Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Tuesday, March 25, 2008


Page 6


Thomas Rubinson
Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 82


Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Thomas Rubinson is the only candidate for Superior Court Office No. 82 who possesses the qualifications for the post.

Rubinson has been in the District Attorney’s Office for 17 years. He is known as a bright, steady, competent, hard-working and ethical prosecutor.

As a member of the elite Hardcore Gang squad, Rubinson tried more than 40 murder cases. Now in management, he supervises the Preliminary Hearing Unit at the downtown criminal courthouse.

His latest performance evaluation—which gives him a rating of “outstanding”—says, in part:

“Mr. Rubinson is a hands-on supervisor who makes the rounds of each court several times a day to negotiate settlements, solve problems, and provide advice and guidance to his deputies. He remains calm and organized in a hectic and demanding environment.

“Mr. Robinson’s professional skills meet and exceed department standards. He is experienced, intelligent and well versed in criminal law and procedure. He has demonstrated good judgment in his handling and evaluation of cases. Mr. Rubinson is a reliable and dependable employee, often staying beyond regular working hours to ensure that the job gets done. He maintains a professional manner and demeanor at all times and possesses the highest of ethical standards.”

That’s the sort of person we need on the bench.

Superior Court Referee Cynthia Loo, who is waging a robust campaign for the office, is a person with compassion and a desire to serve the community. As a caring human being, she gets the highest of marks; as a jurist, however, she falls short. Emotional, unable to manage her calendar with efficiency, and lenient to a fault, it is clear that carrying out judicial duties is just not her forte.

This observation is borne out by the fact that during the eight-year period she has served as a referee, she applied three times to be a commissioner, and each time failed to qualify for the eligibility list. It follows that if the judges of the Superior Court will not hire her as a commissioner, the electorate would be foolish to hire her as a judge.

For 10 years before becoming a referee, Loo represented the interests of minors in dependency proceedings. It might be that advocacy is her niche.

Mark Lee is a deputy district attorney. He is not particularly proficient in that role. After 10 years in the office, he is relegated to handling arraignments.

It is clear that he is going nowhere in the DA’s office. He is well advised to be looking for work elsewhere. But if he does not have the drive and the skill to succeed as a prosecutor, how could he possibly suppose he is suited to be a judge?

While Lee is generally described as “nice,” and while we do want judges who are pleasant, other requisites for judicial service are missing. Lee’s candidacy cannot be regarded seriously.

There is no question as to which candidate the voters should favor on June 3. Rubinson has our endorsement.


Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company