City bar association doesn't approve a single candidate in one of Queens’ Civil Court races
/
Civil Court candidates Evelyn Gong, John Ciafone and Steven Beard were all deemed “not approved” by the New York City Bar Association this week. Photos via campaigns
By Jacob Kaye
Not a single candidate in one of Queens’ upcoming judicial races was approved by the New York City Bar Association, which this week released its pre-primary election ratings of judicial and district attorney candidates in Queens.
In a rare rejection of an entire slate of candidates, all three judicial hopefuls in the race for Civil Court judge in Queens’ 6th Municipal District, which covers the neighborhoods of Flushing, College Point, Bay Terrace, Auburndale, Kew Gardens Hills and Fresh Meadows, were rated “not approved” by the city bar association this week.
The Civil Court race – which includes candidates Evelyn Gong, John Ciafone and Steven Beard – is the only race in Queens that doesn’t include at least one candidate who received the bar association’s approval.
Two of the three candidates in the race who spoke with the Eagle following the release of the ratings dismissed the NYCBA as an arbiter of determining who and who is not fit to serve as a judge, specifically criticizing the bar association’s opaque process for analyzing candidates and issuing their ratings.
The NYCBA, like all other bar associations that rate candidates, does not share the details of its reviews of each candidate or the specific criteria by which candidates are judged.
The bar association’s review process includes interviews with each candidate, interviews with judges the candidate has appeared before or with attorneys they’ve worked with or against and a review of a questionnaire submitted by each candidate.
The New York City Bar Association’s questionnaire, which can be found online, includes questions about a candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, their disciplinary history, their temperment, scholarly works and potential drug use, among others.
The city bar association keeps the responses to the questionnaires confidential.
Candidates who receive the bar associations’ approval are found to have “affirmatively demonstrated qualifications necessary for the performance of the duties of the position for which they are being considered,” according to the NYCBA. Non-approved candidates either did not meet that threshold or did not participate in the bar association’s vetting process.
Not participating was something Beard, a private practice attorney in Malba, said he chose to do. He was slapped with the “not approved” rating because of it, he said.
“I didn't bother,” Beard said. “Their members are active and smart and all that stuff, but I don't know what the criteria is and there's nothing that entitles them to be gatekeepers of the judiciary.”
“I've been in practice for over 10 years, I live in New York City, I meet the constitutional statutory requirements, so I don't need their approval and I’m not surprised by the outcome,” Beard added. “I only need the approval of the voters of Municipal Court District Six.”
Unlike candidates for political office, judicial candidates are often expected to limit what they do and don’t say on the campaign trail. They often refrain from commenting on political issues, or issues that may appear in their courtroom should they be elected.
Because of the limitations, ratings from bar associations are often one of, if not the only, assessment of a judicial candidate voters have to help inform their decision in a voting booth.
Candidates who receive an approval rating from a bar association often tout the achievement, like Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz, who got the top rating from the bar association this week.
“I want to thank all of the members of the City and Queens Bar Association that take the time to thoroughly evaluate the qualifications of candidates running for positions in the legal field,” the incumbent said in a statement. “It is vital to ensure integrity and dedication from candidates seeking these positions and I am most proud of the results my office has delivered for the people of Queens in the last three years. I am honored by this rating.”
George Grasso, the former top judge in Queens Supreme Court, Criminal Term and one of two candidates challenging Katz in the Democratic primary for DA, was also approved by the NYCBA. It’s the third time the former judge has appeared before the bar association for a review.
“I expected to be approved and I’m gratified,” Grasso said. “They saw my experience for what it was and they deemed me approved.”
The third candidate running in the Democratic primary for DA, attorney Devian Daniels, was not approved by the NYCBA. Daniels also received the not approved rating in 2022 and 2021 during her two bids for Civil Court judge.
Daniels learned of her rating when contacted by the Eagle on Thursday and said that she was not aware of the review process and did not participate in it. Nonetheless, like Beard, she dismissed the authority of the NYCBA.
“I also didn’t get approved by the Chicago bar association nor the Milwaukee bar association and likewise didn’t participate in those evaluations,” Daniels said. “I have been approved by 15,000 plus registered Democrats in Queens who joyfully signed my petitions for me to be in the race. I have been approved of by criminal juries and factfinders who agree with my theory of cases. I have been approved and reapproved by the 18b panel and my clients who have confidence in me. But regardless of all of those approvals, when you are doing the right thing, sometimes you have to stand alone.”
Ciafone, one of the candidates for Civil Court judge in the 6th Municipal District, did participate in the NYCBA’s review process and was not approved.
The attorney and former candidate for City Council said that he believes the process is marred by personal and ideological politics – Ciafone, unlike most other judicial candidates, has spoken on the record about his views on a number of hotly contested political issues while on the campaign trail, including his views on bail reform, which he does not support.
“It's very political,” Ciafone told the Eagle on Thursday. “There are people on the committee, we have no idea who they are…I want to make sure that whoever I'm speaking to, I know who they are. I want to make sure it is someone that doesn't oppose me politically.”
“I'm a litigator and we don't always get along with the other side – people hold grudges and it could be someone who holds a grudge,” he added. “I don’t think the process is fair.”
Gong, the third candidate in the Civil Court race and the only one in the race endorsed by the Queens County Democratic Party, did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Thursday.
It’s rare that a party endorsed candidate is not approved by the NYCBA.
Including Gong, the Queens County Democratic Party endorsed four Civil Court candidates this year, each of whom are running in different races.
Sandra Perez, who is running for a countywide Civil Court seat, was approved by the NYCBA this week. Her challenger, Marianne Gonzalez, an attorney who practices in commercial and residential real estate transactions, was not approved by the bar association.
The other two candidates endorsed by the party – Sandra Munoz, who is running for the vacancy in the 2nd Municipal District, which includes a large portion of Western and Central Queens, and Michael Goldman, who is running for a vacancy in the 1st Municipal District, which includes Astoria, Long Island City and a small part of Sunnyside and Woodside – were not rated by the bar association.
Both Munoz and Goldman are running unopposed.
