[X] Maria Ghobadi

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Page 9

Maria Ghobadi

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 64

f the three candidates for Office No. 64, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Maria Ghobadi stands out. In her nearly 11 years at her present post, she has handled more than 85 jury trials, 21 of them entailing homicide charges.

Here are excerpts from her latest office performance evaluation, issued Jan. 7:

• “Ms. Ghobadi is very dedicated to her craft. She regularly works weekends and evenings. She will take the extra time to meet with witnesses and law enforcement, draft memos, and meticulously prepare for trial. She is very bright and able to successfully prosecute even the most challenging cases.”

• “Ms. Ghobadi is a dedicated trial prosecutor and also a very successful trial prosecutor. She works tirelessly to find ways to prosecute complex homicide cases successfully and ethically. I am always impressed with her enthusiasm and willingness to learn and adapt. She is able to handle any level of complex litigation. She is one of the most hard-working prosecutors in the entire Gang Homicide Division.”

• “Ms. Ghobadi is a true team player. She always offers to help when needed and takes on the extra work with a smile on her face. She is careful to complete her assignments in a timely manner. She is a very good writer and able to take direction well.”

• “Ms. Ghobadi is a great communicator and very easy to work with. She is happy to help her fellow DDAs. She works closely with law enforcement and is able to successfully prosecute challenging cases. Ms. Ghobadi is able to work with members of the public as well. She has a genuinely open and honest personality that immediately puts people at ease. She is also very good about communicating with her supervisors about her cases. She is confident enough to ask questions when needed and heed the advice given, while also striving to be an even better prosecutor.”

• “Ms. Ghobadi is highly intelligent, hardworking, and approachable. She is known for her exceptional legal research, ability to mentor junior attorneys, and effectiveness in building strong, collaborative relationships with law enforcement. Her balanced combination of subject matter command and collegiality enhances the overall effectiveness of our division. She is the best and brightest of the Gang Homicide Division.”

Her overall rating is the top one, rarely awarded: “Far Exceeded Expectations (Outstanding).”

Industrious. Ethical. Adept. Punctual. Affable. Articulate. “Highly intelligent.” Skilled in communicating and in conducting research. That’s quite an impressive combination of assets.

Former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley confirms:

“Marie Ghobadi enjoys a good reputation. Being a gang prosecutor bodes well.”

A judge tells us:

“DDA Maria Ghobadi is a veteran of the Los Angeles D.A.’s Office with a formidable record of trial work. She also had a prior career as a prosecutor in Northern California and took a reduction in pay to join the L.A. D.A.’s Office at entry level. Known as a hardworking, capable, and reliable advocate, she is well-respected by colleagues, the defense bar, and bench officers.”

hobadi’s credentials would be difficult to top. Her two opponents (and one potential rival) come nowhere near to doing so. Nominating papers for Office No. 64 have been filed by West Hollywood bankruptcy attorney Francisco Amador and Deputy Public Defender Rhonda A. Haymon.

Self-styled “radical attorney” Dan “Z-Man” Kapelovitz has taken out a nominating petition for that seat but has also pulled papers to challenge Judge David Waldren and has indicated that he is leaning toward settling in that race. He has additionally established eligibility to run, as he has in the past, for state attorney general.

Though a delightful character—who apparently gets a kick out of running for various offices with no chance of winning—whatever post he might seek this year or in the future, we could not possibly endorse him.

hat about Amador? To his credit, he has a campaign website. However, it’s one of the most pathetic ones we’ve ever viewed. It’s topped by a large photo of himself, in uniform as a police officer—a former occupation of his—standing beside his mother. We favorably regard law enforcement and motherhood. But how is this germane to his fitness for a judgeship?

There is also a photo of him as a Marine. Service in the Marines is highly commendable. But what that has to do with his ability to function on the bench is also puzzling.

What does he tell us about his qualifications for the office seeks? Only this:

“ I’ve been a California practicing Attorney for the past 24 years.”

It must be assumed that if there something impressive about his background, it would be set forth.

For his ballot designation, he has chosen “Attorney/Lawyer.” That’s in contravention of Elections Code §13107(c), which says: “(c) A candidate for superior court judge who is an active member of the State Bar and practices law as one of the candidate’s principal professions shall use one of the following ballot designations as the candidate’s ballot designation: ‘Attorney,’ ‘Attorney at Law, ‘Lawyer,’ or ‘Counselor at Law.’ The designations ‘Attorney’ and ‘Lawyer’ may be used in combination with one other current principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate, or the principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”

Amador may use the word “Attorney” or the word “Lawyer” with one other pursuit. That escapes him.

nd then there is Haymon. Two years ago, she ran against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lynn Olson. She was apparently motivated by the fact that Olson had found her in contempt for acting like a sassy brat. In endorsing Olson, we quoted judges as making such comments about Hamon as:

“She’s a terrible attorney and would make a horrible judge. She’s not smart and has terrible temperament. I can guarantee that every judge she has appeared before feels this way.”

A judge this year says:

“I believe you have enough opinions about her from the last time she ran so I do not feel the need to add mine.”

Another judge remarks:

“Haymon failed in an ill-feted bid to unseat Judge Lynn Olson in 2024, and that failed effort served no useful purpose other than to highlight Haymon’s utter unfitness for a judgeship. Haymon enjoys a well-deserved reputation for being unprepared, loudmouthed, and irrelevant.”

A veteran member of her office attributes to Haymon “bad temperament.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein has this to say:

“My opinion is that Rhonda Haymon is absolutely not suitable for the bench based on her demeanor and her tardiness, among many other things.

“I am wholly endorsing Maria Ghobadi who is a very competent lawyer.”

Amador has nothing going for him. Haymon, if elected, would inevitably be removed by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Ghobadi is an ideal candidate for the Los Angeles Superior Court, and we endorse her with enthusiasm.