Leaders of the National Association of Attorneys General and others advocating tough enforcement of federal antitrust laws have sharply criticized President Reagan's nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, the association's president-elect, has called Bork "a radical judicial activist" and said "the only type of restraint {he} has favored is the restraint of trade."

In Bork's scholarly and judicial writings on antitrust, he has "advocated complete abandonment of the clear intention of the framers of the antitrust laws" and "both disregarded and sought to distort {the} historical record," Abrams said in a statement.

Michigan State University economist Walter Adams, coauthor of "The Bigness Complex," which was published early this year, said, "To picture Judge Bork as a conservative who believes in judicial restraint is madness."

Bork is "a radical of the right" and "a committed and articulate ideologue -- a true believer in the tenets of 19th century social Darwinism," Adams said in an interview and a statement.

Bork's posture on antitrust "reflects judicial activism ad extremis " -- an inclination to "substitute an ideological belief in what the laws ought to be for what the laws enacted by Congress are and were intended to be," Adams said.

West Virginia Attorney General Charles G. Brown, who succeeded Abrams as chairman of the association's antitrust committee, said in an interview that Bork's antitrust positions "are often inconsistent with the principles of those who drafted our antitrust laws. His confirmation would only serve to weaken the laws that were designed to safeguard our free marketplace."

Bork has a "distorted view of competition {that} denies the values of diffusion of power, economic opportunity, and innovation," Brown said. "Bigness isn't badness, but it isn't goodness, either, and Judge Bork thinks it is."

But Abrams' comments drew fire from New Mexico Attorney General Hal Stratton and a spokesman for Utah Attorney General David L. Wilkinson.

Stratton accused Abrams of trying "to bash President Reagan and the Justice Department." In Salt Lake City, Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul M. Warner said that Wilkinson is "much more comfortable with Bork's position than with Abrams'."

Wilkinson "strongly supports" Bork, whom Reagan called "the most prominent intellectual advocate of judicial restraint."

And Oregon Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer, a Republican who is now president of the association, said in an interview, "Everything I know about Judge Bork leads me to believe that he would not try to be a superlegislator."

Bork consistently has argued -- in his book, "The Antitrust Paradox," in other scholarly writings, and in his opinions as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -- that Congress enacted the antitrust laws to enhance "consumer welfare" and the "business efficiency" that underpins welfare. The laws have no worth "other than economic efficiency," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a 1984 speech.

Bork also has criticized the law prohibiting mergers where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly," has urged no government interference with mergers of competitors so long as no more than 60 to 70 percent of a relevant market is affected, and has called for the removal of obstructions to mergers by conglomerates.

By an overwhelming vote last March, while Abrams was chairman of the attorneys general antitrust committee, the association adopted a set of uniform guidelines for efforts to block the kinds of mergers that nearly all of the state attorneys general view as anticompetitive but that the Reagan administration probably would allow.

New Mexico's Stratton and Utah's Wilkinson were the only recorded dissenters. Both said that some states were unrepresented when the vote was taken.

Justice Department antitrust chief Charles F. Rule and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Daniel Oliver opposed the guidelines.

The guidelines "do not adequately take into account the dynamic nature of competition, and the ability of market forces to forestall most attempts to restrict output and elevate prices to the detriment of consumers," Oliver said.

Frohnmayer, who had defended the guidelines as "an example of cooperative federalism," said that at the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination the questioning should focus on the issue of "judicial competence and integrity," rather than be "a searching ideological examination."

But he also said that whether Bork joins with the administration in opposing the association's guidelines would be "a fair question."

Adams, a former president of Michigan State, and New York's Abrams argued that for 90 years -- starting with the Sherman Act of 1890 and continuing until the first Reagan administration -- the framers of the antitrust laws and of their bipartisan enforcers were deeply concerned about concentrations of economic power.

They feared that such concentrations "would lead to undue political power in the hands of the corporate elite," Abrams said. But, he said, Bork substitutes for "this historical record ... his own narrow vision of antitrust, one which holds that the law is only concerned with the single issue of maximizing allocative efficiency, which means nothing more than maximizing production.

"Under this view of the law, the extortion of consumers by monopolists and price-fixers does not violate the law unless industrial output is thereby reduced," Abrams said.

Adams said that Bork's claim "that the purpose of the antitrust laws is to promote 'efficiency' and 'consumer welfare' " is not to be found in the texts of the Sherman and Clayton acts.