A former Nevada solicitor general nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association in a scathing letter released on the eve of his confirmation hearing.

A majority of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary called Lawrence VanDyke "highly educated" but said concerns were raised that he missed fundamental issues and analysis in the cases he handled, according to the letter, which sparked a backlash from some observers who called the ABA itself biased.

"Mr. VanDyke's accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules," wrote William C. Hubbard, the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough partner who chairs the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. "There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful."

VanDyke, who served as Nevada's solicitor general from 2015 until earlier this year, currently serves as a deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. A former associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, VanDyke clerked for Judge Janice Rogers Brown at the D.C. Circuit earlier in his career.

VanDyke is slated to appear Wednesday morning for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee, where he's sure to face questions about the letter. He will appear alongside fellow Ninth Circuit nominee Patrick Bumatay.

The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group, called the ABA's letter "one more drop in the bucket with respect to the ABA's long history of bias against conservative nominees to the judiciary." The group specifically criticized one of the evaluators for allegedly supporting a political opponent of VanDyke in a Montana election. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, said the ABA "blessed that sham of a process by giving VanDyke a 'not qualified' rating."

A statement from the ABA's committee that issued the rating said its reviews of judicial nominees are based solely on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Evaluations are nonpartisan and structured to assure a fair and impartial process, the ABA said. Any nominee who gets a "Not Qualified" rating gets another review.

The committee has issued "Well Qualified" or "Qualified' ratings to 97% of the Trump administration's nominees, or 255 people, the ABA said.

Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, weighed on the extraordinary nature of the letter regarding VanDyke's nomination on Twitter.

"I don't think I've seen anything like this before, which I say realizing that some will say it shows how unqualified the nom is, while others will say it shows how biased the ABA is," Kerr said. "I don't know which is true. But either way, it's a remarkable letter."

VanDyke is the ninth judicial nominee from the Trump administration to be rated not qualified by the ABA. Nominees who were still confirmed include Charles Goodwin for the Western District of Oklahoma; Leonard Grasz, who was confirmed to the Eighth Circuit; Holly Lou Teeter for the District of Kansas; and Jonathan Kobes for the Eighth Circuit.

Some nominees did not make it to the bench after receiving the not qualified rating. Brett Talley's nomination for the Middle District of Alabama was withdrawn amid concerns he had never been in a trial, and John M. O'Connor ultimately withdrew his bid for a federal trial court seat in Oklahoma.

Sarah E. Pitlyk, whose nomination is pending for the Eastern District of Missouri, was also deemed not qualified.

Read more: