2 JUDICIAL CANDIDATES WIN BAR'S TOP RATING.

Byline: Karen Maeshiro Daily News Staff Writer

The Los Angeles County Bar Association has given its top rating of ``well-qualified'' to two of the four candidates running for Antelope Municipal Court judge in the June 2 election.

Deputy District Attorney Steve Ogden and Superior Court Referee Joel Wallenstein received a top rating, Calabasas civil attorney Michael Duberchin was rated ``qualified,'' and Acton attorney Larry Layton, in his third attempt at a judicial post, was rated ``not qualified.''

While Ogden and Wallenstein said the ratings would help boost their campaigns, Duberchin downplayed the evaluations' significance while Layton issued an emphatic rebuttal.

The four candidates are vying to replace Antelope Municipal Court Judge Howard Swart, who is retiring. The judge's term is for six years.

The bar association issues ratings of candidates in Los Angeles County judicial races as a public service to voters. Candidates are interviewed by a committee of attorneys, whose recommendations are released by the association's board of trustees. Candidates receiving ratings other than ``well qualified'' can appeal their evaluations.

``It isn't going to hurt,'' Ogden said of the rating.

Ogden, who works in the district attorney's Lancaster office, said he was told he was the only attorney in the county who was not a judge to get a top rating. As far as swaying voters, Ogden said such evaluations probably will have more impact on newspaper editorial boards making endorsements.

Wallenstein said his rating will help because voters will give a lot of consideration to the evaluation made by leaders in the legal community.

``It's the blue ribbon seal of approval,'' said Wallenstein, a West Los Angeles resident who presides over juvenile delinquency matters at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey.

Duberchin was given a rating of qualified, which he did not appeal. He said he was pleased but added it won't have much impact with the electorate.

``It's a rating that's done by an interview conducted by four people. How do you really get to know somebody in that period of time?'' Duberchin said.

Layton was deemed ``not qualified'' by the bar association in 1994 when he was one of five candidates running in a hotly contested race for a Municipal Court judge's seat. He again received a ``not qualified'' rating in a 1996 judicial race for Municipal Court.

The bar association said it gave Layton the unfavorable rating this year because he lacks the ``necessary legal and judicial experience and judicial temperament.''

Layton in a written statement said the bar association is wrong, and said the organization has attacked him for his Christian beliefs and anti-abortion views.

``They dislike me because I do not fit into their little cubbyhole of what they believe a lawyer/judge should be,'' Layton said. ``My opinion is that the (bar association) constitutes the epitome of why lawyers have such a bad reputation with the public.''

``His past experience in the information received led the committee to form the opinion that he was not qualified,'' said Gerald Chaleff, chairman of the judicial election evaluations committee.

Chaleff denied that the bar association was against Layton because he does not fit in or because of his views on certain issues.

``That's not true. We treat everybody the same. There is no established group that makes these decisions. The political views were not considered. His statement is absurd,'' Chaleff said.

The bar association said it judges candidates as ``well-qualified'' if they possess ``professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.''

A ``qualified'' rating means the candidate possesses ``professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of fitness to perform the judicial function satisfactorily.''

To be ``not qualified,'' the candidate must ``lack one or more of the qualities of professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament indicative of fitness to perform the judicial function satisfactorily.''

The race has been relatively quiet except for Layton stating last March that two of his opponents in the June election violated an obscure state law that says judicial candidates cannot compare themselves to opponents in election ballot statements.

Layton said the statements by Ogden and Wallenstein invite comparisons between them and the other candidates.

Ogden said in his statement that he is the only candidate who lives in the Antelope Valley. Wallenstein referred to himself as the only candidate who has judged serious felony cases, serves as a full-time judicial officer, sentences juvenile offenders, and orders juveniles to be tried as adults.

The Los Angeles County Counsel's Office said there was nothing wrong with the statements.

Duberchin leads all candidates in fund raising, collecting $10,975 in contributions, including $5,500 in loans to himself, and spending $2,944 in the period ending March 17, records filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office show. Layton has raised $6,625, including $3,025 in contributions to himself, and spent $6,021 while Ogden has raised $6,130, including $4,930 in loans to his campaign, and spent $8,805.

Wallenstein filed papers indicating he did not intend to raise more than $1,000, officials said.