majority of the Committee consisting of at least eight members has been unable to assign one of the other categories to the candidate.


The Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) is a nonprofit voluntary membership organization of over 8,000 attorneys, law students and legal professionals in the Bay Area. Founded in 1872, BASF is one of the largest and most dynamic metropolitan bar associations in the U.S., with a long and distinguished record of community action, public service and service to the legal profession.

Questions about media relations, BASF issues currently in the news, San Francisco Attorney magazine, marketing and communications:

Contact:
Ann Murphy, Director of Communications & Public Relations
Email:
amurphy@sfbar.org
Phone:
(415) 782-9000 x8792

For general communications inquiries:

Contact:
Sayre Happich, Assistant Director of Communications & Public Relations
Email:
shappich@sfbar.org
Phone:
(415) 782-9000 x8104