Who could sit through a "debate" between two candidates for a local judgeship and think it was interesting and informative?

About 50 people at Olive Ridley's Tuesday night.

We say "debate," because the event was billed by its organizers, the Champlain Valley Chapter of the Business and Professional Women, as a Meet the Candidates Forum. In meeting the candidates, though, a debate is bound to ensue, regardless of what you call it.

In this case, the candidates were Timothy Lawliss, the incumbent Republican, and William Meconi, the Democratic challenger, for Clinton County Family Court judge. That race has become the marquee event in that county's elections this fall.

Often, races for a judgeship are tepid, since issues are few and there are no real programs for which the candidates are pressing, as they would be in a legislative race, for example. In addition, the state spells out what judicial candidates may and may not discuss during an election campaign, which further restricts open dialogue.

But this one was a little different. No laws were broken, but a mold might have been. The candidates were candid and enthusiastic, and the members of the BPW and others in the audience had to have been enlightened by a lot of it.

A significant section of the audience comprised employees of agencies that are directly affected by the comings and goings of Family Court. Their questions were sophisticated and probably beyond the understanding of rank-and-file voters.

One question that was asked of the two candidates, however, was perhaps aimed at the broader audience. It concerned the demeanor of a judge, and whether a jurist should lean more toward imperious or affable -- stern or friendly. That has been an issue raised by a number of writers of Letters to the Editor to the Press-Republican, most of which will not be published because they concern specific cases, the validity of which cannot be confirmed. Most, if not all, of the letters were submitted by people who had unsuccessful dealings with Judge Lawliss.

Lawliss answered that he adjusts his demeanor to fit the case before him. If a child is involved who needs coddling, for example, he takes a warmer approach. If, on the other hand, what's needed is a stronger authority figure, he adopts that posture. Different cases call for different attitudes.

Meconi differed, explaining that his personality is consistent and genuine and never manufactured. He mentioned several times during the evening that it would be his firm intention to treat each individual before his court with dignity and respect.

Who's to say which approach is correct? That disparity in style, though, may very well determine the winner of this election, one way or the other. The candidates agreed that many cases in Family Court wind up heartbreaking, and it takes a certain kind of person to dispense justice fairly and wisely.

The path each of the two chooses to reach that goal could put one of them on the bench for the next 10 years.