As the Brooklyn district attorney looks into whether judges have paid to get seats on the bench, nine judicial candidates in Brooklyn have been refused the coveted seal of approval from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Just a week before the November 8 election, the association – which evaluated dozens of candidates for Supreme, Civil, and Surrogate’s courts – rejected three candidates backed by the Democratic Party, including at least one with ties to the party’s fallen chief, Clarence Norman Jr., as well as three running on the Republican or Conservative lines and three with minor party affiliations.

One of the candidates that the association classified as “not approved,” Genine Edwards, is a personal injury lawyer whose mother belongs to the Crown Heights church where Clarence Norman Sr. is head pastor, according to the Village Voice.

The Voice also reported in September that, despite running unopposed, Ms. Edwards spent more on her race than any other candidate for Civil Court. Five other candidates also had been gunning for spots on the Civil Court bench, but all opted to run for other seats. Norman, who was recently convicted on three felony charges of soliciting illegal campaign contributions, said he had nothing to do with the candidates’ opting not to challenge Ms. Edwards. Efforts to reach Ms. Edwards were unsuccessful.

Another candidate for Civil Court, Richard Velasquez, who has close ties to Brooklyn’s new Democratic Party boss, Assemblyman Vito Lopez, was also given the thumbs down by the bar association.

Mr. Velasquez, who is the director of a housing and legal assistance program run by a social service center founded by Mr. Lopez, won his Democratic primary and is now running unchallenged for a judgeship that covers Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and parts of Bushwick.

The bar association gives only “approved” and “not approved” designations after candidates submit questionnaires, writing samples, references, and a full record of their job history. In addition, a special committee conducts interviews with the would-be judges.

Candidates who do not participate are automatically “not approved.” Yesterday, Mr. Lopez said he believed all candidates should go through an independent screening process, but that not participating should not lead to a flat-out rejection without explanation.

He said Mr. Velasquez was approved by the Brooklyn screening panel and had asked for an extension with the New York City Bar Association, but was denied.

“It’s one thing to go before a panel and be rejected,” Mr. Lopez said. “There’s a distinction between being interviewed and found incompetent, and having a personal conflict and you can’t show up.”

Mr. Lopez said his recommendation to candidates would be that they “go before every screening panel” and meet their deadlines.

While reformers in the Brooklyn Democratic Party have expressed concern that Mr. Lopez will not do enough to clean up the judicial selection process in the borough, the assemblyman has vowed to address the situation. He said yesterday that he is working to convene a panel of legal experts to review the process and make recommendations.

Others classified as “not approved” include civil court candidates Sandra Roper, Michael Gerstein, Michael Reinhart, Philip Grant, and Vincent Martusciello, and Supreme Court candidates John D’Emic and Richard Izzo.

Ms. Roper, who ran against Mr. Hynes, the district attorney, in 2001, said she decided not to participate in the bar association process four years ago after learning that a member of the evaluation committee was raising money for her opponent.

“I think it’s a misrepresentation for them to say I wasn’t approved,” she said yesterday. “I don’t know about the others, but I did not participate, I refused to participate.”

It was unclear yesterday which of the other candidates opted out.

The counsel to the bar association, Alan Rothstein, said: “We believe that people who are seeking a judgeship should participate and demonstrate that” they are qualified for the office they are running for.