Nicole D’Ambrogi is an attorney whose practice includes handling probates, trusts, conservatorships, guardianships and family law matters, and she is also a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she is the director of clinical programs. She is running to be a San Diego Superior Court judge and is seeking Office No. 32.
Read more Tech CEOs summoned to Congress for another hearing on social media’s risks for children
D’Ambrogi, 40, faces two opponents for the seat. Her endorsements include nearly a dozen current or retired judges or commissioners, as well as the mayors of El Cajon and Chula Vista.
The San Diego County Bar Association rated D’Ambrogi as “Lacking Qualifications.”
According to the organization, the rating indicates a candidate does not presently possess the professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and/or temperament indicating ability to perform the judicial function. The evaluations are not endorsements.
Judicial races are nonpartisan.
The Union-Tribune emailed a series of questions to D’Ambrogi and other candidates to help inform voters about their positions, priorities and plans if elected.
D’Ambrogi said she used AI tools to polish her answers and to remain within the Union-Tribune’s limit of 150 words per response.
I have practiced primarily in trust and estates, including estate planning, probate, trust administration, conservatorships, and guardianships, handling both contested and non-contested matters. My experience also includes family law hearings, limited criminal matters, adoptions, civil disputes, landlord-tenant cases, and representing servicemembers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
I hold a Juris Doctor, and an LL.M. in International Taxation, graduating magna cum laude, with concentrations in Financial Services and Wealth Management. I also serve as Director of Clinical Programs and teach wills and trusts, a bar-tested subject, at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
I am qualified to be a judge because I can take complex legal issues and explain them clearly. Litigants deserve to feel heard and understand the outcome of their case. My experience working with families, students, and diverse clients has prepared me to apply the law thoughtfully, communicate effectively, and treat every person with dignity.
I am seeking this position because judges make decisions that can change the course of a person’s life. That responsibility should never be treated lightly.
I have been in court when the facts were difficult, the law mattered, and the decision carried real consequences for a family. Those moments require more than authority. They require preparation, judgment, courage, and a clear understanding of the people who will live with the result.
People come to court during some of the hardest moments of their lives. They may not always get the outcome they hoped for, but they should leave knowing the judge listened, understood the facts, applied the law, and took the responsibility seriously.
That is why I am seeking this position. I want to serve in a role where fairness, dignity, and careful decision-making matter every day.
My judicial philosophy begins with the Constitution and the oath to defend it. A judge’s duty is to apply the law faithfully, without political pressure or personal agenda.
Read more Pentagon halts deployments to Poland and Germany to cut troop numbers in Europe, AP sources say
The courtroom is not a place to judge a person’s worth. It is where facts are evaluated, the law is applied, and disputes are resolved with integrity. People often come to court during difficult moments in their lives, and they deserve to know the judge listened, understood the evidence, and made a decision grounded in the law.
An independent judiciary is essential to public trust. If entrusted to serve, I will approach each case with preparation, discipline, and respect for the real people affected by the court’s decisions. Fair and impartial justice must be more than words.
I bring a broad and practical perspective shaped by years working directly with the people the court serves. I have represented clients using their hard-earned savings to protect their families, resolve disputes, and move their lives forward. I understand the cost of delay, the weight of uncertainty, and the real impact judicial decisions have beyond the courtroom.
My work in private practice, academia, pro bono service, and the military has shaped how I view the legal system. It has taught me to be prepared, disciplined, and compassionate, while still making difficult decisions when the law requires it.
As an enlisted servicemember and Navy law enforcement officer, I learned to stay calm under pressure, work hard, and be firm but fair. I believe every person deserves to be heard, treated with dignity, and trust that the process was fair.
Generative AI presents both opportunity and risk in legal work. Used thoughtfully, it can improve efficiency and expand access to justice. Used carelessly, it can introduce errors, unsupported arguments, and citations that do not reflect the law, creating additional burden on the courts.
As a judge, diligence remains essential. Submissions must be carefully reviewed, and citations must be verified against reliable sources. Attorneys remain responsible for the accuracy of what they file, regardless of how it is drafted. There is a skill and discipline in applying the law to the facts, and that cannot be delegated to a tool.
AI is only as reliable as the person using it. When used ethically and with care, it can support the legal system. When it is not, it can slow it down. Judges will need to adapt, while maintaining the standards that ensure fairness and integrity in every case.
I respectfully disagree with the San Diego County Bar Association’s rating and stand firmly behind my qualifications to serve as a judge.
California law sets the objective qualifications for judicial office, and I meet those qualifications. My record also reflects years of legal practice, courtroom experience, academic leadership, pro bono service, and work expanding access to justice.
I was elected by my colleagues to serve on the SDCBA Board of Directors and resigned earlier this year when I became a candidate. That experience gives me a meaningful perspective into the operations of the Association.
As a law professor with years of experience applying grading rubrics to legal analysis, I believe the judicial evaluation process is an area ripe for review within the Bar Association. Any process that evaluates candidates for public office should be clear, objective, consistent, and reviewable.
Read more Trump administration aims to roll back limits on toxic wastewater from coal-fired power plants
This rating is one opinion. I trust voters to look at my full record.
