Page 8

EDITORIAL

Jacob Lee

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 39

o candidate for this office is highly qualified, in our view. Two of them do have strengths relevant to the post they seek.

Deputy District Attorney Jacob Lee receives our lukewarm endorsement.

Lee is affable and sincere. He’s young—36—but several other prosecutors in recent years, though youthful, gained election to the Los Angeles Superior Court and many have performed with proficiency.

However, one Los Angeles Superior Court judge tells us that Lee is not only young but “lacks maturity,” adding:

“He is only an adequate prosecutor. He strikes me as being part of our ‘entitled’ generation that does not go the extra mile on cases and preparation. Only does the bare minimum.”

The judge speculates that perhaps in five years, maybe more, “he will mature,” adding that at this point:

“I would not want him as a colleague.”

Another judge recites that “in trial, he repeatedly disobeyed a court’s ruling despite being admonished” and that this “caused me to admonish the jury to disregard his comment.”

o his credit, Lee has drawn favorable annual office performance evaluations. The latest, issued Oct. 23, hails him as an “extraordinary asset” to the central trials unit to which he is assigned, saying he “does the work of two deputies.” It terms him “diligent” and says he is “willing to sacrifice for the good of this Office.”

Despite this high praise, his overall rating is “Met Expectations (Competent),” akin to a “C” grade in schools.

Yet, in each of the preceding three years, it was found that he “Exceeded Expectations (Very Good).”

Last year’s evaluation includes this comment:

“Mr. Lee has demonstrated excellent analytical and problem solving skills in the preparation and presentation of cases. He is exceptionally diligent and detailed in his case preparation.”

he candidate has amassed endorsements of 41 Superior Court judges—which is significant, to an extent. Many of the endorsers are former prosecutors who perhaps simply like Lee, personally—and, yes, he is likeable. While some judges are quite particular in making endorsements, others bestow them liberally, if not carelessly; a few make them based on political or ethnic affinity with the candidates.

Three of the judges who endorsed him mentioned to us that Lee has not appeared before them.

Lee has handled 29 jury trials in the Los Angeles Superior Court and 12, earlier, in the Fresno Superior Court.

ttorney Steve Napolitano, the only other candidate worthy of consideration, is articulate and possessed of ideal judicial temperament. He serves as an administrative hearing officer for various public entities throughout California. While that experience is meaningful, he does somewhat exaggerate its significance on his campaign website, saying:

“I’ve conducted thousands of hearings regarding administrative violations—reviewing evidence, applying the law to the facts of each case, and making written decisions that involve hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties. I already do what Superior Court judges do every day, and I’ve done it for LA City Fire, LA Metro, the County of Santa Cruz, and dozens of cities across California.”

Handling such matters as tickets for over-time parking—or even cases involving civil penalties, occasionally being in steep amounts—does not equate with what most judges “do every day.”

The fact remains that his services as an adjudicator are widely sought, reflecting a perception of skill on his part. Decisions he crafts are marked by clarity. This somewhat compensates for his lack of experience as a litigator in courtrooms, normally expected of a judicial candidate. He has never handled a Superior Court trial.

Napolitano does have broad experience, pursuant to state-appointments, representing inmates at parole hearings.

negative factor is that the 12 years he spent working as a deputy to then-Supervisor Don Knabe meant 12 years out of law practice, except for some permissible moonlighting as general counsel for a data storage firm.

On the bright side, interactions he had with constituents and members of diverse groups, who were often at the Hall of Administration because they were riled, no doubt helped hm develop his evident “people skills” that could assist him, as a judge, in facilitating settlements and maintaining calm in the courtroom.

Napolitano ran in 2016 to succeed Knabe as supervisor but lost to Janice Hahn, who remains a member of the board.

There is a recitation on his campaign website that he “served as chief of staff and senior advisor to Long Beach Councilwoman Stacy Mungo as well.” There is no indication of when this occurred or for how long but this does evidence a further excursion from law practice.

nother negative factor is that he claimed the ballot designation of “Attorney/Mayor, City of Manhattan Beach.” He is not the mayor of Manhattan Beach, and hasn’t been since last March. He explains:

“It was my understanding that I could put Mayor down because that’s what I had been in the calendar year preceding my filing.”

Elections Code §13107 does permit use of a former “profession,” “vocation,” or “occupation” held in the previous calendar year—but only, under 2 Code of Regulations §20714(d), where “the candidate does not have a current principal profession, vocation or occupation at the time he or she files his or her nomination documents.”

he Registrar-Recorder’s Office on Monday disallowed Napolitano’s chosen ballot designation but not for the right reasons: that it violates §20714(d), as well as the prohibition in Elections Code §13107(e)(1) of a description that “would mislead the voter.” The office acted based on the fact that the mayor of Manhattan Beach is chosen by other members of the City Council rather than being popularly elected. The Registrar-Recorder’s Office is making up a legal requirement. If Napolitano were still mayor, and spent a “substantial” amount of time in that role—thus qualifying it as a “principal” occupation—no statute or regulation would preclude his use of the title “Mayor” on the ballot.

Even if Napolitano thought that, based on Elections Code §13107, he could get by with using his former title, he should have realized, nonetheless, that it would be deceptive and should have avoided it.

One who seeks a judgeship is expected to have the capacity to look up the law and any serious judicial candidate should quickly gain familiarity with election law in order to know what he or she is doing and whether the actions of rivals are permissible.

Yet, Napolitano accepted unquestioningly, by his own account, the reason he was given (a bogus one) for the word “Mayor” being rejected.

He also acquiesced in the determination that “Attorney/Mayor, City of Manhattan Beach” exceeds the three-word limit. It doesn’t. Sec. 20714(f)(3) says: “All California geographical names shall be considered to be one word and shall be limited to the names of cities, counties and states.”

“City of Manhattan Beach” counts as one word.

His ballot designation is now, “Attorney/Councilmember Manhattan Beach”

Napolitano is surely not prejudiced by the words, “City of” not preceding “Manhattan Beach.” The point is that he, a lawyer, obsequiously bowed to a nonlawyer-bureaucrat’s interpretation of the law without having the capacity to correct her, not having looked up the law, himself.

n providing a comment on Monday, in response to our request in connection with news coverage on the Office of Registrar-Recorder’s action, Napolitano told this newspaper:

“It’s not like I need to make up being Mayor, I’ve been Mayor six times, and I’ve been a Councilmember a lot longer than Mr. Lee has been a DA.”

The number of times he has been a mayor is irrelevant to whether it is legitimate to use the title of “Mayor” in a ballot designation while he is not presently serving in the office. Proclaiming that he has served longer as a member of a local legislative body—a post that does not require legal knowledge, let alone entail the practice of law—than Lee has been a deputy district attorney is pointless.

lso running are George Turner, a deputy public defender, and criminal defense attorney Ronda Dixon.

Turner and his two cohorts—Ericka Wiley and La Shae Henderson—running in their respective races as the “Defenders of Justice,” are staging no campaigns other than that put on by La Defensa, a tool of Tides Advocacy which funds left-of-center (including extremist) movements. Dominated by their sponsors, they are little different from candidates in days gone by who were tied to political machines.

Dixon’s candidacy, also, is unworthy of consideration. Ignorance of a subject does not inhibit her from expounding on it.

Judges on the civil side deal with money, belonging to others. She has not proven adept at handling her own finances. In 2009, BH Financial Services LC filed a judgment lien against her in the amount of $11,756; the previous year, National Credit Acceptance, Inc. filed a judgment lien against Dixon in the amount of $18,632.00; in 1995, the State of California filed a tax lien against her in the amount of $8,879. And there have been other liens.

On March 20, 2009, she filed a petition for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 13 (under which partial payments of debts are made); that petition was dismissed on June 2, 2011 after Dixon, on March 22, 2011, filed a petition under Chapter 7 (wiping out all debts); and on Oct. 17 of that year, she re-filed under Chapter 13, gaining a discharge on May 17, 2012.

Her law office is located in an apartment building in the Miracle Mile.

(Yet, with four persons in the contest, it is likely that Dixon, as the sole female, will wind up in a run-off.)

eighing the respective credentials of Lee and Napolitano, we conclude that Lee has more points in his favor.

Napolitano, 57, does possess maturity which some see Lee as lacking. He has been a lawyer longer than Lee, having been admitted to the State Bar on Feb. 2, 2001 (though he was on inactive status for 11 months in 2008), while Lee was licensed on Dec. 3, 2012. Napolitano has experience as an adjudicator.

On the other hand, Lee is no stranger to a Superior Court courtroom; Napolitano would be. Matters Napolitano has adjudicated are not in the “big league” as are cases in which Lee has been a prosecutor. They include one murder case.

Too, Lee was on the ball in contesting Napolitano’s ballot designation; Napolitano, by contrast, is in a haze, not understanding what is legally acceptable and what isn’t.

He has sought to be represented on the ballot a “mayor,” when he is not a mayor, based on an infirm legal interpretation by him.

Napolitano, who is personable, is possessed of some admirable qualities but is perhaps better suited to legislative posts he might seek—beyond the one he currently holds in Manhattan Beach—rather than a Superior Court judgeship.

Halfheartedly, we endorse Lee.