EDITORIAL : SUPERIOR COURT PICKS.

THE Daily News makes the following endorsements in the June 2 nonpartisan elections for judges in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Office No. 22

Candidates: John Lynch, Alexander Williams (incumbent).

Endorsement: Alexander Williams

Lynch is unqualified to be Superior Court judge. He has no experience on the bench and lacks the temperament to be a judge. His stint as Los Angeles County assessor ended when voters declined to re-elect him.

Lynch is trying to defeat Williams' bid for re-election by reminding voters that Williams received a public admonishment from the Commission on Judicial Performance for a 1995 incident.

Williams has a solid background in the law as a former federal prosecutor and a Superior Court judge for 14 years. During his time on the bench, however, he gained a reputation as unpleasant, volatile and given to intemperate outbursts at lawyers.

The climax came on Nov. 17, 1995, when he made profane and improper comments to attorneys and made a vulgar gesture at them.

To his credit, Williams admitted his mistake, received professional counseling and improved his behavior. He makes no excuses for that incident and says he learned from it. Attorneys who have appeared in his courtroom since then report that he is courteous and patient.

Lynch refused to participate in the Los Angeles County Bar Association's process of evaluating candidates for judicial posts.

The bar panel gave Lynch its lowest rating, ``not qualified,'' because the committee believes he lacks the necessary legal experience and judicial temperament.

Williams got the highest rating, ``well qualified,'' and looks like the better choice.

Office No. 43

Candidates: Burton Bach, Gary Klausner (incumbent)

Endorsement: Gary Klausner

Judge Gary Klausner has done a good job. After 24 years on the bench, he is regarded as fair-minded, diligent, intelligent and capable.

Bach was a Superior Court judge until 1995, when he took early retirement at 65 because he and Klausner - then the presiding judge - couldn't agree on a courthouse assignment for Bach.

Bach got into this race as payback for that disagreement - not a very compelling argument for his candidacy. The bar panel judged Klausner ``well qualified'' and Bach ``qualified.'' We say stick with Klausner.

Office No. 51

Candidates: John D. Harris, William R. ``Bill'' Torres

Endorsement: John D. Harris

Both have the makings of a superb judge of the Superior Court.

Both have solid legal backgrounds, both have a practical approach and both were called ``well qualified'' by the bar association committee.

We give the nod to Harris for his 24 years of experience on the bench, as a Municipal Court judge since 1984 and commissioner before that. He has presided over thousands of civil and criminal trials.

Torres, while effective as a Superior Court referee and commissioner, has done so only since 1994.

Office No. 69

Candidates: James Anthony Kaddo, Andrew S. Zucker

Endorsement: James A. Kaddo

This open seat is sought by Kaddo, a Municipal Court judge since 1991 who earlier was a judge pro tem, and Zucker, an entertainment lawyer with scant experience on the bench.

Kaddo has far more legal experience in both criminal and civil law.

Zucker is articulate and intelligent and might do well on the bench. But his limited experience doesn't justify such an important position for him at this time.

The bar association judged Kaddo ``qualified'' and Zucker ``unqualified,'' saying he lacks the necessary legal experience.