SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGO — Five of 11 local attorneys running for San Diego Superior Court judge next week have been rated by the county Bar Association as “exceptionally well-qualified” for the job while two were rated as “lacking qualifications.”
The remaining four lawyers were rated “well-qualified.”
The candidates are competing for four vacancies created by retirements from the Superior Court bench. The primary election is on March 3.
Running for Seat No. 18, Roberta Winston was rated exceptionally well-qualified and her opponent, C.J. Mody, was rated as well-qualified.
Winston is a civil defense litigator and managing partner of the Berger Kahn San Diego office; Mody is a deputy district attorney in the family protection unit.
Vying for Seat No. 22, Alana Wong Robinson and Mark Skeels were found to be exceptionally well-qualified while Steve Miller was seen as lacking qualifications.
Robinson is special counsel to the U.S. Attorney in San Diego; Skeels is senior chief deputy San Diego city attorney for the criminal division; Miller retired in 2018 after serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as a special deputy district attorney
Among the four seeking Seat No. 30, Paul Starita was rated exceptionally well-qualified. Opponents Mike Murphy, Tim Nader and Pete Murray were found to be well-qualified.
Starita is an assistant U.S. attorney who prosecutes health care fraud. Murphy, Murray and Nader are deputy state attorneys general. Murphy is in the criminal division on death penalty appeals; Murray prosecutes Medi-Cal fraud and elder abuse in health facilities; Nader is in the civil division, business and tax section.
Seat No. 36 candidate Michelle Ialeggio was found exceptionally well-qualified and Shawn McMillan was rated as lacking qualifications.
Ialeggio is a deputy district attorney and in-house ethics adviser; McMillan is a civil rights litigator in private practice, focusing on suing social service agencies over child abuse.
A of 21 attorneys sitting as a San Diego County Bar Association committee evaluates judicial candidates based on interviews, subjective and objective criteria such as bias, tolerance, temperament, knowledge of the law and research skills. Other criteria considered are objectivity, integrity, honesty, professional reputation, work ethic, trial experience and caseload management.
The committee sends questionnaires to candidates and reviews their resumes, social media postings, references and major cases handled.
The reason for each candidate’s rating is kept confidential, bar President Johanna Schiavoni said. Also kept confidential is whether a candidate agreed to be interviewed by the bar .
Schiavoni said the 21 attorneys comprise a cross-section of racial and other demographic backgrounds as well as law practices. Nearly every state, local and federal government prosecutorial agency is represented along with the criminal defense bar, civil litigators from firms of all sizes, in-house counsel and non-profit and private practitioners.
“Judicial elections are a mystery to most people,” Schiavoni said. “These are incredibly important jobs. Our evaluations go through a meticulous process.”
