2016 survey complete report - King County Bar Association

Transcription

2016 Judicial Officer Survey for King County Superior Court Published February, 2016 Copyright © King County Bar Association, Seattle, WA
1
I.INTRODUCTION
TheKingCountyBarAssociation(KCBA)hasconductedandpublishedsurveysand
evaluationsofjudicialofficerssince1948.Everyfouryearsthissurveyisconductedof
attorneyspracticinginKingCountySuperiorCourt.ThelastSuperiorCourtSurveywas
publishedin2012.Onanalternatefouryearcycle,mostrecentlyin2014,KCBApublishes
asimilarsurveyfocusedoncourtsoflimitedjurisdiction.
Thesesurveyresultsareasummaryofpracticingattorneys’professionalassessmentsof
thejudgesandcommissionerswhohearanddecidetheircases.Thesurveyprovides
informationtothepublicpriortojudicialelectionsbypresentingdataoneachjudgesothat
voterscanmakeinformeddecisionsbytakingintoaccountthecollectiveassessmentsof
thoselawyerswhopracticeinfrontofthesejudicialofficers.Italsoprovidesimportant
informationtothepublic,thebar,andthebenchonperformanceofthelocaljudicial
branchasawhole.
Itisimportanttonotconfusethissurveywitharigorous,scientificstudyutilizing
techniquesroutinelyusedinpublicopinionpolls.Instead,itreflectsthesurveyopinionsof
thoseattorneyswhochoosetoexpressthem.Duetothelargevolumeofresponses,these
opinionsdohavevalue,buttheymustbeconsideredalongwithKCBAjudicialcandidate
ratings,debatesandothereffortsthebarmakestoofferascompleteapictureofjudicial
performanceasitcan.
KingCountySuperiorCourtisageneraljurisdictiontrialcourtwithresponsibilityforcivil
mattersinvolvingmorethan$300,unlawfuldetainers,andinjunctions;felonycriminal
cases;misdemeanorcriminalcasesnototherwiseprovidedforbylaw;familylaw,
includingdissolutions,childsupport,adoptions,parentage,anddomestic‐violence
protectionmatters;probateandguardianshipmatters;juvenileoffendermatters;juvenile
dependencies,includingabusedandneglectedchildren,childreninneedofservices,at‐risk
youth,andtruancies;mentalillnessandinvoluntarycommitmentmatters.
In2014,atotalof52,224caseswerefiledwithKingCountySuperiorCourt,whichincluded
2,157trials.All53judgesareelectedtofouryeartermseachpresidentialelectionyear.In
addition,12court‐appointedcommissionersserveasjudicialofficers.
PastKCBAboardtrusteeCarlForsberg(ForsbergUmlaufPS)chairedtheKCBAJudicial
OfficerSurveyCommittee.StaffsupportwasprovidedbyKCBAExecutiveDirectorAndrew
Prazuch.AfullrosterofcommitteemembersisincludedasAppendixAtothisreport.
2
KCBAcontractedwithInformationInsights,Inc.,apublicpolicyandmanagement
consultingcompany,toadministerthesurveys.InformationInsightshasconductedsimilar
surveysfortheAlaskaJudicialCouncilfrom2009to2014,andalsoconductedKCBA's2014
limitedjurisdictioncourtsurvey.Thecontractorwasresponsibleforallaspectsofonline
surveyset‐up,distributionanddatacollection.
II.SURVEYMETHODOLOGY
Animportantcomponentofajudicialevaluationprogramistoobtaininformationfrom
individualswhohavehadanopportunitytopersonallyobservethejudicialofficerbeing
evaluatedduringtherelevanttimeperiod.
Thesurveyedattorneyswereidentifiedbytwomeans.First,areportofallattorneysand
theirappearancesattrials,hearings,andotherin‐courtproceedingsintherelevantcourts
duringthepreviousfouryearswasgeneratedbytheSuperiorCourtClerk'sOffice.From
thisdatabaseofnearlyahalfmillionrecords,auniquelistofattorneyswitharecorded
appearancebeforeanyofthejudgestobeevaluatedwasgenerated.Anyattorneywhohad
subsequentlybecomeajudgeinoneofthecourtsbeingevaluatedwaseliminatedfromthe
distributionlist.Second,over10,000KingCountyattorneysforwhomKCBAhascontact
informationwerealertedviaemailaboutthesurvey.Additionally,anoticeaboutthe
surveywasincludedintheKCBABarBulletinnewspaper,distributedtoover7,500
attorneysinKingCounty,includingover5,500KCBAmembers.Attorneyswereinstructed
toemailKCBAtorequestasurveyinvitationiftheydidnotreceiveanindividualemail
request.Theinvitationlistwascheckedforduplicatesbeforesurveysweresent.
InitialinvitationstocompletethesurveyweredistributedviaemailonNovember6,2015.
EmailaddressesthatwereundeliverableweresharedwithKCBA.Reminderemailswere
sentduringthesurveyperiodtonon‐respondents.Primarydatacollectionendedon
November23,2015.DuetoatechnicalerroridentifiedbytheKCBAcontractorinmid‐
Decemberduringinitialdataanalysis,attorneyswithappearancesbeforetwojudgesdid
notreceivesurveysduringtheprimaryperiod;thoseattorneysreceivedaninvitationon
January13,2016tocompletethoseadditionalsurveysforthosetwojudgesonlythrough
January22,2016.Datainthisreportreflectsallsurveysfrombothcollectionperiods.
Courtcommissionerswerenotpre‐selectedinthesurveyinstrumentssincecourtdatawas
notreadilyaccessibletoreportdatainthatformat.Instead,attorneyswhoreceivedjudge
surveyswereinstructedtoevaluateonlythosecommissionersbeforewhomtheyhad
3
appearedatleastonceinthepastfouryears.Attorneyswithoutpre‐selectedjudge
surveyswereinstructedtorequestaseparatecommissionersurveyinstrument.
FollowingtheAmericanBarAssociation'sGuidelinesforJudicialPerformanceEvaluation,
theKCBAJudicialOfficerSurveyfocuseduponbehaviorbasedmeasures.Todothis,
attorneyswhoappearedbeforeajudgeorcourtcommissionerwereaskedtoevaluate
judgesandcourtcommissionersregardingspecificcriteriathatarewidelyacknowledged
tobequalitiesthatjudgesandcourtcommissionersareexpectedtopossess.Specifically,
attorneyswereaskedtoconsiderfourindividualcriteriaineachoffourbroadercategories:
LegalDecisionMaking
⦁
Capablyidentifiedandanalyzedlegalandfactualissues.
•
Capablyappliedrulesofevidenceandprocedure.
•
Articulatedrulings&groundsforrulingsinaclearand
concisemanner.
⦁
Waspreparedforcourt.
IntegrityandImpartiality ⦁
Avoidedimproprietyandtheappearanceof
impropriety.
⦁
Treatedallindividualsequallyandwithoutbiasbased
onrace,gender,economicstatus,oranyother extralegalpersonalcharacteristic.
⦁
Basedrulingsonthefactsandthelaw.
⦁
Displayedaneutralpresenceonthebench.
Demeanor,Temperament, ⦁
Treatedpeoplewithcourtesyandrespect.
andCommunication ⦁
Wasattentivetoproceedings.
⦁
Actedwithpatienceandself‐control.
⦁
Usedclearoralcommunicationwhileincourt.
4
AdministrativeSkills
⦁
Maintainedcontrolinthecourtroom.
⦁
Appropriatelymaintainedcasemanagementand
enforcedcourtrulesanddeadlines.
⦁
Madedecisionsandrulingsinaprompt,timelymanner.
⦁
Usedthecourt’stimeefficiently.
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations 2
Unacceptable
1
AcopyoftheactualsurveyquestionnaireisattachedasAppendixB.
Attorneyswereaskedtoratejudgesandcourtcommissionersontheabovecriteriausing
oneofsixpossibleresponses(unacceptable,belowexpectations,acceptable,verygood,
excellent,anddon’tknow).
Priortobeginningthesurveyprocess,respondentswererequiredtoanswerthefollowing
certificationquestionintheaffirmativeinorderfortheirevaluationtobeincluded.“I
certifythatIwillanswerthissurveytruthfullyandonlyevaluatejudgesandcourt
commissionerswhomIhaveappearedbeforeinthepreviousfouryears.Ifyoucheck"No"
yoursurveywillnotbeincludedintheanalysis.” Fourattorneysansweredthecertification
question‘no’(threeforthejudgesurveyandoneforthecourtcommissionersurvey)and
thustheirresponseswerenotincludedintheanalysisdata.
Responsestothefourquestionsineachofthefourcategorieswereaddedtogethertoform
acompositeindexforeachofthefourcategories.Thismethodofevaluationandtabulation
ofresultsprovidesamoredetailedsetofinformationforusebyvoters,membersofthe
bar,courtcommissionersandjudgesunderevaluationthansingle‐questionmeasures.
Usingthismethod,resultsarereportedforindividualquestionsaswellasforthe
compositeindexdevelopedforeachofthefourcategories.
5
Whentabulatingsurveyresults,noattemptwasmadetomathematicallyderivean“overall
score”foranyparticularjudgeorcommissioner.Rather,resultsoftheindividualcriteriaas
wellastheaveragescorewithinthefourdifferentcategoriesarepresentedforeachjudge
andcommissioner.
Whileeachofthefourcategoriesreflectanimportantattributeforajudgeorcourt
commissionertopossessanddisplay,theyarenotnecessarilyequalinimportance;
undoubtedlyindividualswillhavetheirownopiniononrelativeimportanceofeach
attribute.Anoverallaveragingmethodthatassumedeachwasofequalweightthuswould
bepresumptuous.Likewise,anyattempttoprovideaweightedaveragebyhavingKCBA
itselfassigndifferingimportancetothefourdifferentcategoriesofthesurveywould
substitutethejudgmentofKCBAforthatofthereader,oroftheevaluators.Therealsowas
concernthatpotentiallysignificantinformationthatmightappearamidthedifferent
categoriesofthesurveywouldbeobscuredifthoseresultswerethenaveragedintoa
singleoverallscore.
Therefore,KCBAbelievesitwouldbeinappropriate,andpotentiallymisleading,tosimply
calculateasinglemathematicalaverageoftheresultsinthesefourseparatecategories.
Theresultsthusaresummarizedonlyforthefourdifferentcategories,which,afterall,is
themannerinwhichthesurveywasadministered.
III.CONFIDENTIALITY
ConfidentialityofsurveydataisaparamountconcerntotheAssociationandtranslated
intospecificproceduresrelatedtodatasecurity.Becausedatasuchasthosecollected
throughtheJudicialOfficerSurveyareofasensitivenature,KCBAanditscontractorhave
institutedrigorousprocedurestoprotectdata.Organizationalpoliciesandprocedures
highlighttherequirementforconfidentialityandensurethatonlystaffinvolvedwiththe
projecthaveaccesstothedata.Onceenteredonline,allelectronicdataismaintainedona
secureserver.Nodataisevermaintainedontheharddrivesofindividualdesktoporlaptop
computers.
Toensurethatnoindividualwasabletocompletethesurveymorethanonce,each
potentialrespondentwasprovidedwithauniqueURLthatcouldonlybeusedonce,and
onlyfromtheemailaddresstowhichitwassent.Thecontractorscreenedrespondent
identifyinginformationtoensurethatonlyoneresponsewascollectedfromeach
individual.
6
Finally,demographicdataabouttherespondentsoverallandforeachjudicialofficerare
collectedatageneralleveltobeusefulforthereader.Forexample,theAssociationasked
onlythatrespondentsidentifythattheypracticed"criminallaw"or"governmentpractice,"
butdidnotcollectdataonwhethersuchapractitionerwasapublicdefenderor
prosecutor.
IV.SURVEYRELIABILITYANDRESPONSERATES
Agoalofeverysurveyistoensurethereliabilityoftheresultsobtained.Whilethereisno
minimumamountforthenumberofresponsesrequiredtovalidatesurveyresults,KCBA,
withadvicefromitscontractor,decidedthatatleast20responsesforeachjudgeis
desirable;thisisalsothenumberKCBAhashistoricallyused.Thefollowingjudgehad
fewerthan20responsesandwasnotincludedinthereportanalysis:JudgeVeronica
Galván.Alsonotethatthemostrecentlyappointedmemberofthebench,JudgeJanet
Helson,wasnotincludedinthissurveysinceshehadservedonlytwomonthsatthetime
datarecordsweregeneratedbytheclerk'soffice.Inaddition,KCBAnotesthat6judges
haveonlyservedsince2014andthereforemayhavefewerpotentialsurveyrespondents.
Over8,400attorneyswereinvitedtoparticipateintheonlinesurveyand1,388completed
portionsofthesurveyforjudges.Oftheserespondents,548attorneyscompletedthecourt
commissionersurvey.Theresponserate,whichiscalculatedforthesurveyofSuperior
Courtjudges,is16%.Theanalysiswasconductedwith1,384completedsurveysfor
SuperiorCourtjudgesand547completedsurveysforSuperiorCourtcommissionerssince
fourrespondentstotalwereeliminatedduetotheirnegativeresponsetothecertification
question.
Thenumberofresponsesperjudgeandcommissionerrangedfromahighof399toalow
of12.Thejudgesandcommissionersincludedintheanalysishadresponsenumbers
rangingfromahighof399toalowof20evaluations.Atotalofsixty‐fourjudgesand
commissionershadatleast20respondentsevaluatethemandhalfthejudgesand
commissionerswereevaluatedby105respondentsormore.Theaverageandmedian
numberofresponsesperjudgeandcommissioner(amongthosewith20ormore
respondents)were112.75and104.5respectively.Table1showsthenumberof
respondentsforalljudgesandcommissioners,thenumberofattorneyswhoappeared
beforeeachjudgeinthepreviousfouryearsaccordingtocourtrecordswereceived,and
thepercentageofattorneyswhoappearedbeforethejudgewhoevaluatedeachjudge.
7
Table 1: Number of Evaluations and Attorneys Appearing Attorneys Number of Appearing Before Evaluations Name Length of Service % Appearing Who Evaluated Superior Court Judges Allred, Chad Appointed, 2014 20 329 6% Amini, Susan Appointed, 2013 79 468 17% Andrus, Beth Appointed, 2010 139 1069 13% Benton, Monica Appointed, 2008 153 1057 14% Berns, Elizabeth Elected, 2013 82 618 13% Bowman, Bill Appointed/Elected, 2012 113 837 14% Bradshaw, Timothy Elected, 2009 131 1165 11% Cahan, Regina Appointed/Elected, 2009 48 263 18% Carey, Cheryl Elected, 2001 72 638 11% Cayce, James Appointed, 2000 79 644 12% Chun, John Appointed, 2014 61 425 14% Chung, Samuel Appointed, 2014 28 406 7% Craighead, Susan Appointed, 2007 109 926 12% Darvas, Andrea Elected, 2005 109 860 13% Downing, William Appointed, 1989 182 1205 15% Doyle, Theresa Elected, 2005 127 1096 12% Eadie, Richard Appointed, 1995 177 1303 14% Erlick, John Elected, 2001 119 959 12% Gain, Brian Elected, 1993 104 992 10% Garrett, Julia Appointed, 2013 64 619 10% Halpert, Helen Appointed, 1999 95 751 13% Heller, Bruce Appointed, 2007 135 1200 11% Hill, Hollis Elected, 2009 70 757 9% Inveen, Laura Appointed, 1992 156 1287 12% Kessler, Ronald Appointed, 1999 137 1066 13% Linde, Barbara Appointed, 2012 99 1080 9% Lum, Dean Appointed, 1998 142 1221 12% 8
Attorneys Number of Appearing Evaluations Before % Appearing Who Evaluated Name Length of Service Mack, Barbara Elected, 2009 34 450 8% McCullough, Leroy Appointed, 1989 99 869 11% McDermott, Richard Appointed, 2000 69 575 12% Middaugh, Laura Gene Elected, 2001 135 1066 13% North, Douglass Elected, 2000 94 856 11% O'Donnell, Sean Elected, 2013 155 1061 15% Oishi, Patrick Appointed, 2011 99 981 10% Parisien, Suzanne Elected, 2013 87 704 12% Prochnau, Kimberley Appointed 2007/Retired 2015 96 1011 9% Ramsdell, Jeffrey Elected, 1996 105 1134 9% Ramseyer, Judith Appointed/Elected, 2012 106 940 11% Rietschel, Jean Appointed, 2010 122 965 13% Roberts, Mary Appointed, 2003 81 956 8% Robinson, Palmer Appointed, 1999 178 1644 11% Rogers, Jim Elected, 2005 89 1091 8% Rogoff, Roger Appointed, 2014 79 686 12% Ruhl, John Appointed, 2014 47 436 11% Saint Clair, Wesley Appointed, 2004 23 285 8% Schapira, Carol Elected 1989/Retired 2015 115 1147 10% Schubert, Kenneth Elected, 2013 64 666 10% Shaffer, Catherine Elected, 2000 100 1056 9% Smith, Lori Appointed, 2012 116 960 12% Spearman, Mariane Elected, 2009 124 1224 10% Spector, Julie Appointed, 1999 99 987 10% Thorp, Tanya Appointed, 2014 38 360 11% Superior Court Commissioners Bradburn‐Johnson, Nancy 1998 321 Canada‐Thurston, Bonnie 1993 202 9
Attorneys Number of Appearing Evaluations Before Name Length of Service Hillman, Mark 2007 136 Holman, Hollis 1996 105 Jeske, Jacqueline 2008 142 Johnson‐Taylor, Melinda 2014 102 Judson, Henry 2014 212 Kahan, James 2013 130 Laird, Jennie 2013 29 Ponomarchuk, Leonid 1998 184 Sassaman, Meg 2006 94 Velategui, Carlos 1986 399 % Appearing Who Evaluated Usingthecourtdatathatweobtainedtocreatethedistributionlist,wealsotalliedthe
numberofattorneyswhohaveappearedbeforeeachjudge.Themeannumberofattorneys
whoappearedinthepastfouryearswas857withalowof89attorneysandahighof1,644
attorneys.
V.FAMILIARITYWITHJUDICIALOFFICERSEVALUATED
Inajudicialperformanceevaluation,itisimportanttotakestepstoensurethatonly
individualswithpersonal,firsthandexperiencewithajudicialofficerparticipateinthe
evaluation.Onlyattorneyswhoaffirmedthattheyhadappearedbeforeajudgeor
commissionerduringthefouryearspriortotheevaluationwereaskedtoparticipateinthe
evaluation.Duetotheimprecisionofdocketrecordssomeattorneyswhodidnotactually
appearincourtbeforeanyofthejudgesduringthesurveyperiodreceivedevaluation
materials.Intheinvitationtocompletethesurvey,andinthesurveyitself,attorneyswere
instructednottoevaluateajudgeorcommissioneriftheydidnotappearbeforehimorher.
Additionally,attorneyswereaskedtoindicatetheapproximatenumberoftimestheyhad
appearedbeforethejudgeorcommissionerbeingevaluatedduringthepriorfouryears.As
canbeseeninTable2,70.8%ofrespondentsreportedappearingbeforethejudgeor
commissionermultipletimesduringtheevaluationperiod.
10
Table 2: Number of Appearances Number Percent King County Superior Court Judges Once 1878 36.1% 2‐3 times 1853 35.7% 4‐10 times 878 16.9% More than 10 times 587 11.3% King County Superior Court Commissioners Once 263 12.8% 2‐3 times 629 30.6% 4‐10 times 679 33.0% More than 10 times 486 23.6% VI.RESPONDENTCHARACTERISTICS
Thesurveyaskedattorneystoprovideinformationaboutthemselvesandtheirpractice.
Characteristicsoftheattorneysprovidingsurveyresponsesforeachjudgeand
commissionerarealsoincludedintheindividualresultsreportedforeach.KCBAdidnot
definepracticeareasbeyondageneralname,leavingituptorespondentstomakethe
selectionthatbestdescribedtheirpracticearea.Wenotethatpublicdefendersand
prosecutorsmayappearineitherthe"criminallaw"or"governmentpractice"categories.
Thecharacteristics,inaggregate,oftheattorneysparticipatinginthesurveyarelistedin
Tables3‐7.
Table 3: Primary Area of Practice Number Percent Criminal Law 187 13.5% General Civil Law 773 55.9% Domestic Relations/Family Law 231 16.7% Government Practice 69 5.0% Other 124 9.0% 11
Table 4: Years in Practice Number Percent 1‐2 years 30 2.2% 3‐5 years 124 8.9% 6‐10 years 196 14.1% 11‐20 years 352 25.4% More than 20 years 686 49.4% Table 5: Size of Law Firm Number Percent Sole Practitioner 361 26.1% 2‐5 Attorneys 350 25.3% 6‐10 Attorneys 150 10.8% 11‐20 Attorneys 135 9.7% More than 20 Attorneys 389 28.1% Table 6: Respondent Racial Background Number Percent Caucasian/White 1211 87.8% African American/Black 29 2.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 26 1.9% Asian American/Pacific Islander 57 4.1% Native American 7 0.5% Other (biracial or did not respond) 50 3.6% Table 7: Respondent Gender Number Percent Male 828 59.9% Female 554 40.1% 12
VII.SUMMARYOFRESULTSAGGREGATINGALLJUDGESANDCOMMISSIONERS
Foreachperformance‐relatedquestioninthesurveythereweresixpossibleresponses:
unacceptable,belowexpectations,acceptable,verygood,excellent,anddon’tknow.When
ratingjudges,morethantwo‐thirdsofattorneys–77%ormore–ratedtheperformancein
eachofthefoursurveycategoriesaseither“excellent”or“verygood”(seeTable8).A
similarpercentageoftheresponsestotheindividualsurveyquestionswereeither“very
good”and“excellent.”
Whenratingcourtcommissioners,morethantwo‐thirdsofattorneys–71%ormore–
ratedtheperformanceineachofthefoursurveycategoriesaseither“excellent”or“very
good”(seeTable9).Asimilarpercentageoftheresponsestotheindividualsurvey
questionswereeither“verygood”or“excellent.”
13
Table8:AggregateResultsforSuperiorCourtJudges
Very Good Excellent 16.8% 31.8% 40.2% 7.3% 17.4% 32.5% 39.6% 3.2% 6.7% 18.5% 32.4% 39.3% 5018 2.0% 4.9% 18.0% 32.6% 42.5% 4904 2.3% 3.6% 13.1% 27.7% 53.3% 5033 2.9% 5.6% 15.3% 27.6% 48.6% 4982 4.9% 9.4% 16.9% 29.7% 39.1% 4816 1.9% 3.0% 11.8% 25.0% 58.3% 5077 2.0% 3.6% 13.3% 25.8% 55.3% 5057 1.2% 3.1% 13.8% 29.4% 52.5% 5009 1.7% 3.4% 15.0% 28.6% 51.2% 5036 1.6% 5.7% 16.3% 31.9% 44.6% Maintained control in the courtroom 4956 0.8% 2.1% 16.0% 32.6% 48.5% Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines 4501 2.1% 4.2% 17.7% 33.2% 42.9% Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4867 1.6% 3.3% 17.6% 33.2% 44.3% 4855 1.2% 3.4% 18.1% 33.0% 44.3% Legal Decision Making Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court Integrity and Impartiality Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety Displayed a neutral presence on the bench Based rulings on the facts and the law Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court Administrative Skills Used the court’s time efficiently Below Acceptable Expectations Responses Unacceptable 5066 3.5% 7.7% 4881 3.2% 5011 14
Table9:AggregateResultsforSuperiorCourtCommissioners
Responses Unacceptable Legal Decision Making Below Acceptable Expectations Very Good Excellent Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 2020 3.5% 7.1% 18.0% 28.9% 42.6% Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 1983 3.1% 6.9% 19.3% 30.1% 40.5% Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner 2007 3.2% 7.5% 20.3% 29.1% 39.9% Was prepared for court 1954 2.4% 4.9% 20.2% 30.3% 42.2% Integrity and Impartiality Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 1981 4.0% 5.2% 17.6% 26.1% 46.9% Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 2017 5.4% 9.0% 18.4% 26.0% 41.2% Based rulings on the facts and the law 2012 4.4% 9.0% 20.2% 28.9% 37.4% Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 1951 4.4% 6.4% 15.5% 24.1% 49.6% Treated people with courtesy and respect 2031 9.6% 10.3% 19.0% 23.2% 37.8% Was attentive to proceedings 2019 1.6% 3.1% 17.9% 31.3% 46.2% Acted with patience and self‐control 2017 8.6% 10.6% 19.3% 25.3% 36.1% Used clear oral communication while in court 2017 3.0% 6.1% 20.7% 29.8% 40.4% Maintained control in the courtroom 2002 1.8% 2.6% 18.9% 31.7% 44.9% Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines 1739 2.3% 3.2% 20.4% 30.3% 43.8% Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 1955 1.3% 1.7% 17.9% 29.7% 49.5% Used the court’s time efficiently 1954 2.2% 4.5% 19.2% 29.5% 44.7% Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Administrative Skills 15
Asnotedabove,compositeindexeswerealsocomputedforthefourcategoriesofthe
survey.Theaverageratingsreceivedforeachindividualquestionandeachcategoryare
presentedinTables10and11.WhiletheresultsaresimilartothosepresentedinTable8
and9,theaveragescoreprovidesanothermethodformembersofthebarandthepublicto
considerajudgeorcourtcommissioner’sperformanceonthebench.
Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings for Superior Court Judges Item Average Category Average 4.00 3.97 3.98 3.98 4.09 4.16 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.26 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.13 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.89 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.35 4.24 Treated people with courtesy and respect 4.29 Was attentive to proceedings 4.29 Acted with patience and self‐control 4.24 Used clear oral communication while in court 4.12 4.17 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.26 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.11 4.15 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.16 Legal Decision Making Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court Integrity and Impartiality Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Administrative Skills 16
Table 11: Aggregate Average Ratings for Superior Court Commissioners Item Average Category Average 3.99 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.00 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.98 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner 3.95 Was prepared for court 4.05 3.97 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.07 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.89 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.86 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.08 3.89 Treated people with courtesy and respect 3.69 Was attentive to proceedings 4.17 Acted with patience and self‐control 3.70 Used clear oral communication while in court 3.99 4.15 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.15 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.10 4.24 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.10 Legal Decision Making Integrity and Impartiality Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Administrative Skills VIII.SUMMARYOFRESULTSFORINDIVIDUALJUDGES
Tables12‐15,whichappearonthefollowingpages,presentsummariesoftheresultsfor
the53judgesand12commissionersinKingCountySuperiorCourtwhowereevaluatedby
20respondentsormore.Eachtableprovidesresultsforoneofthefourcategoriessurveyed
(LegalDecisionMaking;IntegrityandImpartiality;Demeanor,Temperament,and
Communication;andAdministrativeSkills),includingthenumberofvalidevaluations
receivedforeachjudgeorcommissionerandthepercentageofresponsestoindividual
17
questionsthatgavethejudgeorcommissioneraratingof“unacceptable,”“below
expectations,”“acceptable,”“verygood,”and“excellent.”
Noattempthasbeenmadeinthisreporttopresentevaluationresultsin“ranked”
numericalorder.Theratingsforindividualjudgesandcommissionersareanindicationof
performance.Theyarenotofsuchinfallibleprecisionastopermitonetodifferentiate
smalldifferencesinratings.Whileitispossibletocalculateveryprecisevalues,thisdoes
notmeanthatsimilarlyprecisedistinctionsexistbetweenoramongjudgesand
commissioners.Anaverageratingforaparticularquestionorsurveycategoryof4.2,for
example,obviouslyisnumericallyhigherthananaverageof4.1.Thedifferenceof0.1
points,however,doesnotnecessarilyjustifyviewingtheperformanceoftheformertobe
significantlybetterthanthelatter.
Inadditiontothefollowingtables,AppendixCprovidescompletedetailedsurveyresults
foreachofthe53judgesand12commissionerswhowerethesubjectofthejudicial
performancesurveyandhadtheminimumnumberofevaluations.Thedetailedreportfor
eachindividualjudgeandcommissionerprovidesresultsforindividualquestionsaswellas
averagesforeachcategory.Thereportsalsoprovideinformationsummarizingthe
characteristicsoftheattorneyswhorespondedtothesurveyforthatindividualjudgeor
commissioner.
Table 12: Results for Individual Judges and Commissioners – Legal Decision Making IntheareaLegalDecisionMaking,surveyparticipantswereaskedtoratejudgesusingeachofthe
followingfourcriteria:
⦁Capablyidentifiedandanalyzedlegalandfactualissues
⦁Capablyappliedrulesofevidenceandprocedure
⦁Articulatedrulingsandgroundsforrulingsinaclearandconcisemanner
⦁Waspreparedforcourt
Table 12 Legal Decision Making Superior Court Judges Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Allred, Chad 80 7.5% 10.0% 17.5% 40.0% 25.0% 3.65 Amini, Susan 270 3.3% 15.9% 27.8% 27.8% 25.2% 3.55 Andrus, Beth 527 0.4% 4.0% 10.2% 33.8% 51.6% 4.32 Benton, Monica 579 8.5% 22.5% 32.3% 24.7% 12.1% 3.10 Berns, Elizabeth 296 3.7% 6.8% 19.6% 27.0% 42.9% 3.99 Bowman, Bill 440 0.9% 0.5% 6.4% 31.6% 60.7% 4.51 Bradshaw, Timothy 495 3.6% 6.9% 21.4% 37.4% 30.7% 3.85 Cahan, Regina 181 1.7% 6.6% 13.8% 40.9% 37.0% 4.05 18
Table 12 Legal Decision Making Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Carey, Cheryl 265 0.0% 0.4% 20.4% 29.8% 49.4% 4.28 Cayce, James 309 6.5% 7.8% 19.4% 25.2% 41.1% 3.87 Chun, John 230 1.3% 4.3% 25.7% 31.3% 37.4% 3.99 Chung, Samuel 102 8.8% 10.8% 35.3% 22.5% 22.5% 3.39 Craighead, Susan 424 2.6% 7.8% 18.9% 31.6% 39.2% 3.97 Darvas, Andrea 423 1.9% 4.7% 13.9% 29.1% 50.4% 4.21 Downing, William 710 0.0% 1.5% 8.6% 38.0% 51.8% 4.40 Doyle, Theresa 486 4.5% 12.3% 23.5% 31.3% 28.4% 3.67 Eadie, Richard 697 3.7% 7.2% 21.5% 36.3% 31.3% 3.84 Erlick, John 464 0.0% 0.6% 11.0% 28.2% 60.1% 4.48 Gain, Brian 400 0.0% 2.3% 20.3% 39.0% 38.5% 4.14 Garrett, Julia 238 4.2% 6.7% 29.0% 35.3% 24.8% 3.70 Halpert, Helen 370 4.6% 5.1% 17.0% 38.6% 34.6% 3.93 Heller, Bruce 521 1.2% 5.4% 12.9% 30.7% 49.9% 4.23 Hill, Hollis 266 3.8% 7.9% 21.8% 42.9% 23.7% 3.75 Inveen, Laura 596 1.3% 4.9% 10.1% 38.1% 45.6% 4.22 Kessler, Ronald 529 1.7% 3.6% 11.3% 26.8% 56.5% 4.33 Linde, Barbara 378 1.9% 8.7% 18.5% 34.7% 36.2% 3.95 Lum, Dean 552 1.6% 5.3% 21.4% 36.8% 35.0% 3.98 Mack, Barbara 131 5.3% 6.1% 21.4% 42.7% 24.4% 3.75 McCullough, Leroy 391 6.6% 7.9% 25.1% 31.5% 28.9% 3.68 McDermott, Richard 269 2.6% 8.9% 11.9% 32.3% 44.2% 4.07 Middaugh, Laura Gene 518 10.2% 15.8% 24.9% 29.2% 19.9% 3.33 North, Douglass 371 2.2% 6.7% 17.0% 30.7% 43.4% 4.06 O'Donnell, Sean 601 1.2% 3.2% 9.8% 31.4% 54.4% 4.35 Oishi, Patrick 381 3.9% 3.4% 24.1% 31.8% 36.7% 3.94 Parisien, Suzanne 332 9.6% 11.4% 21.1% 34.9% 22.9% 3.50 Prochnau, Kimberley 370 2.2% 4.9% 12.7% 32.4% 47.8% 4.19 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 403 0.0% 3.7% 15.9% 33.7% 46.7% 4.23 Ramseyer, Judith 397 4.3% 3.5% 13.1% 35.8% 43.3% 4.10 Rietschel, Jean 467 1.7% 9.2% 18.2% 29.8% 41.1% 3.99 Roberts, Mary 313 6.7% 8.9% 16.3% 28.8% 39.3% 3.85 Robinson, Palmer 693 0.7% 4.9% 13.6% 31.9% 48.9% 4.23 Rogers, Jim 347 1.4% 7.5% 19.9% 27.4% 43.8% 4.05 Rogoff, Roger 297 0.0% 0.7% 14.8% 29.3% 55.2% 4.39 Ruhl, John 179 1.7% 9.5% 19.6% 37.4% 31.8% 3.88 Saint Clair, Wesley 88 2.3% 10.2% 15.9% 50.0% 21.6% 3.78 Schapira, Carol 456 4.6% 9.9% 18.6% 26.3% 40.6% 3.88 Schubert, Kenneth 255 2.7% 6.7% 19.6% 34.9% 36.1% 3.95 Shaffer, Catherine 390 3.1% 6.2% 16.2% 30.8% 43.8% 4.06 Smith, Lori 449 0.9% 3.3% 11.8% 27.6% 56.3% 4.35 Spearman, Mariane 474 3.0% 8.9% 22.8% 32.3% 33.1% 3.84 Spector, Julie 385 6.2% 6.2% 21.6% 33.2% 32.7% 3.80 Thorp, Tanya 146 5.5% 10.3% 22.6% 21.2% 40.4% 3.80 19
Table 12 Responses Legal Decision Making Superior Court Commissioners Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Bradburn‐Johnson, Nancy 1236 4.7% 10.8% 25.1% 31.6% 27.9% 3.67 Canada‐Thurston, Bonnie 792 10.2% 16.0% 25.8% 21.7% 26.3% 3.38 Hillman, Mark 530 2.8% 5.1% 18.7% 29.2% 44.2% 4.07 Holman, Hollis 403 2.2% 5.5% 28.5% 30.0% 33.7% 3.88 Jeske, Jacqueline 564 2.8% 4.4% 22.0% 30.9% 39.9% 4.01 Johnson‐Taylor, Melinda 400 0.8% 4.5% 21.3% 45.8% 27.8% 3.95 Judson, Henry 789 0.6% 1.8% 12.9% 32.1% 52.6% 4.34 Kahan, James 509 1.0% 4.5% 16.3% 34.0% 44.2% 4.16 Laird, Jennie 115 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 24.3% 67.0% 4.58 Ponomarchuk, Leonid 723 0.6% 1.8% 6.8% 24.6% 66.3% 4.54 Sassaman, Meg 361 8.6% 18.0% 24.9% 27.1% 21.3% 3.35 Velategui, Carlos 1542 1.2% 3.8% 18.0% 28.0% 49.1% 4.20 Table 13: Results for Individual Judges and Commissioners – Integrity and Impartiality IntheareaIntegrityandImpartiality,surveyparticipantswereaskedtoratejudgesusingeachof
thefollowingfourcriteria:
•Avoidedimproprietyandtheappearanceofimpropriety
•Displayedaneutralpresenceonthebench
•Basedrulingsonthefactsandthelaw
•Treatedindividualsequallyandwithoutbiasbasedonrace,gender,economicstatus,or
anyotherextralegalpersonalcharacteristic
Table 13 Integrity & Impartiality Superior Court Judges Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Allred, Chad 77 1.3% 3.9% 20.8% 28.6% 45.5% 4.13 Amini, Susan 280 1.1% 6.8% 21.8% 29.3% 41.1% 4.01 Andrus, Beth 505 1.0% 2.4% 12.1% 28.5% 56.0% 4.37 Benton, Monica 567 6.0% 12.2% 27.2% 25.4% 29.3% 3.61 Berns, Elizabeth 299 3.3% 7.4% 11.4% 26.1% 51.8% 4.16 Bowman, Bill 437 0.5% 0.9% 6.4% 26.8% 65.4% 4.56 Bradshaw, Timothy 479 3.1% 5.6% 16.7% 32.8% 41.8% 4.05 Cahan, Regina 174 1.7% 4.0% 12.6% 33.9% 47.7% 4.23 Carey, Cheryl 270 0.0% 2.6% 14.4% 26.7% 56.3% 4.37 Cayce, James 301 7.3% 7.6% 16.6% 24.6% 43.9% 3.91 Chun, John 231 2.2% 2.6% 15.6% 31.2% 48.5% 4.22 Chung, Samuel 103 4.9% 5.8% 32.0% 21.4% 35.9% 3.78 Craighead, Susan 411 4.4% 7.1% 15.6% 27.5% 45.5% 4.03 Darvas, Andrea 420 1.7% 5.7% 11.7% 22.9% 58.1% 4.30 Downing, William 707 0.6% 3.3% 8.8% 29.4% 58.0% 4.41 Doyle, Theresa 458 3.5% 8.5% 14.0% 28.2% 45.9% 4.05 Eadie, Richard 689 2.3% 5.7% 16.4% 30.9% 44.7% 4.10 Erlick, John 465 0.4% 1.7% 9.0% 24.9% 63.9% 4.50 Gain, Brian 404 0.0% 2.0% 15.3% 34.9% 47.8% 4.28 20
Table 13 Integrity & Impartiality Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Garrett, Julia 244 4.1% 8.2% 24.2% 27.5% 36.1% 3.83 Halpert, Helen 366 3.3% 8.5% 15.8% 27.3% 45.1% 4.03 Heller, Bruce 508 1.2% 5.1% 11.6% 28.0% 54.1% 4.29 Hill, Hollis 256 3.9% 3.9% 15.6% 38.7% 37.9% 4.03 Inveen, Laura 589 2.7% 4.1% 6.5% 30.6% 56.2% 4.34 Kessler, Ronald 526 1.9% 4.9% 13.1% 26.6% 53.4% 4.25 Linde, Barbara 370 2.2% 8.1% 17.3% 27.0% 45.4% 4.06 Lum, Dean 552 1.3% 4.5% 13.2% 27.5% 53.4% 4.28 Mack, Barbara 133 3.8% 11.3% 19.5% 30.1% 35.3% 3.82 McCullough, Leroy 383 3.7% 4.2% 17.0% 27.4% 47.8% 4.12 McDermott, Richard 263 5.3% 4.9% 17.5% 23.6% 48.7% 4.05 Middaugh, Laura Gene 507 8.9% 11.2% 24.9% 28.2% 26.8% 3.53 North, Douglass 360 1.9% 4.7% 14.4% 24.2% 54.7% 4.25 O'Donnell, Sean 599 0.8% 3.0% 9.7% 24.5% 61.9% 4.44 Oishi, Patrick 381 4.7% 4.2% 14.4% 30.2% 46.5% 4.09 Parisien, Suzanne 328 8.8% 7.6% 19.2% 31.1% 33.2% 3.72 Prochnau, Kimberley 373 2.4% 3.8% 9.7% 27.9% 56.3% 4.32 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 398 1.8% 2.3% 11.3% 30.2% 54.5% 4.33 Ramseyer, Judith 390 2.3% 1.3% 12.6% 33.1% 50.8% 4.29 Rietschel, Jean 466 4.1% 7.1% 11.2% 22.3% 55.4% 4.18 Roberts, Mary 307 6.2% 8.1% 14.0% 23.8% 47.9% 3.99 Robinson, Palmer 686 1.5% 3.8% 12.0% 26.4% 56.4% 4.33 Rogers, Jim 339 1.5% 8.3% 17.4% 23.9% 49.0% 4.11 Rogoff, Roger 295 0.0% 2.7% 11.2% 28.5% 57.6% 4.41 Ruhl, John 180 2.2% 7.2% 10.6% 29.4% 50.6% 4.19 Saint Clair, Wesley 90 1.1% 11.1% 18.9% 30.0% 38.9% 3.94 Schapira, Carol 449 4.9% 6.2% 15.6% 18.7% 54.6% 4.12 Schubert, Kenneth 250 5.6% 9.2% 13.6% 30.4% 41.2% 3.93 Shaffer, Catherine 381 5.8% 6.6% 15.2% 24.4% 48.0% 4.03 Smith, Lori 445 0.7% 3.8% 9.0% 22.2% 64.3% 4.46 Spearman, Mariane 464 3.4% 5.2% 14.9% 29.5% 47.0% 4.12 Spector, Julie 386 9.6% 6.7% 15.5% 25.1% 43.0% 3.85 Thorp, Tanya 147 8.2% 7.5% 21.1% 20.4% 42.9% 3.83 Bradburn‐Johnson, Nancy Superior Court Commissioners 1237 5.9% 11.9% 20.4% 25.5% 36.3% 3.75 Canada‐Thurston, Bonnie 788 16.8% 14.3% 23.9% 18.8% 26.3% 3.24 Hillman, Mark 531 5.5% 9.6% 15.6% 26.4% 42.9% 3.92 Holman, Hollis 401 3.0% 6.0% 24.9% 29.7% 36.4% 3.91 Jeske, Jacqueline 560 3.4% 5.9% 18.4% 25.5% 46.8% 4.07 Johnson‐Taylor, Melinda 397 0.3% 3.8% 18.4% 39.0% 38.5% 4.12 Judson, Henry 801 0.4% 1.6% 7.1% 28.1% 62.8% 4.51 Kahan, James 501 2.0% 3.6% 14.4% 33.3% 46.7% 4.19 Laird, Jennie 116 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 19.0% 70.7% 4.60 Ponomarchuk, Leonid 718 1.9% 2.6% 12.5% 26.9% 56.0% 4.32 Sassaman, Meg 368 11.7% 18.8% 23.9% 23.6% 22.0% 3.26 21
Table 13 Integrity & Impartiality Velategui, Carlos Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) 1543 1.7% 5.9% 20.2% 24.5% 47.6% 4.11 Table 14: Results for Individual Judges and Commissioners for Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication IntheareaDemeanor,Temperament,andCommunication,surveyparticipantswereaskedto
ratejudgesusingeachofthefollowingfourcriteria:
•Treatedpeoplewithcourtesyandrespect
•Wasattentivetoproceedings
•Actedwithpatienceandself‐control
•Usedclearoralcommunicationwhileincourt
Table 14 Demeanor, Temperament, Communication Superior Court Judges Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Allred, Chad 80 2.5% 1.3% 16.3% 37.5% 42.5% 4.16 Amini, Susan 303 1.0% 3.3% 19.5% 30.4% 45.9% 4.17 Andrus, Beth 531 0.2% 2.1% 7.5% 31.5% 58.8% 4.47 Benton, Monica 584 4.5% 12.2% 30.7% 24.5% 28.3% 3.60 Berns, Elizabeth 311 1.6% 4.5% 14.8% 26.7% 52.4% 4.24 Bowman, Bill 445 0.2% 0.4% 3.4% 25.8% 70.1% 4.65 Bradshaw, Timothy 502 1.4% 2.8% 18.7% 33.3% 43.8% 4.15 Cahan, Regina 187 0.0% 2.1% 12.8% 39.0% 46.0% 4.29 Carey, Cheryl 281 0.0% 0.4% 11.7% 23.8% 64.1% 4.52 Cayce, James 311 4.8% 7.1% 19.9% 24.1% 44.1% 3.96 Chun, John 241 0.0% 0.8% 15.4% 34.9% 49.0% 4.32 Chung, Samuel 111 0.0% 4.5% 16.2% 34.2% 45.0% 4.20 Craighead, Susan 418 1.0% 3.6% 16.7% 32.5% 46.2% 4.19 Darvas, Andrea 424 0.2% 3.3% 9.7% 24.5% 62.3% 4.45 Downing, William 704 0.1% 0.9% 8.1% 28.8% 62.1% 4.52 Doyle, Theresa 483 1.4% 5.6% 16.4% 31.7% 44.9% 4.13 Eadie, Richard 699 2.3% 3.9% 13.9% 31.5% 48.5% 4.20 Erlick, John 468 0.4% 0.9% 6.6% 22.4% 69.7% 4.60 Gain, Brian 404 0.2% 1.5% 17.1% 34.2% 47.0% 4.26 Garrett, Julia 245 2.0% 2.4% 21.2% 38.0% 36.3% 4.04 Halpert, Helen 369 1.1% 6.0% 19.0% 31.7% 42.3% 4.08 Heller, Bruce 523 0.6% 3.1% 9.4% 30.6% 56.4% 4.39 Hill, Hollis 270 1.5% 3.0% 16.7% 35.2% 43.7% 4.17 22
Table 14 Demeanor, Temperament, Communication Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Inveen, Laura 608 1.2% 2.8% 7.7% 31.4% 56.9% 4.40 Kessler, Ronald 535 3.4% 7.5% 23.4% 22.1% 43.7% 3.96 Linde, Barbara 378 0.3% 2.4% 20.1% 28.6% 48.7% 4.23 Lum, Dean 555 0.7% 2.2% 11.4% 28.3% 57.5% 4.40 Mack, Barbara 136 2.9% 6.6% 19.9% 27.9% 42.6% 4.01 McCullough, Leroy 393 2.0% 4.3% 18.3% 29.0% 46.3% 4.13 McDermott, Richard 268 0.7% 3.7% 14.2% 27.6% 53.7% 4.30 Middaugh, Laura Gene 532 7.1% 11.3% 27.6% 29.1% 24.8% 3.53 North, Douglass 366 0.5% 2.7% 15.6% 28.1% 53.0% 4.30 O'Donnell, Sean 594 0.7% 1.9% 6.4% 26.3% 64.8% 4.53 Oishi, Patrick 386 2.3% 2.3% 17.9% 31.1% 46.4% 4.17 Parisien, Suzanne 337 5.6% 7.7% 22.3% 32.0% 32.3% 3.78 Prochnau, Kimberley 375 0.5% 3.5% 9.6% 29.9% 56.5% 4.38 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 403 0.2% 1.7% 10.4% 34.7% 52.9% 4.38 Ramseyer, Judith 395 0.8% 1.0% 10.1% 31.9% 56.2% 4.42 Rietschel, Jean 466 0.9% 4.5% 14.4% 26.2% 54.1% 4.28 Roberts, Mary 320 5.0% 8.1% 14.4% 23.1% 49.4% 4.04 Robinson, Palmer 698 0.6% 2.9% 11.6% 28.5% 56.4% 4.37 Rogers, Jim 343 1.5% 5.8% 17.8% 24.2% 50.7% 4.17 Rogoff, Roger 304 0.0% 1.3% 7.6% 28.3% 62.8% 4.53 Ruhl, John 187 0.5% 2.1% 13.9% 28.3% 55.1% 4.35 Saint Clair, Wesley 90 1.1% 10.0% 11.1% 40.0% 37.8% 4.04 Schapira, Carol 450 1.6% 6.4% 11.6% 24.2% 56.2% 4.27 Schubert, Kenneth 253 4.0% 4.0% 15.4% 35.2% 41.5% 4.06 Shaffer, Catherine 392 2.0% 7.9% 18.1% 24.5% 47.4% 4.07 Smith, Lori 455 0.0% 0.9% 8.8% 23.1% 67.3% 4.57 Spearman, Mariane 480 2.3% 3.8% 17.1% 29.4% 47.5% 4.16 Spector, Julie 387 5.7% 7.5% 17.1% 27.6% 42.1% 3.93 Thorp, Tanya 151 7.9% 5.3% 24.5% 25.2% 37.1% 3.78 Superior Court Commissioners 1257 8.8% 13.1% 23.3% 23.7% 31.0% 3.55 Canada‐Thurston, Bonnie 793 24.6% 20.6% 19.0% 17.3% 18.5% 2.85 Hillman, Mark 540 6.3% 8.1% 20.9% 27.6% 37.0% 3.81 Holman, Hollis 411 2.7% 3.6% 25.3% 34.8% 33.6% 3.93 Jeske, Jacqueline 561 2.3% 2.7% 14.1% 31.7% 49.2% 4.23 Johnson‐Taylor, Melinda 401 0.0% 0.7% 12.2% 41.1% 45.9% 4.32 Judson, Henry 822 0.1% 0.1% 7.4% 27.3% 65.1% 4.57 Kahan, James 508 1.2% 1.6% 13.2% 34.1% 50.0% 4.30 Laird, Jennie 116 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 20.7% 71.6% 4.64 Ponomarchuk, Leonid 732 1.6% 3.7% 17.9% 28.1% 48.6% 4.18 Sassaman, Meg 370 10.0% 12.2% 31.1% 25.9% 20.8% 3.36 Velategui, Carlos 1573 2.6% 7.8% 24.2% 27.0% 38.4% 3.91 Bradburn‐Johnson, Nancy 23
Table 15: Results for Individual Judges and Commissioners– Administrative Skills IntheareaAdministrativeSkills,surveyparticipantswereaskedtoratejudgesusingeachofthe
followingfourcriteria:

Maintainedcontrolinthecourtroom

Appropriatelyenforcedcourtrulesanddeadlines

Madedecisionsandrulingsinaprompt,timelymanner

Usedthecourt’stimeefficiently
24
Table 15 Administrative Skills Responses Unacceptable Below Expectations Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1‐5 scale) Allred, Chad 75 2.7% 1.3% 18.7% 38.7% 38.7% 4.09 Amini, Susan 258 4.3% 5.8% 31.0% 28.3% 30.6% 3.74 Andrus, Beth 498 0.2% 1.2% 12.0% 32.3% 54.2% 4.39 Benton, Monica 547 1.3% 9.7% 36.7% 30.2% 22.1% 3.62 Superior Court Judges Berns, Elizabeth 292 0.7% 4.1% 14.4% 32.9% 47.9% 4.23 Bowman, Bill 416 0.0% 1.4% 7.0% 32.9% 58.7% 4.49 Bradshaw, Timothy 480 1.5% 3.5% 22.3% 40.2% 32.5% 3.99 Cahan, Regina 169 0.0% 0.6% 18.9% 37.3% 43.2% 4.23 Carey, Cheryl 261 0.4% 0.8% 12.6% 29.1% 57.1% 4.42 Cayce, James 293 2.7% 3.1% 23.5% 24.2% 46.4% 4.08 Chun, John 212 1.4% 1.4% 21.2% 34.9% 41.0% 4.12 Chung, Samuel 101 0.0% 9.9% 29.7% 32.7% 27.7% 3.76 Craighead, Susan 387 1.8% 3.1% 17.6% 39.8% 37.7% 4.08 Darvas, Andrea 417 0.2% 3.1% 12.5% 30.0% 54.2% 4.35 Downing, William 678 0.1% 0.6% 9.3% 32.0% 58.0% 4.47 Doyle, Theresa 450 0.4% 5.6% 22.4% 33.6% 38.0% 4.03 Eadie, Richard 676 2.2% 4.0% 16.9% 37.3% 39.6% 4.08 Erlick, John 451 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 27.5% 65.2% 4.58 Gain, Brian 391 0.8% 0.8% 17.1% 39.4% 41.9% 4.21 Garrett, Julia 227 0.9% 2.6% 23.3% 41.4% 31.7% 4.00 Halpert, Helen 348 0.0% 4.0% 21.3% 34.5% 40.2% 4.11 Heller, Bruce 500 1.8% 3.6% 15.2% 35.4% 44.0% 4.16 Hill, Hollis 252 0.4% 3.6% 23.0% 40.5% 32.5% 4.01 Inveen, Laura 588 1.2% 3.2% 10.5% 33.8% 51.2% 4.30 Kessler, Ronald 514 0.6% 1.4% 14.0% 30.9% 53.1% 4.35 Linde, Barbara 365 0.5% 1.6% 20.8% 32.9% 44.1% 4.18 Lum, Dean 536 0.7% 3.0% 15.7% 33.4% 47.2% 4.23 Mack, Barbara 126 4.0% 11.9% 29.4% 27.0% 27.8% 3.63 McCullough, Leroy 380 6.3% 7.9% 23.4% 27.1% 35.3% 3.77 McDermott, Richard 260 0.4% 4.2% 15.8% 28.1% 51.5% 4.26 Middaugh, Laura Gene 492 4.9% 5.5% 29.7% 38.8% 21.1% 3.66 North, Douglass 350 0.3% 1.7% 23.1% 30.9% 44.0% 4.17 O'Donnell, Sean 570 0.9% 2.1% 11.9% 30.4% 54.7% 4.36 Oishi, Patrick 366 4.1% 1.9% 16.4% 40.2% 37.4% 4.05 Parisien, Suzanne 330 4.5% 4.2% 23.6% 40.3% 27.3% 3.81 Prochnau, Kimberley 357 0.8% 2.0% 12.6% 31.7% 52.9% 4.34 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 386 0.3% 1.8% 13.2% 37.8% 46.9% 4.29 Ramseyer, Judith 379 0.3% 1.1% 13.7% 35.9% 49.1% 4.32 Rietschel, Jean 443 0.5% 4.5% 15.3% 31.8% 47.9% 4.22 Roberts, Mary 303 5.9% 6.6% 16.5% 25.1% 45.9% 3.98 Robinson, Palmer 667 1.2% 1.9% 10.2% 32.7% 54.0% 4.36 Rogers, Jim 333 3.9% 5.1% 21.0% 27.6% 42.3% 3.99 Rogoff, Roger 292 0.0% 1.0% 9.6% 35.3% 54.1% 4.42 Ruhl, John 175 2.3% 1.1% 19.4% 36.6% 40.6% 4.12 Saint Clair, Wesley 85 1.2% 5.9% 18.8% 35.3% 38.8% 4.05 25
Schapira, Carol 429 2.6% 7.5% 16.8% 23.1% 50.1% 4.11 Schubert, Kenneth 246 2.0% 2.4% 20.7% 38.6% 36.2% 4.04 Shaffer, Catherine 372 0.3% 3.5% 18.0% 27.7% 50.5% 4.25 Smith, Lori 443 0.0% 1.4% 12.6% 24.8% 61.2% 4.46 Spearman, Mariane 461 0.7% 3.5% 18.2% 35.1% 42.5% 4.15 Spector, Julie 371 1.3% 2.7% 22.4% 31.8% 41.8% 4.10 Thorp, Tanya 133 4.5% 0.8% 23.3% 22.6% 48.9% 4.11 Superior Court Commissioners Bradburn‐Johnson, Nancy 1152 3.8% 6.6% 24.0% 29.1% 36.5% 3.88 Canada‐Thurston, Bonnie 751 5.2% 7.9% 29.8% 22.2% 34.9% 3.74 Hillman, Mark 515 1.7% 0.8% 18.6% 33.4% 45.4% 4.20 Holman, Hollis 383 1.0% 0.8% 25.3% 32.9% 39.9% 4.10 Jeske, Jacqueline 537 3.0% 4.3% 22.2% 29.4% 41.2% 4.02 Johnson‐Taylor, Melinda 389 0.3% 1.3% 17.7% 46.3% 34.4% 4.13 Judson, Henry 774 0.1% 0.6% 10.3% 33.9% 55.0% 4.43 Kahan, James 491 0.4% 1.4% 14.1% 38.7% 45.4% 4.27 Laird, Jennie 115 0.0% 1.7% 7.8% 27.8% 62.6% 4.51 Ponomarchuk, Leonid 706 0.6% 0.1% 10.9% 25.4% 63.0% 4.50 Sassaman, Meg 355 4.5% 6.8% 31.3% 33.0% 24.5% 3.66 Velategui, Carlos 1482 0.6% 1.3% 15.6% 27.0% 55.5% 4.35 IX.COMMENTS
The2016JudicialSurveyallowedrespondingattorneysanopportunitytoinclude
commentswiththeirresponses.Attorneysprovided1,674suchcomments.Comments
provideattorneyswiththeopportunitytoprovidespecificfeedbacktoajudgeor
commissioner.Moreimportantly,whetherthefeedbackispositiveornegative,such
informationmaybehelpfultoeachjudgeorcommissionerastheyreviewtheirevaluations
andpotentialareasforgrowth.TheAssociationsharesthesecommentsonlywiththe
individualjudgeandcommissioneranddoesnotreleasecommentspublicly.
X.CONCLUSION
Whilenottestedforscientificvalidity,theresultsofthe2016JudicialOfficerSurvey
nonethelessrepresenttheopinionsofover1,000attorneyswhochosetorespond,a
significantexpressionofopinionbythelegalcommunityaboutjudicialofficer
performance.TheAssociationdoesrecommendthattheseresultsnotbeconsideredasa
solemeasureofperformance,butinsteadstronglyurgesthebar,bench,andpublictoalso
takeintoaccountjudicialcandidateevaluationratingsbyKCBAandotherbarassociations
forthosejudgesincontestedelectioncampaignsandpublicdebateforumsduringelection
yearstoformafullopinionaboutjudicialperformance.
26
AppendixA
JudicialOfficerSurveyCommitteeMembers
CarlE.Forsberg,Forsberg&UmlaufPS,Chair
JosephE.Bringman,PerkinsCoieLLP
TaraGillespie,SeattleCityAttorney'sOffice
JosephGroshong,SeattleCityAttorney'sOffice
DanieleHavens,Milios&Associates
KennethP.Henrikson,KingCountyDepartmentofPublicDefense
Hon.ParisKallas(Ret.),JudicialDisputeResolution
SamuelLeonard,AttorneyatLaw
Hon.TerenceP.Lukens(Ret.),JAMS
AndrewW.Maron,ShortCressmanBurgess
GregoryMiller,CarneyBadleySpellman
JulieNicoll,LanePowellPC
JenniferPayseno,McKinleyIrvinPLLC
MichaelRicketts,GordonThomasHoneywell
AndrewTsoming,SeattleCityAttorney'sOffice
RobertWayne,AttorneyatLaw
NathanielWylie,AttorneyatLaw
27
AppendixB:Survey
Roughly how many times have you appeared before the judge over the past 4 years?
Select one.
Once
2 to 3 times
4 to 10 times
More than 10 times
Legal Ability 10. How would you rate this judge's ability to capably identify and analyze legal and factual issues?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
11. How would you rate this judge's ability to capably apply rules of evidence and procedure?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
28
12. How would you rate this judge's ability to articulate rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
13. How would you rate this judge's preparation for court?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
Integrity and Impartiality 14. How would you rate this judge's avoidance of impropriety and the appearance of impropriety?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
29
15. How well did this judge treat all people equally without bias based on race, gender, or any extralegal personal characteristic?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
16. How well did this judge base his or her rulings on the facts and the law?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
17. How well did this judge display a neutral presence on the bench?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
30
Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication 18. How well did this judge treat people with courtesy and respect?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
19. How attentive was this judge to the proceedings?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
31
20. How well did this judge act with patience and self‐control?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
21. How well did this judge use clear and logical communication while in court?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
32
Administrative Skills 22. How well did this judge maintain control over the courtroom?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
23. How appropriately does this judge maintain case management and enforce court rules and deadlines?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
33
24. How prompt and timely is this judge in making decisions and rulings?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
25. How well does this judge use the court's time efficiently?
Select one.
Excellent
Very good
Acceptable
Below expectations
Unacceptable
Don't know
34
26. Please provide any additional comments or details related to either the items raised in this questionnaire or the judge's performance in the space below. Note: As this information will be provided to the judge, please refrain from providing any information that might identify you.
35
AppendixC:DetailedSurveyResultsbyJudgeandCommissioner
JUDGECHADALLRED
20Respondents
3.99
3.65 Legal Decision Making
3.97
4.13 Integrity and Impartiality
Judge Court Average
3.89
4.16 Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication
4.15
4.09 Administrative Skills
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Average
36
4
5
Judge Allred Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.65 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.55 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.45 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.65 3.95 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.13 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.25 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.16 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.89 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.21 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.16 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.20 4.20 4.25 4.00 4.09 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.25 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.94 4.10 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.05 EVALUATIONTABLES
10. Capably identified and analyzed legal
and factual issues
11. Capably applied rules of evidence and
procedure
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
10.0%
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
10.0%
Unacceptable
1
5.0%
Acceptable
4
20.0%
Below Expectations
4
20.0%
4
20.0%
Very Good
7
35.0%
Acceptable
Excellent
5
25.0%
Very Good
7
35.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Excellent
4
20.0%
Total
20
100.0%
37
12. Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings
in clear & concise manner
16. Based rulings on the facts and the law
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
5.3%
Unacceptable
2
10.0%
Below Expectations
2
10.5%
Below Expectations
1
5.0%
Acceptable
2
10.5%
Acceptable
3
15.0%
Very Good
7
36.8%
Very Good
10
50.0%
Excellent
7
36.8%
Excellent
4
20.0%
Total
19
100.0%
Total
20
100.0%
17. Displayed a neutral presence on the
bench
13. Was prepared for court
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
5.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
5.0%
Below Expectations
1
5.3%
Acceptable
3
15.0%
Acceptable
3
15.8%
Very Good
8
40.0%
Very Good
6
31.6%
Excellent
7
35.0%
Excellent
9
47.4%
Total
20
100.0%
Total
19
100.0%
14. Avoided impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety
18. Treated people with courtesy and respect
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
5.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
15.0%
Acceptable
5
25.0%
Very Good
6
30.0%
Very Good
5
25.0%
Excellent
10
50.0%
Excellent
10
50.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Total
20
100.0%
19. Was attentive to proceedings
15. Treated all people equally without bias
based on race, gender, or any other
extralegal personal characteristic
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
20.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
8
40.0%
Acceptable
6
31.6%
Excellent
8
40.0%
Very Good
4
21.1%
Total
20
100.0%
Excellent
9
47.4%
Total
19
100.0%
38
20. Acted with patience and self-control
24. Made decisions and rulings in a prompt,
timely manner
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
20.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
7
35.0%
Acceptable
5
25.0%
Excellent
9
45.0%
Very Good
8
40.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Excellent
7
35.0%
Total
20
100.0%
21. Used clear and logical oral
communication while in court
25. Used the court’s time efficiently
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
5.0%
Unacceptable
1
5.3%
Below Expectations
1
5.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
10.0%
Acceptable
4
21.1%
Very Good
9
45.0%
Very Good
6
31.6%
Excellent
7
35.0%
Excellent
8
42.1%
Total
20
100.0%
Total
19
100.0%
22. Maintained control over the courtroom
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
15.0%
Very Good
9
45.0%
Excellent
8
40.0%
Total
20
100.0%
23. Appropriately enforced court rules and
deadlines
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
6.3%
Below Expectations
1
6.3%
Acceptable
2
12.5%
Very Good
6
37.5%
Excellent
6
37.5%
Total
16
100.0%
39
RESPONDENTCHARACTERISTICS
Roughly how many times have you
appeared before the judge over the past 2
years?
How many attorneys are employed by your
law firm?
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Once
6
30.0%
Sole Practitioner
3
15.0%
2 to 3 times
7
35.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
7
35.0%
4 to 10 times
4
20.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
2
10.0%
More than 10 times
3
15.0%
11 to 20 Attorneys
2
10.0%
Total
20
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
6
30.0%
Total
20
100.0%
How long have you been a practicing
attorney?
What best describes your racial
background?
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
2
10.0%
Caucasian / White
19
95.0%
6 to 10 years
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
11 to 20 years
13
65.0%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
5
25.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
0
0.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
1
5.0%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
0
0.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Which of the following areas of law best
describe your practice?
Judge Allred
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
8
40.0%
General Civil
6
30.0%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
3
15.0%
Judge
Allred
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
0
0.0%
Male
14
70.0%
Other
3
15.0%
Female
6
30.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Total
20
100.0%
What is your gender?
40
JUDGESUSANAMINI
79Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
41
Judge Amini Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.55 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.51 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.57 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.51 3.63 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.01 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.15 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.34 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.44 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.12 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.17 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.36 4.27 4.30 3.73 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.74 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.96 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.76 3.62 3.63 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.4%
Unacceptable
3
5.0%
Below Expectations
15
21.7%
Below Expectations
9
15.0%
Acceptable
17
24.6%
Acceptable
13
21.7%
Very Good
20
29.0%
Very Good
21
35.0%
Excellent
16
23.2%
Excellent
14
23.3%
Total
69
100.0%
Total
60
100.0%
42
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.7%
Unacceptable
5
7.4%
Below Expectations
14
21.9%
Below Expectations
10
14.7%
Acceptable
15
23.4%
Acceptable
16
23.5%
Very Good
16
25.0%
Very Good
19
27.9%
Excellent
16
25.0%
Excellent
18
26.5%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
68
100.0%
bench
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
9
12.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.9%
Acceptable
29
39.7%
Acceptable
19
25.0%
Very Good
15
20.5%
Very Good
20
26.3%
Excellent
20
27.4%
Excellent
34
44.7%
Total
73
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.3%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Acceptable
11
14.3%
Acceptable
17
23.6%
Very Good
24
31.2%
Very Good
24
33.3%
Excellent
41
53.2%
Excellent
30
41.7%
Total
77
100.0%
Total
72
100.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
15
19.5%
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Very Good
26
33.8%
Acceptable
10
14.7%
Excellent
36
46.8%
Very Good
22
32.4%
Total
77
100.0%
Excellent
35
51.5%
Total
68
100.0%
43
timely manner
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
3
4.9%
Acceptable
15
20.3%
Below Expectations
6
9.8%
Very Good
22
29.7%
Acceptable
21
34.4%
Excellent
37
50.0%
Very Good
12
19.7%
Total
74
100.0%
Excellent
19
31.1%
Total
61
100.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.0%
Unacceptable
5
7.4%
Below Expectations
9
12.0%
Below Expectations
4
5.9%
Acceptable
18
24.0%
Acceptable
21
30.9%
Very Good
20
26.7%
Very Good
19
27.9%
Excellent
25
33.3%
Excellent
19
27.9%
Total
75
100.0%
Total
68
100.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
4.1%
Acceptable
23
31.1%
Very Good
22
29.7%
Excellent
26
35.1%
Total
74
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
5.5%
Below Expectations
2
3.6%
Acceptable
15
27.3%
Very Good
20
36.4%
Excellent
15
27.3%
Total
55
100.0%
44
years?
law firm?
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Once
32
40.5%
Sole Practitioner
19
24.1%
2 to 3 times
32
40.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
20
25.3%
4 to 10 times
14
17.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
10
12.7%
More than 10 times
1
1.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
4
5.1%
Total
79
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
26
32.9%
Total
79
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
8
10.1%
Caucasian / White
67
84.8%
6 to 10 years
16
20.3%
2
2.5%
11 to 20 years
27
34.2%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
28
35.4%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
0
0.0%
Total
79
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
7.6%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
4
5.1%
Total
79
100.0%
Judge Amini
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
33
41.8%
General Civil
22
27.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
21
26.6%
Judge
Amini
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
1
1.3%
Male
41
52.6%
Other
2
2.5%
Female
37
47.4%
Total
79
100.0%
Total
78
100.0%
45
JUDGEBETHANDRUS
139Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
46
Judge Andrus Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.32 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.33 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.25 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.36 4.35 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.37 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.50 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.49 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.13 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.36 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.47 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.44 4.53 4.46 4.43 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.39 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.45 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.26 4.42 4.42 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
procedure
and factual issues
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
6
4.7%
Below Expectations
6
4.4%
Acceptable
16
12.5%
Acceptable
11
8.1%
Very Good
46
35.9%
Very Good
47
34.6%
Excellent
60
46.9%
Excellent
71
52.2%
Total
128
100.0%
Total
136
100.0%
47
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
10
7.6%
Below Expectations
5
3.8%
Acceptable
16
12.1%
Acceptable
10
7.7%
Very Good
45
34.1%
Very Good
44
33.8%
Excellent
59
44.7%
Excellent
70
53.8%
Total
132
100.0%
Total
130
100.0%
bench
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
4
3.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Acceptable
17
12.8%
Acceptable
19
14.7%
Very Good
41
30.8%
Very Good
38
29.5%
Excellent
71
53.4%
Excellent
70
54.3%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
129
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
8.8%
Acceptable
14
11.2%
Very Good
45
33.1%
Very Good
31
24.8%
Excellent
77
56.6%
Excellent
79
63.2%
Total
136
100.0%
Total
125
100.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.3%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Acceptable
7
5.3%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Very Good
38
29.0%
Acceptable
12
10.1%
Excellent
83
63.4%
Very Good
30
25.2%
Total
131
100.0%
Excellent
75
63.0%
Total
119
100.0%
48
timely manner
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
9.9%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Very Good
39
29.8%
Acceptable
16
12.3%
Excellent
77
58.8%
Very Good
41
31.5%
Total
131
100.0%
Excellent
72
55.4%
Total
130
100.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
3.8%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Acceptable
8
6.0%
Acceptable
17
13.2%
Very Good
45
33.8%
Very Good
38
29.5%
Excellent
75
56.4%
Excellent
73
56.6%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
129
100.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
10.2%
Very Good
44
34.4%
Excellent
71
55.5%
Total
128
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
4
3.6%
Acceptable
14
12.6%
Very Good
38
34.2%
Excellent
54
48.6%
Total
111
100.0%
49
years?
How many attorneys are employed by your law
firm?
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
29
20.9%
Once
54
38.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
41
29.5%
2 to 3 times
52
37.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
8
5.8%
4 to 10 times
22
15.8%
11 to 20 Attorneys
12
8.6%
More than 10 times
11
7.9%
More than 20 Attorneys
49
35.3%
Total
139
100.0%
Total
139
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.7%
3 to 5 years
10
7.2%
6 to 10 years
21
15.1%
11 to 20 years
45
32.4%
More than 20 years
62
44.6%
Total
139
100.0%
What best describes your racial background?
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
118
84.9%
African American / Black
6
4.3%
Hispanic / Latino / Latina
3
2.2%
Asian / Pacific Islander
8
5.8%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
4
2.9%
Total
139
100.0%
Judge Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
37
26.6%
General Civil
82
59.0%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
8
5.8%
Government
Practice
5
3.6%
Other
7
5.0%
Total
139
100.0%
50
Judge
Andrus
Frequency
Percent
Male
78
56.5%
Female
60
43.5%
Total
138
100.0%
JUDGEMONICABENTON
153Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
51
Judge Benton Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.10 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.03 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.05 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.03 3.27 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.61 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.87 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.92 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.06 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.57 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.60 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.70 3.73 3.61 3.35 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.62 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.81 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.52 3.54 3.59 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
16
10.7%
Unacceptable
12
8.5%
Below Expectations
36
24.0%
Below Expectations
32
22.7%
Acceptable
42
28.0%
Acceptable
49
34.8%
Very Good
40
26.7%
Very Good
33
23.4%
Excellent
16
10.7%
Excellent
15
10.6%
Total
150
100.0%
Total
141
100.0%
52
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
21
14.3%
Unacceptable
16
11.1%
Below Expectations
31
21.1%
Below Expectations
32
22.2%
Acceptable
34
23.1%
Acceptable
44
30.6%
Very Good
40
27.2%
Very Good
35
24.3%
Excellent
21
14.3%
Excellent
17
11.8%
Total
147
100.0%
Total
144
100.0%
bench
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
3.5%
Unacceptable
7
4.9%
Below Expectations
30
20.8%
Below Expectations
19
13.4%
Acceptable
52
36.1%
Acceptable
40
28.2%
Very Good
35
24.3%
Very Good
38
26.8%
Excellent
22
15.3%
Excellent
38
26.8%
Total
144
100.0%
Total
142
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
5.4%
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
13
8.8%
Below Expectations
9
6.5%
Acceptable
45
30.4%
Acceptable
44
31.7%
Very Good
32
21.6%
Very Good
34
24.5%
Excellent
50
33.8%
Excellent
50
36.0%
Total
148
100.0%
Total
139
100.0%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.1%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
15
10.3%
Unacceptable
4
2.9%
Acceptable
46
31.5%
Below Expectations
10
7.2%
Very Good
36
24.7%
Acceptable
36
25.9%
Excellent
46
31.5%
Very Good
32
23.0%
Total
146
100.0%
Excellent
57
41.0%
Total
139
100.0%
53
timely manner
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
4.8%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
17
11.7%
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Acceptable
40
27.6%
Below Expectations
15
10.9%
Very Good
42
29.0%
Acceptable
54
39.1%
Excellent
39
26.9%
Very Good
40
29.0%
Total
145
100.0%
Excellent
27
19.6%
Total
138
100.0%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
5.5%
Below Expectations
26
17.9%
Acceptable
48
33.1%
Very Good
33
22.8%
Excellent
30
20.7%
Total
145
100.0%
Judge Benton
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
9
6.3%
Acceptable
48
33.3%
Very Good
44
30.6%
Excellent
42
29.2%
Total
144
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
17
13.5%
Acceptable
46
36.5%
Very Good
35
27.8%
Excellent
26
20.6%
Total
126
100.0%
54
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
12
8.6%
Acceptable
53
38.1%
Very Good
46
33.1%
Excellent
26
18.7%
Total
139
100.0%
law firm?
years?
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
31
20.3%
Once
67
43.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
37
24.2%
2 to 3 times
62
40.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
8
5.2%
4 to 10 times
17
11.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
14
9.2%
More than 10 times
7
4.6%
Total
153
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
63
41.2%
Total
153
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
10
6.5%
Caucasian / White
136
89.5%
6 to 10 years
15
9.8%
5
3.3%
11 to 20 years
41
26.8%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
87
56.9%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
1
0.7%
Total
153
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
3
2.0%
Native American
1
0.7%
Other
6
3.9%
Total
152
100.0%
Judge Benton
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
47
30.7%
General Civil
72
47.1%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
15
9.8%
Judge
Benton
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
13
8.5%
Male
99
64.7%
Other
6
3.9%
Female
54
35.3%
Total
153
100.0%
Total
153
100.0%
55
JUDGEELIZABETHBERNS
82Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
56
Judge Berns Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.99 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.90 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.87 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.97 4.21 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.16 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.29 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.27 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.86 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.20 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.24 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.28 4.27 4.31 4.09 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.31 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.13 4.27 4.22 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
procedure
and factual issues
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Below Expectations
6
7.7%
Acceptable
17
21.8%
Very Good
18
23.1%
Excellent
33
42.3%
Total
78
100.0%
57
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.6%
Below Expectations
6
8.5%
Acceptable
13
18.3%
Very Good
20
28.2%
Excellent
28
39.4%
Total
71
100.0%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.8%
Unacceptable
2
2.7%
Below Expectations
8
11.0%
Below Expectations
6
8.0%
Acceptable
10
13.7%
Acceptable
13
17.3%
Very Good
19
26.0%
Very Good
25
33.3%
Excellent
31
42.5%
Excellent
29
38.7%
Total
73
100.0%
Total
75
100.0%
bench
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.4%
Unacceptable
3
3.9%
Below Expectations
2
2.8%
Below Expectations
5
6.6%
Acceptable
15
20.8%
Acceptable
7
9.2%
Very Good
17
23.6%
Very Good
20
26.3%
Excellent
37
51.4%
Excellent
41
53.9%
Total
72
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.5%
Unacceptable
2
2.6%
Below Expectations
2
2.5%
Below Expectations
2
2.6%
Acceptable
12
15.2%
Acceptable
10
13.0%
Very Good
19
24.1%
Very Good
21
27.3%
Excellent
44
55.7%
Excellent
42
54.5%
Total
79
100.0%
Total
77
100.0%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.3%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
3.8%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
13.9%
Below Expectations
7
9.6%
Very Good
23
29.1%
Acceptable
7
9.6%
Excellent
41
51.9%
Very Good
18
24.7%
Total
79
100.0%
Excellent
41
56.2%
Total
73
100.0%
58
deadlines
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.3%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.6%
Unacceptable
1
1.4%
Acceptable
11
14.3%
Below Expectations
4
5.7%
Very Good
21
27.3%
Acceptable
12
17.1%
Excellent
42
54.5%
Very Good
21
30.0%
Total
77
100.0%
Excellent
32
45.7%
Total
70
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.3%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
7
9.2%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
15.8%
Below Expectations
3
4.1%
Very Good
20
26.3%
Acceptable
10
13.5%
Excellent
36
47.4%
Very Good
25
33.8%
Total
76
100.0%
Excellent
36
48.6%
Total
74
100.0%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.3%
Below Expectations
1
Acceptable
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
1.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
9
12.0%
Below Expectations
4
5.5%
Very Good
27
36.0%
Acceptable
11
15.1%
Excellent
37
49.3%
Very Good
23
31.5%
Total
75
100.0%
Excellent
35
47.9%
Total
73
100.0%
59
years?
law firm?
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
31
37.8%
Once
28
34.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
20
24.4%
2 to 3 times
25
30.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
5
6.1%
4 to 10 times
16
19.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
6
7.3%
More than 10 times
13
15.9%
Total
82
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
20
24.4%
Total
82
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.2%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
7.3%
Caucasian / White
68
82.9%
6 to 10 years
13
15.9%
1
1.2%
11 to 20 years
19
23.2%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
43
52.4%
2
2.4%
Total
82
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
7.3%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
5
6.1%
Total
82
100.0%
Judge Berns
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
30
36.6%
General Civil
11
13.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
36
43.9%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Berns
3
3.7%
Male
39
47.6%
Other
2
2.4%
Female
43
52.4%
Total
82
100.0%
Total
82
100.0%
60
JUDGEBILLBOWMAN
113Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
61
Judge Bowman Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.51 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.53 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.45 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.51 4.53 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.56 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.60 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.65 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.42 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.56 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.65 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.71 4.66 4.68 4.56 4.49 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.54 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.51 4.42 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.48 EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
6
5.4%
Acceptable
6
5.6%
Very Good
37
33.0%
Very Good
39
36.1%
Excellent
68
60.7%
Excellent
61
56.5%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
108
100.0%
62
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
3
2.7%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Acceptable
5
4.5%
Acceptable
8
7.3%
Very Good
37
33.3%
Very Good
30
27.5%
Excellent
64
57.7%
Excellent
69
63.3%
Total
111
100.0%
Total
109
100.0%
bench
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Acceptable
8
7.2%
Acceptable
9
8.1%
Very Good
33
29.7%
Very Good
28
25.2%
Excellent
69
62.2%
Excellent
73
65.8%
Total
111
100.0%
Total
111
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
3.6%
Acceptable
9
8.5%
Very Good
25
22.3%
Very Good
24
22.6%
Excellent
83
74.1%
Excellent
73
68.9%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
106
100.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
2.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
29
26.1%
Acceptable
5
4.6%
Excellent
78
70.3%
Very Good
28
25.7%
Total
111
100.0%
Excellent
76
69.7%
Total
109
100.0%
63
timely manner
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
3.6%
Below Expectations
2
1.9%
Very Good
27
24.5%
Acceptable
7
6.6%
Excellent
79
71.8%
Very Good
41
38.7%
Total
110
100.0%
Excellent
56
52.8%
Total
106
100.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
2
1.9%
Acceptable
4
3.6%
Acceptable
7
6.6%
Very Good
34
30.4%
Very Good
35
33.0%
Excellent
72
64.3%
Excellent
62
58.5%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
106
100.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Acceptable
9
8.3%
Very Good
29
26.6%
Excellent
70
64.2%
Total
109
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
6
6.3%
Very Good
32
33.7%
Excellent
56
58.9%
Total
95
100.0%
64
law firm?
years?
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
28
24.8%
Once
30
26.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
21
18.6%
2 to 3 times
30
26.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
6
5.3%
4 to 10 times
24
21.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
7
6.2%
More than 10 times
29
25.7%
Total
113
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
51
45.1%
Total
113
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.9%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
8
7.1%
Caucasian / White
94
83.9%
6 to 10 years
20
17.7%
3
2.7%
11 to 20 years
34
30.1%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
50
44.2%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
2
1.8%
Total
113
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
10
8.9%
Native American
1
0.9%
Other
2
1.8%
Total
112
100.0%
Judge Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
62
54.9%
General Civil
31
27.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
7
6.2%
Judge
Bowman
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
6
5.3%
Male
63
55.8%
Other
7
6.2%
Female
50
44.2%
113
100.0%
113
100.0
%
Total
Total
65
JUDGETIMOTHYBRADSHAW
131Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
66
Judge Bradshaw Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.85 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.76 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.79 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.86 3.98 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.05 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.15 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.27 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.76 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.02 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.15 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.24 4.21 4.20 3.97 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.99 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.20 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.84 3.85 4.05 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
4.0%
Unacceptable
6
5.0%
Below Expectations
11
8.7%
Below Expectations
8
6.6%
Acceptable
27
21.4%
Acceptable
29
24.0%
Very Good
49
38.9%
Very Good
41
33.9%
Excellent
34
27.0%
Excellent
37
30.6%
Total
126
100.0%
Total
121
100.0%
67
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
5.7%
Unacceptable
5
4.0%
Below Expectations
13
10.6%
Below Expectations
9
7.2%
Acceptable
21
17.1%
Acceptable
23
18.4%
Very Good
44
35.8%
Very Good
49
39.2%
Excellent
38
30.9%
Excellent
39
31.2%
Total
123
100.0%
Total
125
100.0%
bench
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
4
3.1%
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Unacceptable
Below Expectations
6
4.9%
Below Expectations
6
4.7%
Acceptable
27
22.0%
Acceptable
25
19.7%
Very Good
46
37.4%
Very Good
40
31.5%
Excellent
42
34.1%
Excellent
52
40.9%
Total
123
100.0%
Total
127
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
3
2.6%
Below Expectations
4
3.2%
Below Expectations
6
5.2%
Acceptable
21
16.8%
Acceptable
15
12.9%
Very Good
41
32.8%
Very Good
39
33.6%
Excellent
59
47.2%
Excellent
53
45.7%
Total
125
100.0%
Total
116
100.0%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
2
1.8%
Acceptable
19
16.8%
Very Good
34
30.1%
Excellent
57
50.4%
Total
113
100.0%
68
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
25
20.0%
Very Good
41
32.8%
Excellent
57
45.6%
Total
125
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Unacceptable
3
2.4%
Acceptable
25
19.7%
Below Expectations
9
7.3%
Very Good
38
29.9%
Acceptable
27
22.0%
Excellent
60
47.2%
Very Good
48
39.0%
Total
127
100.0%
Excellent
36
29.3%
Total
123
100.0%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.4%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
8
6.4%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Acceptable
23
18.4%
Acceptable
26
22.2%
Very Good
47
37.6%
Very Good
52
44.4%
Excellent
44
35.2%
Excellent
37
31.6%
Total
125
100.0%
Total
117
100.0%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Acceptable
24
19.5%
Very Good
44
35.8%
Excellent
53
43.1%
Total
123
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.6%
Below Expectations
5
4.3%
Acceptable
30
25.6%
Very Good
49
41.9%
Excellent
30
25.6%
Total
117
100.0%
69
years?
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Once
64
48.9%
2 to 3 times
47
35.9%
4 to 10 times
16
12.2%
More than 10 times
4
3.1%
Total
131
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
40
30.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
25
19.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
15
11.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
13
9.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
38
29.0%
Total
131
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
12
9.2%
Caucasian / White
114
87.0%
6 to 10 years
17
13.0%
7
5.3%
11 to 20 years
33
25.2%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
69
52.7%
0
0.0%
Total
131
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
5.3%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
2.3%
Total
131
100.0%
Judge Bradshaw
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
28
21.4%
General Civil
53
40.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
36
27.5%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Bradshaw
4
3.1%
Male
73
56.2%
Other
10
7.6%
Female
57
43.8%
Total
131
100.0%
Total
130
100.0%
70
JUDGEREGINACAHAN
48Respondents
3.99
3.97
Demeanor, Temperament, and
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.29 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
71
5
Judge Cahan Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.05 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.00 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.11 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.96 4.14 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.23 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.43 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.43 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.80 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.25 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.29 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.43 4.26 4.34 4.13 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.23 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.16 4.28 4.23 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
6.4%
Below Expectations
2
4.5%
Acceptable
8
17.0%
Acceptable
7
15.9%
Very Good
18
38.3%
Very Good
19
43.2%
Excellent
17
36.2%
Excellent
16
36.4%
Total
47
100.0%
Total
44
100.0%
72
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
6.5%
Unacceptable
1
2.2%
Below Expectations
5
10.9%
Below Expectations
5
10.9%
Acceptable
7
15.2%
Acceptable
5
10.9%
Very Good
14
30.4%
Very Good
19
41.3%
Excellent
17
37.0%
Excellent
16
34.8%
Total
46
100.0%
Total
46
100.0%
bench
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.3%
Unacceptable
3
6.5%
Below Expectations
2
4.5%
Below Expectations
5
10.9%
Acceptable
5
11.4%
Acceptable
7
15.2%
Very Good
18
40.9%
Very Good
14
30.4%
Excellent
18
40.9%
Excellent
17
37.0%
Total
44
100.0%
Total
46
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
5
10.6%
Acceptable
5
11.9%
Very Good
17
36.2%
Very Good
14
33.3%
Excellent
25
53.2%
Excellent
23
54.8%
Total
47
100.0%
Total
42
100.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
4.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
5
10.9%
Below Expectations
1
2.4%
Very Good
18
39.1%
Acceptable
4
9.5%
Excellent
21
45.7%
Very Good
13
31.0%
Total
46
100.0%
Excellent
24
57.1%
Total
42
100.0%
73
timely manner
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
14.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
17
36.2%
Acceptable
8
17.4%
Excellent
23
48.9%
Very Good
17
37.0%
Total
47
100.0%
Excellent
21
45.7%
Total
46
100.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
4.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
14.9%
Acceptable
9
20.9%
Very Good
21
44.7%
Very Good
15
34.9%
Excellent
17
36.2%
Excellent
19
44.2%
Total
47
100.0%
Total
43
100.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
16.3%
Very Good
19
44.2%
Excellent
17
39.5%
Total
43
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
2.7%
Acceptable
8
21.6%
Very Good
12
32.4%
Excellent
16
43.2%
Total
37
100.0%
74
years?
law firm?
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
13
27.1%
Once
24
50.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
10
20.8%
2 to 3 times
17
35.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
7
14.6%
4 to 10 times
5
10.4%
11 to 20 Attorneys
7
14.6%
More than 10 times
2
4.2%
Total
48
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
11
22.9%
Total
48
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
5
10.4%
42
87.5%
6 to 10 years
7
14.6%
Caucasian /
White
11 to 20 years
9
18.8%
1
2.1%
More than 20 years
27
56.3%
African American
/ Black
Total
48
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
2
4.2%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
1
2.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
Other
2
4.2%
Criminal Law
7
14.6%
Total
48
100.0%
General Civil
10
20.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
24
50.0%
Government
Practice
3
Other
Total
Judge Cahan
Frequency
Percent
6.3%
Male
15
31.3%
4
8.3%
Female
33
68.8%
48
100.0%
Total
48
100.0%
75
JUDGECHERYLCAREY
72Respondents
3.99
3.97
Integrity and Impartiality
3.89
Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication
4.52 Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.37 76
4
5
Judge Carey Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.28 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.19 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.23 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.34 4.37 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.37 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.37 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.49 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.26 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.34 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.52 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.54 4.59 4.49 4.44 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.42 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.46 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.38 4.43 4.40 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Acceptable
19
28.4%
Acceptable
12
18.5%
Very Good
16
23.9%
Very Good
23
35.4%
Excellent
32
47.8%
Excellent
29
44.6%
Total
67
100.0%
Total
65
100.0%
77
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
15
22.7%
Acceptable
11
16.2%
Very Good
16
24.2%
Very Good
23
33.8%
Excellent
34
51.5%
Excellent
34
50.0%
Total
66
100.0%
Total
68
100.0%
bench
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
5.7%
Acceptable
12
18.5%
Acceptable
7
10.0%
Very Good
17
26.2%
Very Good
20
28.6%
Excellent
36
55.4%
Excellent
39
55.7%
Total
65
100.0%
Total
70
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
9.9%
Acceptable
11
16.4%
Very Good
16
22.5%
Very Good
20
29.9%
Excellent
47
66.2%
Excellent
36
53.7%
Total
71
100.0%
Total
67
100.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
6
8.5%
Below Expectations
2
3.0%
Very Good
17
23.9%
Acceptable
6
9.0%
Excellent
48
67.6%
Very Good
16
23.9%
Total
71
100.0%
Excellent
43
64.2%
Total
67
100.0%
78
deadlines
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Acceptable
10
14.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
15
21.7%
Acceptable
8
13.1%
Excellent
44
63.8%
Very Good
18
29.5%
Total
69
100.0%
Excellent
34
55.7%
Total
61
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
10
14.3%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Very Good
19
27.1%
Acceptable
7
11.1%
Excellent
41
58.6%
Very Good
19
30.2%
Total
70
100.0%
Excellent
36
57.1%
Total
63
100.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
Acceptable
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
1.4%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
8
11.4%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
19
27.1%
Acceptable
10
14.9%
Excellent
42
60.0%
Very Good
20
29.9%
Total
70
100.0%
Excellent
37
55.2%
Total
67
100.0%
79
years?
law firm?
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
23
31.9%
Once
15
20.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
11
15.3%
2 to 3 times
13
18.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
2
2.8%
4 to 10 times
18
25.0%
11 to 20 Attorneys
1
1.4%
More than 10 times
26
36.1%
Total
72
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
35
48.6%
Total
72
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.4%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
8.3%
Caucasian / White
56
77.8%
6 to 10 years
15
20.8%
5
6.9%
11 to 20 years
20
27.8%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
30
41.7%
4
5.6%
Total
72
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
5.6%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
4.2%
Total
72
100.0%
Judge Carey
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
54
75.0%
General Civil
9
12.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
4
5.6%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Carey
1
1.4%
Male
40
55.6%
Other
4
5.6%
Female
32
44.4%
Total
72
100.0%
Total
72
100.0%
80
JUDGEJAMESCAYCE
79Respondents
Legal Decision Making
3.99
3.97
3.91 Demeanor, Temperament, and
Communication
3.89
3.96 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Judge Court Average
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
81
5
Judge Cayce Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.87 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.90 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.92 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.83 3.82 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.91 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.00 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.14 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.69 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.79 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.96 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.99 3.99 3.90 3.95 4.08 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.16 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.95 4.07 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.15 EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Unacceptable
5
6.6%
Below Expectations
8
10.3%
Below Expectations
6
7.9%
Acceptable
13
16.7%
Acceptable
13
17.1%
Very Good
20
25.6%
Very Good
18
23.7%
Excellent
33
42.3%
Excellent
34
44.7%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
82
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
9
11.5%
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Below Expectations
8
10.3%
Below Expectations
7
9.0%
Acceptable
11
14.1%
Acceptable
18
23.1%
Very Good
20
25.6%
Very Good
18
23.1%
Excellent
30
38.5%
Excellent
31
39.7%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
78
100.0%
bench
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
9.1%
Unacceptable
5
6.4%
Below Expectations
3
3.9%
Below Expectations
9
11.5%
Acceptable
16
20.8%
Acceptable
14
17.9%
Very Good
22
28.6%
Very Good
19
24.4%
Excellent
29
37.7%
Excellent
31
39.7%
Total
77
100.0%
Total
78
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Unacceptable
3
4.0%
Below Expectations
6
7.7%
Below Expectations
5
6.7%
Acceptable
14
17.9%
Acceptable
16
21.3%
Very Good
17
21.8%
Very Good
16
21.3%
Excellent
37
47.4%
Excellent
35
46.7%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
75
100.0%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.9%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
5.2%
Unacceptable
5
7.1%
Acceptable
17
22.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Very Good
20
26.0%
Acceptable
9
12.9%
Excellent
33
42.9%
Very Good
19
27.1%
Total
77
100.0%
Excellent
36
51.4%
Total
70
100.0%
83
deadlines
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.4%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
5.1%
Unacceptable
3
4.5%
Acceptable
18
23.1%
Below Expectations
3
4.5%
Very Good
18
23.1%
Acceptable
16
24.2%
Excellent
33
42.3%
Very Good
16
24.2%
Total
78
100.0%
Excellent
28
42.4%
Total
66
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.8%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
8
10.3%
Unacceptable
2
2.6%
Acceptable
13
16.7%
Below Expectations
2
2.6%
Very Good
20
25.6%
Acceptable
19
25.0%
Excellent
34
43.6%
Very Good
19
25.0%
Total
78
100.0%
Excellent
34
44.7%
Total
76
100.0%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.6%
Below Expectations
2
Acceptable
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
2.6%
Unacceptable
1
1.4%
16
20.8%
Below Expectations
2
2.7%
Very Good
19
24.7%
Acceptable
18
24.3%
Excellent
38
49.4%
Very Good
17
23.0%
Total
77
100.0%
Excellent
36
48.6%
Total
74
100.0%
84
years?
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Once
31
39.2%
2 to 3 times
17
21.5%
4 to 10 times
11
13.9%
More than 10 times
20
25.3%
Total
79
100.0%
How many attorneys are employed by your law
firm?
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
22
27.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
14
17.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
5
6.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
4
5.1%
More than 20 Attorneys
34
43.0%
Total
79
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
5
6.3%
6 to 10 years
11
13.9%
11 to 20 years
29
36.7%
More than 20 years
34
43.0%
Total
79
100.0%
background?
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
38
48.1%
General Civil
29
36.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
3
3.8%
Government
Practice
4
5.1%
Other
5
6.3%
Total
79
100.0%
Judge Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
63
79.7%
African American
/ Black
6
7.6%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
3
3.8%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
5.1%
Native American
2
2.5%
Other
1
1.3%
Total
79
100.0%
85
Judge
Cayce
Frequency
Percent
Male
45
57.0%
Female
34
43.0%
Total
79
100.0%
JUDGEJOHNCHUN
61Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.32 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
86
5
Judge Chun Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.99 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.93 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.93 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.92 4.19 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.22 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.33 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.41 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.93 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.20 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.32 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.39 4.37 4.34 4.18 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.12 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.23 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.04 4.11 4.11 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.8%
Unacceptable
1
1.8%
Below Expectations
3
5.3%
Below Expectations
2
3.6%
Acceptable
15
26.3%
Acceptable
16
29.1%
Very Good
18
31.6%
Very Good
17
30.9%
Excellent
20
35.1%
Excellent
19
34.5%
Total
57
100.0%
Total
55
100.0%
87
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.7%
Unacceptable
1
1.7%
Below Expectations
4
6.9%
Below Expectations
3
5.1%
Acceptable
14
24.1%
Acceptable
15
25.4%
Very Good
18
31.0%
Very Good
21
35.6%
Excellent
21
36.2%
Excellent
19
32.2%
Total
58
100.0%
Total
59
100.0%
bench
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
3.3%
Below Expectations
2
3.4%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Acceptable
13
22.0%
Acceptable
9
14.8%
Very Good
16
27.1%
Very Good
20
32.8%
Excellent
28
47.5%
Excellent
29
47.5%
Total
59
100.0%
Total
61
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.7%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Below Expectations
1
1.7%
Acceptable
8
13.1%
Acceptable
7
12.1%
Very Good
18
29.5%
Very Good
18
31.0%
Excellent
34
55.7%
Excellent
31
53.4%
Total
61
100.0%
Total
58
100.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.9%
Acceptable
8
13.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
22
36.7%
Acceptable
6
11.1%
Excellent
30
50.0%
Very Good
16
29.6%
Total
60
100.0%
Excellent
31
57.4%
Total
54
100.0%
88
deadlines
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
4.3%
Acceptable
9
15.3%
Below Expectations
1
2.1%
Very Good
21
35.6%
Acceptable
9
19.1%
Excellent
29
49.2%
Very Good
16
34.0%
Total
59
100.0%
Excellent
19
40.4%
Total
47
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
19.7%
Below Expectations
1
1.9%
Very Good
23
37.7%
Acceptable
12
22.6%
Excellent
25
41.0%
Very Good
20
37.7%
Total
61
100.0%
Excellent
20
37.7%
Total
53
100.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
Acceptable
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.8%
13
22.8%
Below Expectations
1
1.8%
Very Good
18
31.6%
Acceptable
11
20.0%
Excellent
26
45.6%
Very Good
20
36.4%
Total
57
100.0%
Excellent
22
40.0%
Total
55
100.0%
89
years?
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Once
31
50.8%
2 to 3 times
17
27.9%
4 to 10 times
12
19.7%
More than 10 times
1
1.6%
Total
61
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
10
16.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
10
16.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
5
8.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
3
4.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
33
54.1%
Total
61
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
9
14.8%
51
83.6%
6 to 10 years
10
16.4%
Caucasian /
White
11 to 20 years
17
27.9%
3
4.9%
More than 20 years
25
41.0%
African American
/ Black
Total
61
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
1
1.6%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
6.6%
Native American
1
1.6%
Judge Chun
Frequency
Percent
Other
1
1.6%
Criminal Law
25
41.7%
Total
61
100.0%
General Civil
25
41.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
5
8.3%
Government
Practice
2
3.3%
Other
3
5.0%
Total
60
100.0%
90
Judge
Chun
Frequency
Percent
Male
34
55.7%
Female
27
44.3%
Total
61
100.0%
JUDGESAMUELCHUNG
28Respondents
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.20 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
3.99
3.39 91
5
Judge Chung Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.39 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.32 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.48 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.27 3.50 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.78 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.88 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.20 Based rulings on the facts and the law 2.96 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.07 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.20 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.39 4.25 4.33 3.82 3.76 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.93 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.58 3.82 Used the court’s time efficiently 3.73 EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
12.0%
Unacceptable
2
8.7%
Below Expectations
3
12.0%
Below Expectations
2
8.7%
Acceptable
8
32.0%
Acceptable
8
34.8%
Very Good
5
20.0%
Very Good
5
21.7%
Excellent
6
24.0%
Excellent
6
26.1%
Total
25
100.0%
Total
23
100.0%
92
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
19.2%
Unacceptable
2
7.7%
Below Expectations
3
11.5%
Below Expectations
4
15.4%
Acceptable
10
38.5%
Acceptable
10
38.5%
Very Good
4
15.4%
Very Good
5
19.2%
Excellent
4
15.4%
Excellent
5
19.2%
Total
26
100.0%
Total
26
100.0%
bench
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
7.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
7.1%
Below Expectations
2
7.4%
Acceptable
10
35.7%
Acceptable
7
25.9%
Very Good
8
28.6%
Very Good
5
18.5%
Excellent
6
21.4%
Excellent
13
48.1%
Total
28
100.0%
Total
27
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
4.0%
Acceptable
4
14.3%
Acceptable
9
36.0%
Very Good
9
32.1%
Very Good
7
28.0%
Excellent
15
53.6%
Excellent
8
32.0%
Total
28
100.0%
Total
25
100.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
3.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
14.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
10
35.7%
Acceptable
7
28.0%
Excellent
13
46.4%
Very Good
6
24.0%
Total
28
100.0%
Excellent
12
48.0%
Total
25
100.0%
93
deadlines
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
14.8%
Below Expectations
2
10.5%
Very Good
10
37.0%
Acceptable
7
36.8%
Excellent
13
48.1%
Very Good
7
36.8%
Total
27
100.0%
Excellent
3
15.8%
Total
19
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
14.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
6
21.4%
Below Expectations
2
7.1%
Very Good
9
32.1%
Acceptable
9
32.1%
Excellent
9
32.1%
Very Good
9
32.1%
Total
28
100.0%
Excellent
8
28.6%
Total
28
100.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
Acceptable
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
10.7%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
6
21.4%
Below Expectations
3
11.5%
Very Good
9
32.1%
Acceptable
8
30.8%
Excellent
10
35.7%
Very Good
8
30.8%
Total
28
100.0%
Excellent
7
26.9%
Total
26
100.0%
94
law firm?
years?
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Once
15
53.6%
2 to 3 times
10
35.7%
4 to 10 times
0
0.0%
More than 10 times
3
10.7%
Total
28
100.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
7
25.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
12
42.9%
6 to 10 Attorneys
4
14.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
2
7.1%
More than 20
Attorneys
3
10.7%
Total
28
100.0%
background?
attorney?
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
21
80.8%
African American
/ Black
0
0.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
0
0.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
2
7.1%
6 to 10 years
5
17.9%
11 to 20 years
9
32.1%
More than 20 years
12
42.9%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
2
7.7%
Total
28
100.0%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
11.5%
Total
26
100.0%
Judge Chung
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
7
25.0%
General Civil
12
42.9%
Judge
Chung
Frequency
Percent
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
4
14.3%
Male
18
66.7%
Government
Practice
Female
9
33.3%
2
7.1%
Total
27
100.0%
Other
3
10.7%
Total
28
100.0%
95
JUDGESUSANCRAIGHEAD
109Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.19 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
96
5
Judge Craighead Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.97 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.96 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.99 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.92 4.00 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.03 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.08 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.19 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.86 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.98 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.19 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.33 4.23 4.15 4.06 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.08 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.16 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.01 4.10 4.05 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.8%
Unacceptable
3
2.9%
Below Expectations
11
10.2%
Below Expectations
9
8.6%
Acceptable
17
15.7%
Acceptable
18
17.1%
Very Good
33
30.6%
Very Good
31
29.5%
Excellent
44
40.7%
Excellent
44
41.9%
Total
108
100.0%
Total
105
100.0%
97
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
4.9%
Unacceptable
3
2.8%
Below Expectations
14
13.6%
Below Expectations
9
8.5%
Acceptable
15
14.6%
Acceptable
22
20.8%
Very Good
25
24.3%
Very Good
31
29.2%
Excellent
44
42.7%
Excellent
41
38.7%
Total
103
100.0%
Total
106
100.0%
bench
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Unacceptable
6
5.6%
Below Expectations
4
3.8%
Below Expectations
6
5.6%
Acceptable
23
21.9%
Acceptable
19
17.6%
Very Good
39
37.1%
Very Good
30
27.8%
Excellent
37
35.2%
Excellent
47
43.5%
Total
105
100.0%
Total
108
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
4
4.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.9%
Acceptable
14
13.0%
Acceptable
13
12.9%
Very Good
34
31.5%
Very Good
33
32.7%
Excellent
57
52.8%
Excellent
45
44.6%
Total
108
100.0%
Total
101
100.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
4.8%
Unacceptable
3
3.0%
Acceptable
16
15.4%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Very Good
29
27.9%
Acceptable
17
17.2%
Excellent
53
51.0%
Very Good
25
25.3%
Total
104
100.0%
Excellent
51
51.5%
Total
99
100.0%
98
deadlines
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
5.0%
Unacceptable
3
3.4%
Acceptable
18
17.8%
Below Expectations
4
4.6%
Very Good
35
34.7%
Acceptable
14
16.1%
Excellent
43
42.6%
Very Good
34
39.1%
Total
101
100.0%
Excellent
32
36.8%
Total
87
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.9%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
22
21.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Very Good
38
36.2%
Acceptable
18
17.8%
Excellent
40
38.1%
Very Good
42
41.6%
Total
105
100.0%
Excellent
37
36.6%
Total
101
100.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
2
Acceptable
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
1.9%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
17
16.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Very Good
40
38.1%
Acceptable
19
20.2%
Excellent
44
41.9%
Very Good
38
40.4%
Total
105
100.0%
Excellent
33
35.1%
Total
94
100.0%
99
years?
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Once
40
36.7%
2 to 3 times
50
45.9%
4 to 10 times
17
15.6%
More than 10 times
2
1.8%
Total
109
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
28
25.9%
2 to 5 Attorneys
22
20.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
12
11.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
14
13.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
32
29.6%
Total
108
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
5
4.6%
Caucasian / White
99
90.8%
6 to 10 years
13
11.9%
4
3.7%
11 to 20 years
25
22.9%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
66
60.6%
0
0.0%
Total
109
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
3.7%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
2
1.8%
Total
109
100.0%
Judge Craighead
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
27
24.8%
General Civil
58
53.2%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
11
10.1%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Craighead
5
4.6%
Male
68
62.4%
Other
8
7.3%
Female
41
37.6%
Total
109
100.0%
Total
109
100.0%
100
JUDGEANDREADARVAS
109Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
4.45 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.30 101
5
Judge Darvas Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.21 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.16 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.16 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.19 4.34 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.30 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.34 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.49 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.08 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.29 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.45 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.59 4.49 4.43 4.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.39 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.31 4.37 4.32 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.6%
Below Expectations
5
4.8%
Acceptable
17
15.9%
Acceptable
17
16.3%
Very Good
30
28.0%
Very Good
30
28.8%
Excellent
52
48.6%
Excellent
50
48.1%
Total
107
100.0%
Total
104
100.0%
102
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Unacceptable
3
2.8%
Below Expectations
8
7.5%
Below Expectations
3
2.8%
Acceptable
19
17.9%
Acceptable
16
15.0%
Very Good
27
25.5%
Very Good
34
31.8%
Excellent
50
47.2%
Excellent
51
47.7%
Total
106
100.0%
Total
107
100.0%
bench
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.7%
Below Expectations
7
6.6%
Acceptable
9
8.6%
Acceptable
13
12.3%
Very Good
29
27.6%
Very Good
24
22.6%
Excellent
60
57.1%
Excellent
61
57.5%
Total
105
100.0%
Total
106
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
3
2.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.8%
Acceptable
6
5.7%
Acceptable
10
9.6%
Very Good
22
21.0%
Very Good
23
22.1%
Excellent
74
70.5%
Excellent
63
60.6%
Total
105
100.0%
Total
104
100.0%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.8%
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Acceptable
9
8.4%
Below Expectations
3
2.9%
Very Good
28
26.2%
Acceptable
7
6.7%
Excellent
67
62.6%
Very Good
22
21.2%
Total
107
100.0%
Excellent
70
67.3%
Total
104
100.0%
103
deadlines
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.8%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
14
13.2%
Below Expectations
4
4.0%
Very Good
23
21.7%
Acceptable
10
10.0%
Excellent
66
62.3%
Very Good
33
33.0%
Total
106
100.0%
Excellent
52
52.0%
Total
100
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
4.7%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
11.3%
Below Expectations
3
2.9%
Very Good
31
29.2%
Acceptable
12
11.4%
Excellent
57
53.8%
Very Good
33
31.4%
Total
106
100.0%
Excellent
57
54.3%
Total
105
100.0%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
Acceptable
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
2.8%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
13
12.3%
Below Expectations
3
2.8%
Very Good
30
28.3%
Acceptable
17
16.0%
Excellent
60
56.6%
Very Good
29
27.4%
Total
106
100.0%
Excellent
57
53.8%
Total
106
100.0%
104
years?
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Once
38
34.9%
2 to 3 times
41
37.6%
4 to 10 times
18
16.5%
More than 10 times
12
11.0%
Total
109
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
42
38.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
23
21.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
11
10.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
10
9.2%
More than 20
Attorneys
23
21.1%
Total
109
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.9%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
5.5%
87
79.8%
6 to 10 years
16
14.7%
Caucasian /
White
11 to 20 years
34
31.2%
6
5.5%
More than 20 years
52
47.7%
African American
/ Black
Total
109
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
3
2.8%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
6.4%
Native American
2
1.8%
Judge Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Other
4
3.7%
Criminal Law
23
21.1%
Total
109
100.0%
General Civil
31
28.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
43
39.4%
Government
Practice
5
4.6%
Other
7
6.4%
Total
109
100.0%
105
Judge
Darvas
Frequency
Percent
Male
45
41.7%
Female
63
58.3%
Total
108
100.0%
JUDGEWILLIAMDOWNING
182Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
4.41 3.89
4.15
Administrative Skills
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.40 106
Judge Average
4.47 5
Judge Downing Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.40 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.36 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.40 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.43 4.42 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.47 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.54 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.25 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.39 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.52 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.59 4.51 4.52 4.45 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.47 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.53 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.39 4.45 4.50 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
2.2%
Below Expectations
2
1.1%
Acceptable
13
7.3%
Acceptable
19
10.7%
Very Good
76
42.7%
Very Good
63
35.6%
Excellent
85
47.8%
Excellent
93
52.5%
Total
178
100.0%
Total
177
100.0%
107
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
9
5.0%
Below Expectations
3
1.7%
Acceptable
18
10.0%
Acceptable
13
7.3%
Very Good
68
37.8%
Very Good
66
37.3%
Excellent
84
46.7%
Excellent
95
53.7%
Total
180
100.0%
Total
177
100.0%
bench
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.1%
Below Expectations
2
1.1%
Below Expectations
6
3.4%
Acceptable
16
9.0%
Acceptable
14
7.8%
Very Good
65
36.5%
Very Good
55
30.7%
Excellent
95
53.4%
Excellent
102
57.0%
Total
178
100.0%
Total
179
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
5
2.8%
Acceptable
11
6.1%
Acceptable
15
8.4%
Very Good
44
24.6%
Very Good
50
28.1%
Excellent
122
68.2%
Excellent
108
60.7%
Total
179
100.0%
Total
178
100.0%
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.6%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Acceptable
16
9.0%
Below Expectations
3
1.8%
Very Good
52
29.2%
Acceptable
15
8.8%
Excellent
109
61.2%
Very Good
35
20.6%
Total
178
100.0%
Excellent
116
68.2%
Total
170
100.0%
108
deadlines
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.2%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Acceptable
15
8.7%
Below Expectations
3
1.9%
Very Good
46
26.7%
Acceptable
16
10.3%
Excellent
109
63.4%
Very Good
50
32.3%
Total
172
100.0%
Excellent
85
54.8%
Total
155
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
15
8.6%
Below Expectations
1
0.6%
Very Good
61
34.9%
Acceptable
19
10.9%
Excellent
97
55.4%
Very Good
55
31.4%
Total
175
100.0%
Excellent
100
57.1%
Total
175
100.0%
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
Acceptable
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
14
8.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
54
30.9%
Acceptable
14
8.1%
Excellent
107
61.1%
Very Good
58
33.5%
Total
175
100.0%
Excellent
101
58.4%
Total
173
100.0%
109
years?
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
Once
74
40.7%
2 to 3 times
75
41.2%
4 to 10 times
27
14.8%
More than 10 times
6
3.3%
Total
182
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Judge Downing
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
11
6.0%
6 to 10 years
22
12.1%
11 to 20 years
50
27.5%
More than 20 years
99
54.4%
Total
182
100.0%
Percent
Criminal Law
23
12.7%
General Civil
63
34.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
81
44.8%
Government
Practice
7
3.9%
Other
7
3.9%
Total
181
100.0%
Percent
Sole Practitioner
47
26.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
47
26.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
18
9.9%
11 to 20
Attorneys
18
9.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
51
28.2%
Total
181
100.0%
background?
Frequency
Frequency
Judge Downing
Judge Downing
Judge
Downing
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
162
89.5%
African
American /
Black
2
1.1%
Hispanic /
Latino / Latina
5
2.8%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
3.9%
Native
American
1
0.6%
Other
4
2.2%
Total
181
100.0%
110
Judge
Downing
Frequency
Percent
Male
88
48.6%
Female
93
51.4%
Total
181
100.0%
JUDGETHERESADOYLE
127Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.13 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
111
5
Judge Doyle Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.67 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.67 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.70 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.62 3.69 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.05 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.16 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.38 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.58 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.08 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.13 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.33 4.04 4.26 3.89 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.03 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.18 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.91 4.02 4.00 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
4.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Below Expectations
17
13.8%
Below Expectations
15
12.9%
Acceptable
27
22.0%
Acceptable
32
27.6%
Very Good
35
28.5%
Very Good
34
29.3%
Excellent
38
30.9%
Excellent
33
28.4%
Total
123
100.0%
Total
116
100.0%
112
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
6.0%
Unacceptable
8
6.5%
Below Expectations
21
18.1%
Below Expectations
14
11.4%
Acceptable
20
17.2%
Acceptable
30
24.4%
Very Good
34
29.3%
Very Good
36
29.3%
Excellent
34
29.3%
Excellent
35
28.5%
Total
116
100.0%
Total
123
100.0%
bench
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
4.8%
Unacceptable
4
3.4%
Below Expectations
14
11.3%
Below Expectations
8
6.8%
Acceptable
25
20.2%
Acceptable
18
15.4%
Very Good
47
37.9%
Very Good
32
27.4%
Excellent
32
25.8%
Excellent
55
47.0%
Total
124
100.0%
Total
117
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Unacceptable
4
3.5%
Below Expectations
4
3.3%
Below Expectations
6
5.3%
Acceptable
13
10.7%
Acceptable
14
12.4%
Very Good
35
28.9%
Very Good
33
29.2%
Excellent
67
55.4%
Excellent
56
49.6%
Total
121
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
6
5.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Acceptable
25
20.7%
Below Expectations
4
3.6%
Very Good
40
33.1%
Acceptable
12
10.7%
Excellent
48
39.7%
Very Good
30
26.8%
Total
121
100.0%
Excellent
65
58.0%
Total
112
100.0%
113
timely manner
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
4.2%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
16
13.3%
Below Expectations
8
6.8%
Very Good
38
31.7%
Acceptable
25
21.4%
Excellent
60
50.0%
Very Good
41
35.0%
Total
120
100.0%
Excellent
43
36.8%
Total
117
100.0%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
12
9.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.5%
Acceptable
25
20.7%
Acceptable
28
25.7%
Very Good
40
33.1%
Very Good
35
32.1%
Excellent
42
34.7%
Excellent
40
36.7%
Total
121
100.0%
Total
109
100.0%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
3
2.5%
Acceptable
23
19.3%
Very Good
39
32.8%
Excellent
53
44.5%
Total
119
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
8
7.6%
Acceptable
25
23.8%
Very Good
36
34.3%
Excellent
35
33.3%
Total
105
100.0%
114
years?
law firm?
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
27
21.3%
Once
44
34.6%
2 to 5 Attorneys
23
18.1%
2 to 3 times
48
37.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
15
11.8%
4 to 10 times
21
16.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
18
14.2%
More than 10 times
14
11.0%
Total
127
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
44
34.6%
Total
127
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
8
6.3%
111
87.4%
6 to 10 years
16
12.6%
Caucasian /
White
11 to 20 years
32
25.2%
5
3.9%
More than 20 years
71
55.9%
African American
/ Black
Total
127
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
2
1.6%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
5.5%
Native American
0
0.0%
Judge Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Other
2
1.6%
Criminal Law
49
38.6%
Total
127
100.0%
General Civil
53
41.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
10
7.9%
Government
Practice
4
3.1%
Other
11
8.7%
Total
127
100.0%
115
Judge
Doyle
Frequency
Percent
Male
76
59.8%
Female
51
40.2%
Total
127
100.0%
JUDGERICHARDEADIE
177Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.20 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
116
5
Judge Eadie Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.84 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.82 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.87 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.82 3.87 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.10 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.25 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.26 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.77 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.11 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.20 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.36 4.09 4.32 4.03 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.08 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.21 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.03 4.06 4.02 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
4.0%
Unacceptable
5
2.9%
Below Expectations
15
8.6%
Below Expectations
14
8.0%
Acceptable
36
20.6%
Acceptable
36
20.7%
Very Good
62
35.4%
Very Good
63
36.2%
Excellent
55
31.4%
Excellent
56
32.2%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
174
100.0%
117
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
4.7%
Unacceptable
6
3.5%
Below Expectations
20
11.6%
Below Expectations
12
6.9%
Acceptable
32
18.6%
Acceptable
42
24.3%
Very Good
55
32.0%
Very Good
61
35.3%
Excellent
57
33.1%
Excellent
52
30.1%
Total
172
100.0%
Total
173
100.0%
bench
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
4.6%
Unacceptable
4
2.3%
Below Expectations
9
5.1%
Below Expectations
8
4.6%
Acceptable
36
20.6%
Acceptable
30
17.1%
Very Good
67
38.3%
Very Good
55
31.4%
Excellent
55
31.4%
Excellent
78
44.6%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
175
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.3%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Below Expectations
2
1.1%
Below Expectations
4
2.3%
Acceptable
20
11.4%
Acceptable
29
17.0%
Very Good
50
28.6%
Very Good
50
29.2%
Excellent
99
56.6%
Excellent
86
50.3%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
171
100.0%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
2.9%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
12
7.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Acceptable
26
15.1%
Below Expectations
7
4.1%
Very Good
48
27.9%
Acceptable
22
12.9%
Excellent
81
47.1%
Very Good
53
31.0%
Total
172
100.0%
Excellent
87
50.9%
Total
171
100.0%
118
timely manner
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
1.7%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
1.7%
Unacceptable
3
1.8%
Acceptable
18
10.3%
Below Expectations
10
5.8%
Very Good
62
35.4%
Acceptable
28
16.4%
Excellent
89
50.9%
Very Good
63
36.8%
Total
175
100.0%
Excellent
67
39.2%
Total
171
100.0%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.3%
Unacceptable
5
2.9%
Below Expectations
10
5.6%
Below Expectations
3
1.7%
Acceptable
33
18.6%
Acceptable
35
20.3%
Very Good
60
33.9%
Very Good
69
40.1%
Excellent
70
39.5%
Excellent
60
34.9%
Total
177
100.0%
Total
172
100.0%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
1.7%
Below Expectations
5
2.9%
Acceptable
25
14.5%
Very Good
59
34.1%
Excellent
81
46.8%
Total
173
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.5%
Below Expectations
9
5.6%
Acceptable
26
16.3%
Very Good
61
38.1%
Excellent
60
37.5%
Total
160
100.0%
119
years?
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Once
70
39.5%
2 to 3 times
66
37.3%
4 to 10 times
27
15.3%
More than 10 times
14
7.9%
Total
177
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
48
27.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
43
24.3%
6 to 10 Attorneys
20
11.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
22
12.4%
More than 20
Attorneys
44
24.9%
Total
177
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.6%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
11
6.2%
Caucasian / White
161
91.5%
6 to 10 years
19
10.7%
3
1.7%
11 to 20 years
40
22.6%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
106
59.9%
1
0.6%
Total
177
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
3.4%
Native American
1
0.6%
Other
4
2.3%
Total
176
100.0%
Judge Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Criminal
Law
18
10.2%
General
Civil
73
41.2%
Domestic
Relations /
Family Law
72
Government
Practice
6
3.4%
Other
8
4.5%
Total
177
100.0%
40.7%
120
Judge
Eadie
Frequency
Percent
Male
95
54.0%
Female
81
46.0%
Total
176
100.0%
JUDGEJOHNERLICK
119Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
121
4.48 4.50 4.60 Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.58 5
Judge Erlick Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.48 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.46 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.47 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.45 4.53 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.50 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.58 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.60 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.34 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.47 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.60 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.64 4.66 4.58 4.53 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.58 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.60 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.55 4.56 4.60 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.6%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
10.3%
Acceptable
14
12.4%
Very Good
30
25.6%
Very Good
32
28.3%
Excellent
72
61.5%
Excellent
67
59.3%
Total
117
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
122
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
3.4%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
14
12.1%
Acceptable
14
12.2%
Very Good
36
31.0%
Very Good
35
30.4%
Excellent
62
53.4%
Excellent
66
57.4%
Total
116
100.0%
Total
115
100.0%
bench
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Acceptable
11
9.2%
Acceptable
14
11.9%
Very Good
34
28.6%
Very Good
27
22.9%
Excellent
74
62.2%
Excellent
75
63.6%
Total
119
100.0%
Total
118
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.7%
Acceptable
9
7.8%
Acceptable
6
5.2%
Very Good
20
17.2%
Very Good
30
26.1%
Excellent
86
74.1%
Excellent
77
67.0%
Total
116
100.0%
Total
115
100.0%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Acceptable
6
5.1%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Very Good
25
21.4%
Acceptable
8
6.9%
Excellent
85
72.6%
Very Good
23
19.8%
Total
117
100.0%
Excellent
83
71.6%
Total
116
100.0%
123
timely manner
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
6.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
28
24.1%
Acceptable
10
9.0%
Excellent
79
68.1%
Very Good
29
26.1%
Total
116
100.0%
Excellent
72
64.9%
Total
111
100.0%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
7.6%
Acceptable
6
5.3%
Very Good
32
26.9%
Very Good
33
29.2%
Excellent
76
63.9%
Excellent
74
65.5%
Total
119
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
8
6.9%
Very Good
30
25.9%
Excellent
78
67.2%
Total
116
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
8.1%
Very Good
32
28.8%
Excellent
70
63.1%
Total
111
100.0%
124
years?
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Once
34
28.6%
2 to 3 times
47
39.5%
4 to 10 times
22
18.5%
More than 10 times
16
13.4%
Total
119
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
29
24.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
25
21.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
13
10.9%
11 to 20
Attorneys
11
9.2%
More than 20
Attorneys
41
34.5%
Total
119
100.0%
background?
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
1.7%
3 to 5 years
7
5.9%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
6 to 10 years
13
10.9%
100
84.0%
11 to 20 years
33
27.7%
Caucasian /
White
More than 20 years
64
53.8%
African American
/ Black
4
3.4%
Total
119
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
0
0.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
10
8.4%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
5
4.2%
Total
119
100.0%
Judge Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
31
26.1%
General Civil
68
57.1%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
9
7.6%
Government
Practice
3
2.5%
Judge
Erlick
Frequency
Percent
Other
8
6.7%
Male
72
60.5%
Total
119
100.0%
Female
47
39.5%
Total
119
100.0%
125
JUDGEBRIANGAIN
104Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.26 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.28 126
5
Judge Gain Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.14 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.17 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.24 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.07 4.08 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.28 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.31 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.38 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.07 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.38 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.26 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.35 4.11 4.37 4.22 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.21 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.33 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.18 4.18 4.15 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Acceptable
19
18.6%
Acceptable
13
13.5%
Very Good
41
40.2%
Very Good
44
45.8%
Excellent
40
39.2%
Excellent
38
39.6%
Total
102
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
127
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.0%
Acceptable
24
24.0%
Acceptable
22
21.8%
Very Good
39
39.0%
Very Good
38
37.6%
Excellent
35
35.0%
Excellent
37
36.6%
Total
100
100.0%
Total
101
100.0%
bench
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
27
26.7%
Acceptable
9
8.9%
Very Good
33
32.7%
Very Good
39
38.6%
Excellent
39
38.6%
Excellent
51
50.5%
Total
101
100.0%
Total
101
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Acceptable
14
13.6%
Acceptable
18
17.5%
Very Good
33
32.0%
Very Good
32
31.1%
Excellent
54
52.4%
Excellent
52
50.5%
Total
103
100.0%
Total
103
100.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
22
21.8%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Very Good
33
32.7%
Acceptable
11
11.0%
Excellent
42
41.6%
Very Good
31
31.0%
Total
101
100.0%
Excellent
55
55.0%
Total
100
100.0%
128
timely manner
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.0%
Acceptable
14
14.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Very Good
35
35.0%
Acceptable
17
16.8%
Excellent
51
51.0%
Very Good
38
37.6%
Total
100
100.0%
Excellent
43
42.6%
Total
101
100.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
19
19.0%
Acceptable
18
18.0%
Very Good
37
37.0%
Very Good
39
39.0%
Excellent
43
43.0%
Excellent
40
40.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
13.4%
Very Good
39
40.2%
Excellent
45
46.4%
Total
97
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
19
20.4%
Very Good
38
40.9%
Excellent
36
38.7%
Total
93
100.0%
129
years?
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Once
30
28.8%
2 to 3 times
36
34.6%
4 to 10 times
21
20.2%
More than 10 times
17
16.3%
Total
104
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
41
39.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
30
28.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
7
6.7%
11 to 20
Attorneys
4
3.8%
More than 20
Attorneys
22
21.2%
Total
104
100.0%
background?
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.0%
3 to 5 years
8
7.7%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
6 to 10 years
19
18.3%
82
78.8%
11 to 20 years
25
24.0%
Caucasian /
White
More than 20 years
51
49.0%
African American
/ Black
6
5.8%
Total
104
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
4
3.8%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
3.8%
Native American
2
1.9%
Other
6
5.8%
Total
104
100.0%
Judge Gain
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
35
33.7%
General Civil
18
17.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
46
44.2%
Government
Practice
2
1.9%
Judge
Gain
Frequency
Percent
Other
3
2.9%
Male
53
51.5%
Total
104
100.0%
Female
50
48.5%
Total
103
100.0%
130
JUDGEJULIAGARRETT
64Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
4.00 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
131
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Garrett Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.70 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.52 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.65 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.68 3.95 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.83 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.00 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.10 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.48 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.74 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.04 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.08 4.06 4.11 3.90 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.00 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.05 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.98 4.07 3.91 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
6.7%
Unacceptable
3
5.3%
Below Expectations
6
10.0%
Below Expectations
5
8.8%
Acceptable
17
28.3%
Acceptable
16
28.1%
Very Good
21
35.0%
Very Good
18
31.6%
Excellent
12
20.0%
Excellent
15
26.3%
Total
60
100.0%
Total
57
100.0%
132
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
6.7%
Unacceptable
2
3.2%
Below Expectations
6
10.0%
Below Expectations
4
6.5%
Acceptable
19
31.7%
Acceptable
19
30.6%
Very Good
19
31.7%
Very Good
24
38.7%
Excellent
12
20.0%
Excellent
13
21.0%
Total
60
100.0%
Total
62
100.0%
bench
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.7%
Unacceptable
3
4.8%
Below Expectations
1
1.7%
Below Expectations
7
11.3%
Acceptable
17
28.8%
Acceptable
14
22.6%
Very Good
21
35.6%
Very Good
17
27.4%
Excellent
19
32.2%
Excellent
21
33.9%
Total
59
100.0%
Total
62
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.3%
Unacceptable
2
3.3%
Below Expectations
3
4.9%
Below Expectations
3
5.0%
Acceptable
11
18.0%
Acceptable
12
20.0%
Very Good
17
27.9%
Very Good
19
31.7%
Excellent
28
45.9%
Excellent
24
40.0%
Total
61
100.0%
Total
60
100.0%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Acceptable
14
22.6%
Below Expectations
4
6.5%
Very Good
26
41.9%
Acceptable
14
22.6%
Excellent
21
33.9%
Very Good
12
19.4%
Total
62
100.0%
Excellent
31
50.0%
Total
62
100.0%
133
timely manner
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Unacceptable
1
1.8%
Acceptable
12
19.7%
Below Expectations
1
1.8%
Very Good
23
37.7%
Acceptable
12
21.8%
Excellent
24
39.3%
Very Good
20
36.4%
Total
61
100.0%
Excellent
21
38.2%
Total
55
100.0%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
3.3%
Below Expectations
2
3.4%
Acceptable
15
24.6%
Acceptable
17
29.3%
Very Good
27
44.3%
Very Good
23
39.7%
Excellent
16
26.2%
Excellent
16
27.6%
Total
61
100.0%
Total
58
100.0%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Acceptable
13
21.3%
Very Good
25
41.0%
Excellent
21
34.4%
Total
61
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
3.8%
Acceptable
11
20.8%
Very Good
26
49.1%
Excellent
14
26.4%
Total
53
100.0%
134
years?
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Once
20
31.3%
2 to 3 times
20
31.3%
4 to 10 times
13
20.3%
More than 10 times
11
17.2%
Total
64
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
14
21.9%
2 to 5 Attorneys
10
15.6%
6 to 10 Attorneys
5
7.8%
11 to 20
Attorneys
5
7.8%
More than 20
Attorneys
30
46.9%
Total
64
100.0%
background?
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
6
9.4%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
6 to 10 years
12
18.8%
49
76.6%
11 to 20 years
24
37.5%
Caucasian /
White
More than 20 years
22
34.4%
African American
/ Black
3
4.7%
Total
64
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
1
1.6%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
12.5%
Native American
1
1.6%
Other
2
3.1%
Total
64
100.0%
Judge Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
25
39.7%
General Civil
21
33.3%
Domestic
Relations /
Family Law
9
14.3%
Government
Practice
5
7.9%
Other
3
4.8%
Total
63
100.0%
135
Judge
Garrett
Frequency
Percent
Male
33
51.6%
Female
31
48.4%
Total
64
100.0%
JUDGEHELENHALPERT
95Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
4.11 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
136
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Halpert Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.93 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.97 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.77 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.87 4.13 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.03 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.04 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.34 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.75 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.98 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.08 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.06 4.24 3.99 4.03 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.11 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.17 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.99 4.13 4.15 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.3%
Unacceptable
6
6.5%
Below Expectations
5
5.4%
Below Expectations
8
8.7%
Acceptable
14
15.1%
Acceptable
15
16.3%
Very Good
37
39.8%
Very Good
35
38.0%
Excellent
33
35.5%
Excellent
28
30.4%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
92
100.0%
137
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.6%
Unacceptable
5
5.5%
Below Expectations
10
11.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.3%
Acceptable
14
15.4%
Acceptable
19
20.9%
Very Good
32
35.2%
Very Good
36
39.6%
Excellent
29
31.9%
Excellent
28
30.8%
Total
91
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
bench
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Below Expectations
8
8.5%
Acceptable
15
16.0%
Acceptable
17
18.1%
Very Good
35
37.2%
Very Good
30
31.9%
Excellent
39
41.5%
Excellent
37
39.4%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
94
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
9
9.6%
Below Expectations
10
10.8%
Acceptable
16
17.0%
Acceptable
15
16.1%
Very Good
25
26.6%
Very Good
21
22.6%
Excellent
43
45.7%
Excellent
45
48.4%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Acceptable
15
16.5%
Below Expectations
3
3.4%
Very Good
29
31.9%
Acceptable
12
13.6%
Excellent
44
48.4%
Very Good
17
19.3%
Total
91
100.0%
Excellent
54
61.4%
Total
88
100.0%
138
timely manner
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
6
6.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
23
25.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.4%
Very Good
28
30.8%
Acceptable
18
20.7%
Excellent
34
37.4%
Very Good
31
35.6%
Total
91
100.0%
Excellent
35
40.2%
Total
87
100.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
5.4%
Below Expectations
2
2.3%
Acceptable
16
17.2%
Acceptable
18
20.5%
Very Good
35
37.6%
Very Good
33
37.5%
Excellent
35
37.6%
Excellent
35
39.8%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
88
100.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.4%
Acceptable
16
17.8%
Very Good
31
34.4%
Excellent
39
43.3%
Total
90
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
6.0%
Acceptable
22
26.5%
Very Good
25
30.1%
Excellent
31
37.3%
Total
83
100.0%
139
years?
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Once
19
20.0%
2 to 3 times
33
34.7%
4 to 10 times
15
15.8%
More than 10 times
28
29.5%
Total
95
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
23
24.2%
2 to 5 Attorneys
14
14.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
6
6.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
4
4.2%
More than 20
Attorneys
48
50.5%
Total
95
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
6.3%
Caucasian / White
79
84.0%
6 to 10 years
17
17.9%
2
2.1%
11 to 20 years
25
26.3%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
47
49.5%
2
2.1%
Total
95
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
7.4%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
4
4.3%
Total
94
100.0%
Judge Halpert
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
32
33.7%
General Civil
28
29.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
15
15.8%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Halpert
7
7.4%
Male
46
48.4%
Other
13
13.7%
Female
49
51.6%
Total
95
100.0%
Total
95
100.0%
140
JUDGEBRUCEHELLER
135Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
4.39 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.29 141
5
Judge Heller Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.23 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.24 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.21 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.22 4.24 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.29 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.39 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.46 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.05 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.27 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.39 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.46 4.40 4.42 4.28 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.16 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.41 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.06 3.98 4.20 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
8
6.1%
Below Expectations
6
4.6%
Acceptable
18
13.6%
Acceptable
20
15.4%
Very Good
36
27.3%
Very Good
41
31.5%
Excellent
69
52.3%
Excellent
62
47.7%
Total
132
100.0%
Total
130
100.0%
142
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.1%
Unacceptable
3
2.3%
Below Expectations
11
8.4%
Below Expectations
6
4.7%
Acceptable
20
15.3%
Acceptable
14
10.9%
Very Good
36
27.5%
Very Good
42
32.6%
Excellent
60
45.8%
Excellent
64
49.6%
Total
131
100.0%
Total
129
100.0%
bench
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
8
6.2%
Below Expectations
6
4.6%
Acceptable
15
11.5%
Acceptable
20
15.4%
Very Good
41
31.5%
Very Good
33
25.4%
Excellent
65
50.0%
Excellent
70
53.8%
Total
130
100.0%
Total
130
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
5
3.8%
Below Expectations
4
3.1%
Acceptable
11
8.3%
Acceptable
12
9.4%
Very Good
34
25.8%
Very Good
37
29.1%
Excellent
82
62.1%
Excellent
73
57.5%
Total
132
100.0%
Total
127
100.0%
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
9.0%
Below Expectations
5
4.2%
Very Good
42
31.6%
Acceptable
7
5.8%
Excellent
75
56.4%
Very Good
36
30.0%
Total
133
100.0%
Excellent
72
60.0%
Total
120
100.0%
143
deadlines
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.3%
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Acceptable
14
10.8%
Below Expectations
6
5.0%
Very Good
38
29.2%
Acceptable
21
17.5%
Excellent
75
57.7%
Very Good
41
34.2%
Total
130
100.0%
Excellent
49
40.8%
Total
120
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
6
4.7%
Unacceptable
4
3.1%
Acceptable
12
9.4%
Below Expectations
8
6.2%
Very Good
46
35.9%
Acceptable
26
20.0%
Excellent
63
49.2%
Very Good
40
30.8%
Total
128
100.0%
Excellent
52
40.0%
Total
130
100.0%
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
Acceptable
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
12
9.8%
Below Expectations
4
3.1%
Very Good
48
39.3%
Acceptable
17
13.3%
Excellent
62
50.8%
Very Good
48
37.5%
Total
122
100.0%
Excellent
57
44.5%
Total
128
100.0%
144
years?
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Once
44
32.6%
2 to 3 times
56
41.5%
4 to 10 times
21
15.6%
More than 10 times
14
10.4%
Total
135
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.7%
3 to 5 years
8
5.9%
6 to 10 years
17
12.6%
11 to 20 years
36
26.7%
More than 20 years
73
54.1%
Total
135
100.0%
Percent
Criminal Law
29
21.6%
General Civil
85
63.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
6
4.5%
Government
Practice
6
4.5%
Other
8
Total
134
Percent
Sole Practitioner
20
14.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
26
19.3%
6 to 10 Attorneys
13
9.6%
11 to 20 Attorneys
18
13.3%
More than 20
Attorneys
58
43.0%
Total
135
100.0%
background?
Frequency
Frequency
Judge Heller
Judge Heller
Judge Heller
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
126
93.3%
African American /
Black
1
0.7%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
2
1.5%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
3.7%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
1
0.7%
Total
135
100.0%
Judge
Heller
Frequency
Percent
Male
90
67.2%
6.0%
Female
44
32.8%
100.0%
Total
134
100.0%
145
JUDGEHOLLISHILL
70Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.17 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
146
5
Judge Hill Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.75 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.73 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.73 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.71 3.81 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.03 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.08 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.32 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.72 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.00 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.17 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.33 4.14 4.24 3.96 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.01 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.00 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.90 4.09 4.05 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.0%
Unacceptable
3
4.8%
Below Expectations
9
13.4%
Below Expectations
7
11.1%
Acceptable
10
14.9%
Acceptable
10
15.9%
Very Good
30
44.8%
Very Good
27
42.9%
Excellent
16
23.9%
Excellent
16
25.4%
Total
67
100.0%
Total
63
100.0%
147
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
6.2%
Unacceptable
2
3.0%
Below Expectations
8
12.3%
Below Expectations
4
6.1%
Acceptable
8
12.3%
Acceptable
18
27.3%
Very Good
27
41.5%
Very Good
29
43.9%
Excellent
18
27.7%
Excellent
13
19.7%
Total
65
100.0%
Total
66
100.0%
bench
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.3%
Unacceptable
3
4.4%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Acceptable
20
28.6%
Acceptable
14
20.6%
Very Good
28
40.0%
Very Good
25
36.8%
Excellent
18
25.7%
Excellent
25
36.8%
Total
70
100.0%
Total
68
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Unacceptable
2
3.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Acceptable
10
14.9%
Acceptable
11
18.0%
Very Good
21
31.3%
Very Good
23
37.7%
Excellent
35
52.2%
Excellent
24
39.3%
Total
67
100.0%
Total
61
100.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.9%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Acceptable
11
15.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
29
42.0%
Acceptable
7
11.3%
Excellent
27
39.1%
Very Good
24
38.7%
Total
69
100.0%
Excellent
30
48.4%
Total
62
100.0%
148
timely manner
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
3.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
18.2%
Below Expectations
3
4.7%
Very Good
20
30.3%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Excellent
32
48.5%
Very Good
27
42.2%
Total
66
100.0%
Excellent
23
35.9%
Total
64
100.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
6
8.8%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Acceptable
12
17.6%
Acceptable
17
27.0%
Very Good
25
36.8%
Very Good
23
36.5%
Excellent
24
35.3%
Excellent
22
34.9%
Total
68
100.0%
Total
63
100.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Acceptable
16
24.2%
Very Good
27
40.9%
Excellent
21
31.8%
Total
66
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
6.8%
Acceptable
14
23.7%
Very Good
25
42.4%
Excellent
16
27.1%
Total
59
100.0%
149
years?
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Once
17
24.3%
2 to 3 times
24
34.3%
4 to 10 times
12
17.1%
More than 10 times
17
24.3%
Total
70
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
17
24.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
11
15.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
4
5.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
9
12.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
29
41.4%
Total
70
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
2
2.9%
Caucasian / White
60
85.7%
6 to 10 years
16
22.9%
1
1.4%
11 to 20 years
23
32.9%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
29
41.4%
2
2.9%
Total
70
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
7.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
2
2.9%
Total
70
100.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
19
27.1%
General Civil
27
38.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
7
10.0%
Government
Practice
7
10.0%
Other
10
14.3%
Total
70
100.0%
Judge Hill
Frequency
Percent
Male
34
48.6%
Female
36
51.4%
Total
70
100.0%
150
JUDGELAURAINVEEN
156Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
4.40 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.34 151
5
Judge Inveen Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.22 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.22 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.22 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.19 4.24 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.34 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.43 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.43 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.16 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.32 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.40 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.42 4.41 4.44 4.33 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.30 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.43 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.26 4.20 4.33 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
3
2.1%
Below Expectations
7
4.6%
Below Expectations
5
3.4%
Acceptable
18
11.8%
Acceptable
17
11.7%
Very Good
58
38.2%
Very Good
52
35.9%
Excellent
68
44.7%
Excellent
68
46.9%
Total
152
100.0%
Total
145
100.0%
152
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.7%
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Below Expectations
10
6.7%
Below Expectations
10
6.7%
Acceptable
13
8.7%
Acceptable
14
9.3%
Very Good
54
36.0%
Very Good
55
36.7%
Excellent
69
46.0%
Excellent
69
46.0%
Total
150
100.0%
Total
150
100.0%
bench
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
4
2.6%
Below Expectations
7
4.7%
Below Expectations
5
3.3%
Acceptable
11
7.4%
Acceptable
14
9.3%
Very Good
62
41.6%
Very Good
43
28.5%
Excellent
67
45.0%
Excellent
85
56.3%
Total
149
100.0%
Total
151
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
3
2.1%
Below Expectations
3
2.0%
Below Expectations
6
4.1%
Acceptable
13
8.6%
Acceptable
3
2.1%
Very Good
45
29.6%
Very Good
46
31.7%
Excellent
89
58.6%
Excellent
87
60.0%
Total
152
100.0%
Total
145
100.0%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
2.6%
Unacceptable
5
3.5%
Acceptable
10
6.5%
Below Expectations
3
2.1%
Very Good
50
32.7%
Acceptable
8
5.6%
Excellent
87
56.9%
Very Good
37
25.9%
Total
153
100.0%
Excellent
90
62.9%
Total
143
100.0%
153
timely manner
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
3.3%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Acceptable
9
6.0%
Below Expectations
10
6.8%
Very Good
47
31.1%
Acceptable
15
10.1%
Excellent
89
58.9%
Very Good
55
37.2%
Total
151
100.0%
Excellent
67
45.3%
Total
148
100.0%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Below Expectations
5
3.3%
Below Expectations
3
2.0%
Acceptable
15
9.9%
Acceptable
15
10.0%
Very Good
49
32.2%
Very Good
53
35.3%
Excellent
81
53.3%
Excellent
77
51.3%
Total
152
100.0%
Total
150
100.0%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
15
10.0%
Very Good
47
31.3%
Excellent
86
57.3%
Total
150
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
6
4.3%
Acceptable
17
12.1%
Very Good
44
31.4%
Excellent
71
50.7%
Total
140
100.0%
154
years?
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Once
58
37.2%
2 to 3 times
74
47.4%
4 to 10 times
19
12.2%
More than 10 times
5
3.2%
Total
156
100.0%
law firm?
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
44
28.2%
2 to 5 Attorneys
41
26.3%
6 to 10 Attorneys
21
13.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
16
10.3%
More than 20
Attorneys
34
21.8%
Total
156
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
1.3%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
11
7.1%
Caucasian / White
144
92.3%
6 to 10 years
15
9.6%
2
1.3%
11 to 20 years
35
22.4%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
93
59.6%
1
0.6%
Total
156
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
3.8%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
1.9%
Total
156
100.0%
Judge Inveen
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
19
12.2%
General Civil
73
46.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
53
34.0%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Inveen
4
2.6%
Male
93
60.0%
Other
7
4.5%
Female
62
40.0%
Total
156
100.0%
Total
155
100.0%
Judge Inveen
155
JUDGERONALDKESSLER
137Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
Judge Court Average
3.89
3.96 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.33 156
5
Judge Kessler Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.33 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.33 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.33 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.31 4.35 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.25 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.31 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.39 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.18 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.12 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.96 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.57 4.39 3.54 4.32 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.39 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.27 4.44 4.29 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Below Expectations
4
3.0%
Below Expectations
6
4.5%
Acceptable
12
9.0%
Acceptable
12
9.1%
Very Good
37
27.8%
Very Good
39
29.5%
Excellent
76
57.1%
Excellent
73
55.3%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
132
100.0%
157
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.3%
Unacceptable
3
2.3%
Below Expectations
9
6.9%
Below Expectations
4
3.1%
Acceptable
15
11.5%
Acceptable
17
13.0%
Very Good
38
29.2%
Very Good
32
24.4%
Excellent
65
50.0%
Excellent
75
57.3%
Total
130
100.0%
Total
131
100.0%
bench
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
4
3.0%
Below Expectations
5
3.8%
Below Expectations
8
6.0%
Acceptable
19
14.3%
Acceptable
22
16.4%
Very Good
34
25.6%
Very Good
34
25.4%
Excellent
75
56.4%
Excellent
66
49.3%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
134
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
9
6.8%
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Below Expectations
15
11.3%
Below Expectations
5
3.7%
Acceptable
42
31.6%
Acceptable
16
11.9%
Very Good
25
18.8%
Very Good
38
28.4%
Excellent
42
31.6%
Excellent
73
54.5%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
134
100.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.2%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Acceptable
20
14.9%
Below Expectations
4
3.1%
Very Good
33
24.6%
Acceptable
16
12.5%
Excellent
78
58.2%
Very Good
30
23.4%
Total
134
100.0%
Excellent
77
60.2%
Total
128
100.0%
158
timely manner
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
5.9%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
17
12.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
44
32.4%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Very Good
27
19.9%
Acceptable
13
10.2%
Excellent
40
29.4%
Very Good
42
33.1%
Total
136
100.0%
Excellent
71
55.9%
Total
127
100.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
5
3.8%
Below Expectations
2
1.5%
Acceptable
19
14.4%
Acceptable
23
17.4%
Very Good
33
25.0%
Very Good
38
28.8%
Excellent
74
56.1%
Excellent
68
51.5%
Total
132
100.0%
Total
132
100.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Acceptable
17
12.9%
Very Good
44
33.3%
Excellent
70
53.0%
Total
132
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
3
2.4%
Acceptable
19
15.4%
Very Good
35
28.5%
Excellent
64
52.0%
Total
123
100.0%
159
years?
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Once
42
30.7%
2 to 3 times
30
21.9%
4 to 10 times
15
10.9%
More than 10 times
50
36.5%
Total
137
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
47
34.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
34
24.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
10
7.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
7
5.1%
More than 20
Attorneys
39
28.5%
Total
137
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
15
10.9%
Caucasian / White
116
85.3%
6 to 10 years
23
16.8%
4
2.9%
11 to 20 years
29
21.2%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
70
51.1%
2
1.5%
Total
137
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
11
8.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
2.2%
Total
136
100.0%
Judge Kessler
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
67
48.9%
General Civil
8
5.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
57
41.6%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Kessler
3
2.2%
Male
65
48.1%
Other
2
1.5%
Female
70
51.9%
Total
137
100.0%
Total
135
100.0%
160
JUDGEBARBARALINDE
99Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.23 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
161
5
Judge Linde Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.95 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.85 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.86 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.90 4.18 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.06 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.14 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.24 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.79 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.06 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.23 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.27 4.35 4.26 4.04 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.18 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.27 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.10 4.21 4.14 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Unacceptable
3
3.2%
Below Expectations
11
11.2%
Below Expectations
9
9.7%
Acceptable
16
16.3%
Acceptable
18
19.4%
Very Good
32
32.7%
Very Good
31
33.3%
Excellent
35
35.7%
Excellent
32
34.4%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
162
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
14
14.4%
Below Expectations
11
11.8%
Acceptable
17
17.5%
Acceptable
19
20.4%
Very Good
29
29.9%
Very Good
31
33.3%
Excellent
34
35.1%
Excellent
32
34.4%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
bench
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
7
7.4%
Acceptable
17
18.1%
Acceptable
17
18.1%
Very Good
37
39.4%
Very Good
25
26.6%
Excellent
38
40.4%
Excellent
43
45.7%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
94
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
6
6.6%
Acceptable
19
19.8%
Acceptable
15
16.5%
Very Good
25
26.0%
Very Good
22
24.2%
Excellent
50
52.1%
Excellent
46
50.5%
Total
96
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Acceptable
17
18.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.4%
Very Good
26
28.0%
Acceptable
15
17.0%
Excellent
50
53.8%
Very Good
24
27.3%
Total
93
100.0%
Excellent
45
51.1%
Total
88
100.0%
163
timely manner
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Acceptable
17
18.1%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Very Good
27
28.7%
Acceptable
15
16.0%
Excellent
47
50.0%
Very Good
34
36.2%
Total
94
100.0%
Excellent
42
44.7%
Total
94
100.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
5.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.3%
Acceptable
23
24.2%
Acceptable
18
19.8%
Very Good
30
31.6%
Very Good
33
36.3%
Excellent
37
38.9%
Excellent
37
40.7%
Total
95
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
20
21.5%
Very Good
28
30.1%
Excellent
45
48.4%
Total
93
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
23
26.4%
Very Good
25
28.7%
Excellent
37
42.5%
Total
87
100.0%
164
years?
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Once
42
42.4%
2 to 3 times
40
40.4%
4 to 10 times
12
12.1%
More than 10 times
5
5.1%
Total
99
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
23
23.2%
2 to 5 Attorneys
25
25.3%
6 to 10 Attorneys
14
14.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
14
14.1%
More than 20
Attorneys
23
23.2%
Total
99
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
2.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
7
7.1%
Caucasian / White
89
90.8%
6 to 10 years
12
12.1%
1
1.0%
11 to 20 years
27
27.3%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
51
51.5%
2
2.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
3
3.1%
Native American
1
1.0%
Other
2
2.0%
Total
98
100.0%
Judge Linde
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
18
18.4%
General Civil
52
53.1%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
21
21.4%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Linde
3
3.1%
Male
62
62.6%
Other
4
4.1%
Female
37
37.4%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
165
JUDGEDEANLUM
142Respondents
3.99
3.97
3.89
Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
166
4
5
Judge Lum Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.98 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.94 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.96 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.96 4.07 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.28 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.41 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.47 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.92 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.30 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.40 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.51 4.37 4.49 4.22 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.31 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.16 4.23 4.23 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.8%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
8
5.7%
Below Expectations
9
6.7%
Acceptable
30
21.3%
Acceptable
30
22.2%
Very Good
49
34.8%
Very Good
50
37.0%
Excellent
50
35.5%
Excellent
45
33.3%
Total
141
100.0%
Total
135
100.0%
167
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
10
7.1%
Below Expectations
6
4.3%
Acceptable
30
21.4%
Acceptable
34
24.3%
Very Good
45
32.1%
Very Good
51
36.4%
Excellent
51
36.4%
Excellent
47
33.6%
Total
140
100.0%
Total
140
100.0%
bench
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
6
4.4%
Below Expectations
10
7.2%
Acceptable
24
17.6%
Acceptable
16
11.6%
Very Good
53
39.0%
Very Good
35
25.4%
Excellent
51
37.5%
Excellent
77
55.8%
Total
136
100.0%
Total
138
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
3
2.2%
Acceptable
13
9.4%
Acceptable
15
10.9%
Very Good
32
23.2%
Very Good
38
27.7%
Excellent
90
65.2%
Excellent
80
58.4%
Total
138
100.0%
Total
137
100.0%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Acceptable
16
11.4%
Below Expectations
2
1.5%
Very Good
40
28.6%
Acceptable
12
8.8%
Excellent
79
56.4%
Very Good
34
24.8%
Total
140
100.0%
Excellent
87
63.5%
Total
137
100.0%
168
timely manner
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Acceptable
13
9.4%
Below Expectations
4
2.9%
Very Good
38
27.3%
Acceptable
22
16.1%
Excellent
86
61.9%
Very Good
46
33.6%
Total
139
100.0%
Excellent
64
46.7%
Total
137
100.0%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
3.6%
Below Expectations
4
2.9%
Acceptable
21
15.2%
Acceptable
24
17.4%
Very Good
47
34.1%
Very Good
46
33.3%
Excellent
64
46.4%
Excellent
64
46.4%
Total
138
100.0%
Total
138
100.0%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
4
2.9%
Acceptable
17
12.5%
Very Good
44
32.4%
Excellent
70
51.5%
Total
136
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
4
3.2%
Acceptable
21
16.8%
Very Good
43
34.4%
Excellent
55
44.0%
Total
125
100.0%
169
years?
law firm?
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
21
14.8%
Once
51
35.9%
2 to 5 Attorneys
39
27.5%
2 to 3 times
55
38.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
15
10.6%
4 to 10 times
25
17.6%
11 to 20 Attorneys
18
12.7%
More than 10 times
11
7.7%
Total
142
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
49
34.5%
Total
142
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
7
4.9%
Caucasian / White
126
88.7%
6 to 10 years
20
14.1%
2
1.4%
11 to 20 years
39
27.5%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
76
53.5%
2
1.4%
Total
142
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
4.2%
Native American
1
0.7%
Other
5
3.5%
Total
142
100.0%
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
31
22.0%
General Civil
78
55.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
14
9.9%
Government
Practice
6
4.3%
Other
12
8.5%
Total
141
100.0%
170
Judge Lum
Frequency
Percent
Male
92
65.2%
Female
49
34.8%
Total
141
100.0%
JUDGEBARBARAMACK
34Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
3.63 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
171
Judge Average
4.15
5
Judge Mack Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.75 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.64 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.63 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.70 4.03 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.82 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.82 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.12 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.67 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.68 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.01 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.06 4.09 4.00 3.88 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.63 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.85 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.62 3.72 3.31 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
6.1%
Unacceptable
2
6.3%
Below Expectations
1
3.0%
Below Expectations
2
6.3%
Acceptable
10
30.3%
Acceptable
8
25.0%
Very Good
14
42.4%
Very Good
14
43.8%
Excellent
6
18.2%
Excellent
6
18.8%
Total
33
100.0%
Total
32
100.0%
172
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Unacceptable
2
6.1%
Below Expectations
5
15.2%
Below Expectations
2
6.1%
Acceptable
6
18.2%
Acceptable
7
21.2%
Very Good
13
39.4%
Very Good
15
45.5%
Excellent
8
24.2%
Excellent
7
21.2%
Total
33
100.0%
Total
33
100.0%
bench
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Unacceptable
2
5.9%
Below Expectations
3
9.1%
Below Expectations
3
8.8%
Acceptable
3
9.1%
Acceptable
8
23.5%
Very Good
13
39.4%
Very Good
12
35.3%
Excellent
13
39.4%
Excellent
9
26.5%
Total
33
100.0%
Total
34
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.9%
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Below Expectations
3
8.8%
Below Expectations
5
15.2%
Acceptable
5
14.7%
Acceptable
6
18.2%
Very Good
9
26.5%
Very Good
8
24.2%
Excellent
16
47.1%
Excellent
13
39.4%
Total
34
100.0%
Total
33
100.0%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.9%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
8.8%
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Acceptable
5
14.7%
Below Expectations
2
6.1%
Very Good
8
23.5%
Acceptable
6
18.2%
Excellent
17
50.0%
Very Good
7
21.2%
Total
34
100.0%
Excellent
17
51.5%
Total
33
100.0%
173
timely manner
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.9%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
6.3%
Acceptable
10
29.4%
Below Expectations
3
9.4%
Very Good
7
20.6%
Acceptable
8
25.0%
Excellent
15
44.1%
Very Good
8
25.0%
Total
34
100.0%
Excellent
11
34.4%
Total
32
100.0%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.9%
Unacceptable
1
3.1%
Below Expectations
2
5.9%
Below Expectations
6
18.8%
Acceptable
7
20.6%
Acceptable
12
37.5%
Very Good
14
41.2%
Very Good
8
25.0%
Excellent
10
29.4%
Excellent
5
15.6%
Total
34
100.0%
Total
32
100.0%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Below Expectations
2
6.1%
Acceptable
9
27.3%
Very Good
10
30.3%
Excellent
11
33.3%
Total
33
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
3.4%
Below Expectations
4
13.8%
Acceptable
8
27.6%
Very Good
8
27.6%
Excellent
8
27.6%
Total
29
100.0%
174
years?
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Once
8
23.5%
2 to 3 times
9
26.5%
4 to 10 times
3
8.8%
More than 10 times
14
41.2%
Total
34
100.0%
law firm?
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
10
29.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
4
11.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
2
5.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
2
5.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
16
47.1%
Total
34
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Mack Frequency Percent 1 to 2 years 1
2.9%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years 1
2.9%
Caucasian /
White
26
76.5%
6 to 10 years 6
17.6%
11 to 20 years 2
5.9%
11
32.4%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years 15
44.1%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
0
0.0%
Total 34
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
3
8.8%
Native American
1
2.9%
Other
2
5.9%
Total
34
100.0%
Judge Mack
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
22
64.7%
General Civil
6
17.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
5
14.7%
Government
Practice
1
2.9%
Other
0
0.0%
Total
34
100.0%
Judge
Mack
Frequency
Percent
Male
17
50.0%
Female
17
50.0%
Total
34
100.0%
175
JUDGELEROYMCCULLOUGH
99Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.13 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
176
5
Judge McCullough Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.68 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.67 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.70 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.71 3.64 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.29 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.36 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.67 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.14 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.13 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.32 3.94 4.27 4.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.77 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.12 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.63 3.61 3.71 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
7.1%
Unacceptable
6
6.3%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Below Expectations
8
8.3%
Acceptable
23
23.5%
Acceptable
22
22.9%
Very Good
32
32.7%
Very Good
33
34.4%
Excellent
28
28.6%
Excellent
27
28.1%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
177
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
7.2%
Unacceptable
6
6.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Below Expectations
7
7.1%
Acceptable
20
20.6%
Acceptable
26
26.3%
Very Good
37
38.1%
Very Good
31
31.3%
Excellent
25
25.8%
Excellent
29
29.3%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
bench
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
7.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.1%
Acceptable
27
27.6%
Acceptable
20
20.6%
Very Good
27
27.6%
Very Good
26
26.8%
Excellent
29
29.6%
Excellent
46
47.4%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
3
3.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Acceptable
14
14.1%
Acceptable
13
14.1%
Very Good
26
26.3%
Very Good
21
22.8%
Excellent
55
55.6%
Excellent
53
57.6%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
92
100.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
9
9.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Acceptable
20
20.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.1%
Very Good
26
26.3%
Acceptable
12
12.4%
Excellent
41
41.4%
Very Good
21
21.6%
Total
99
100.0%
Excellent
59
60.8%
Total
97
100.0%
178
timely manner
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
8
8.2%
Acceptable
16
16.3%
Below Expectations
9
9.3%
Very Good
29
29.6%
Acceptable
27
27.8%
Excellent
50
51.0%
Very Good
22
22.7%
Total
98
100.0%
Excellent
31
32.0%
Total
97
100.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Unacceptable
5
5.4%
Below Expectations
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
11
11.8%
Acceptable
22
22.7%
Acceptable
20
21.5%
Very Good
33
34.0%
Very Good
27
29.0%
Excellent
36
37.1%
Excellent
30
32.3%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.0%
Acceptable
20
20.2%
Very Good
31
31.3%
Excellent
43
43.4%
Total
99
100.0%
deadlines
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
11.0%
Below Expectations
6
6.6%
Acceptable
22
24.2%
Very Good
23
25.3%
Excellent
30
33.0%
Total
91
100.0%
179
years?
law firm?
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
24
24.2%
Once
0
0.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
21
21.2%
2 to 3 times
5
5.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
11
11.1%
4 to 10 times
21
21.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
10
10.1%
More than 10 times
30
30.3%
Total
43
43.4%
More than 20
Attorneys
33
33.3%
Total
99
100.0%
attorney?
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
30
30.3%
3 to 5 years
52
6 to 10 years
background?
Frequency
Percent
52.5%
Judge
McCullough
8
8.1%
Caucasian / White
82
82.8%
11 to 20 years
3
3.0%
3
3.0%
More than 20 years
6
6.1%
African American
/ Black
Total
99
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
3
3.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
6.1%
Native American
1
1.0%
Judge McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Other
4
4.0%
Criminal Law
30
30.3%
Total
99
100.0%
General Civil
52
52.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
8
8.1%
Government
Practice
3
3.0%
Other
6
6.1%
Total
99
100.0%
180
Judge
McCullough
Frequency
Percent
Male
66
67.3%
Female
32
32.7%
Total
98
100.0%
JUDGERICHARDMCDERMOTT
69Respondents
3.99
3.97
3.89
4.30 4.15
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
181
4
5
Judge Average
Judge McDermott Item Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.07 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.00 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.09 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.04 4.13 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.05 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.02 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.09 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.06 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.04 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.30 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.35 4.28 4.36 4.21 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.26 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.27 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.27 4.27 4.23 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.0%
Unacceptable
3
4.5%
Below Expectations
7
10.4%
Below Expectations
6
9.1%
Acceptable
9
13.4%
Acceptable
5
7.6%
Very Good
20
29.9%
Very Good
20
30.3%
Excellent
29
43.3%
Excellent
32
48.5%
Total
67
100.0%
Total
66
100.0%
182
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.9%
Below Expectations
5
7.4%
Acceptable
10
14.7%
Very Good
22
32.4%
Excellent
29
42.6%
Total
68
100.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.5%
Below Expectations
3
4.5%
Acceptable
12
18.2%
Very Good
17
25.8%
Excellent
31
47.0%
Total
66
100.0%
bench
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
3
4.4%
Below Expectations
6
8.8%
Below Expectations
4
5.9%
Acceptable
8
11.8%
Acceptable
13
19.1%
Very Good
25
36.8%
Very Good
15
22.1%
Excellent
29
42.6%
Excellent
33
48.5%
Total
68
100.0%
Total
68
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
6.3%
Below Expectations
4
6.3%
Acceptable
10
15.6%
Very Good
15
23.4%
Excellent
31
48.4%
Total
64
100.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Below Expectations
2
3.0%
Acceptable
9
13.6%
Very Good
15
22.7%
Excellent
39
59.1%
Total
66
100.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Unacceptable
4
6.2%
Acceptable
12
17.9%
Below Expectations
2
3.1%
Very Good
17
25.4%
53.7%
100.0%
Acceptable
11
16.9%
Excellent
36
Very Good
15
23.1%
Total
67
Excellent
33
50.8%
Total
65
100.0%
183
timely manner
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.5%
Unacceptable
1
1.5%
Acceptable
10
14.9%
Below Expectations
2
3.0%
Very Good
20
29.9%
Acceptable
9
13.6%
Excellent
36
53.7%
Very Good
20
30.3%
Total
67
100.0%
Excellent
34
51.5%
Total
66
100.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
6
8.8%
Below Expectations
5
7.6%
Acceptable
7
10.3%
Acceptable
9
13.6%
Very Good
22
32.4%
Very Good
18
27.3%
Excellent
33
48.5%
Excellent
34
51.5%
Total
68
100.0%
Total
66
100.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
4.5%
Acceptable
11
16.7%
Very Good
17
25.8%
Excellent
35
53.0%
Total
66
100.0%
deadlines
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Acceptable
12
19.4%
Very Good
18
29.0%
Excellent
31
50.0%
Total
62
100.0%
184
law firm?
years?
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
16
23.2%
Once
20
29.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
15
21.7%
2 to 3 times
20
29.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
9
13.0%
4 to 10 times
17
24.6%
11 to 20 Attorneys
10
14.5%
More than 10 times
12
17.4%
19
27.5%
Total
69
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
69
100.0%
attorney?
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.4%
3 to 5 years
4
5.8%
6 to 10 years
7
10.1%
11 to 20 years
19
27.5%
More than 20 years
38
55.1%
Total
69
100.0%
background?
Judge
McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
59
85.5%
African American
/ Black
1
1.4%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
3
4.3%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
5.8%
Native American
0
0.0%
Judge McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Other
2
2.9%
Criminal Law
21
30.4%
Total
69
100.0%
General Civil
35
50.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
7
10.1%
Government
Practice
2
2.9%
Other
4
5.8%
Total
69
100.0%
Judge
McDermott
Frequency
Percent
Male
43
63.2%
Female
25
36.8%
Total
68
100.0%
185
JUDGELAURAGENEMIDDAUGH
135Respondents
3.33 3.99
3.97
Judge Court Average
3.89
3.53 Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication
4.15
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Average
186
4
5
Judge Middaugh Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.33 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.33 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.34 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.23 3.41 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.53 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.68 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.90 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.20 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.36 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.53 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.60 3.72 3.51 3.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.66 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.67 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.60 3.71 3.65 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
16
12.0%
Unacceptable
12
9.5%
Below Expectations
19
14.3%
Below Expectations
18
14.3%
Acceptable
32
24.1%
Acceptable
36
28.6%
Very Good
37
27.8%
Very Good
35
27.8%
Excellent
29
21.8%
Excellent
25
19.8%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
126
100.0%
187
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
18
14.1%
Unacceptable
14
10.7%
Below Expectations
23
18.0%
Below Expectations
26
19.8%
Acceptable
27
21.1%
Acceptable
30
22.9%
Very Good
35
27.3%
Very Good
38
29.0%
Excellent
25
19.5%
Excellent
23
17.6%
Total
128
100.0%
Total
131
100.0%
bench
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
11
8.6%
Unacceptable
12
9.1%
Below Expectations
19
14.8%
Below Expectations
21
15.9%
Acceptable
31
24.2%
Acceptable
36
27.3%
Very Good
41
32.0%
Very Good
34
25.8%
Excellent
26
20.3%
Excellent
29
22.0%
Total
128
100.0%
Total
132
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
7.5%
Unacceptable
9
7.4%
Below Expectations
15
11.2%
Below Expectations
8
6.6%
Acceptable
31
23.1%
Acceptable
30
24.6%
Very Good
41
30.6%
Very Good
41
33.6%
Excellent
37
27.6%
Excellent
34
27.9%
Total
134
100.0%
Total
122
100.0%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
4.5%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
15
11.3%
Unacceptable
6
4.8%
Acceptable
29
21.8%
Below Expectations
5
4.0%
Very Good
43
32.3%
Acceptable
33
26.4%
Excellent
40
30.1%
Very Good
33
26.4%
Total
133
100.0%
Excellent
48
38.4%
Total
125
100.0%
188
timely manner
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
11
8.3%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
9
6.8%
Unacceptable
6
4.8%
Acceptable
46
34.8%
Below Expectations
5
4.0%
Very Good
34
25.8%
Acceptable
35
28.2%
Excellent
32
24.2%
Very Good
51
41.1%
Total
132
100.0%
Excellent
27
21.8%
Total
124
100.0%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
11
8.3%
Unacceptable
4
3.2%
Below Expectations
21
15.8%
Below Expectations
9
7.1%
Acceptable
41
30.8%
Acceptable
40
31.7%
Very Good
37
27.8%
Very Good
47
37.3%
Excellent
23
17.3%
Excellent
26
20.6%
Total
133
100.0%
Total
126
100.0%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
4.7%
Below Expectations
5
3.9%
Acceptable
42
32.6%
Very Good
49
38.0%
Excellent
27
20.9%
Total
129
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
7.1%
Below Expectations
8
7.1%
Acceptable
29
25.7%
Very Good
44
38.9%
Excellent
24
21.2%
Total
113
100.0%
189
law firm?
years?
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
39
29.1%
Once
47
34.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
25
18.7%
2 to 3 times
58
43.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
8
6.0%
4 to 10 times
25
18.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
19
14.2%
More than 10 times
5
3.7%
43
32.1%
Total
135
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
134
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.7%
3 to 5 years
5
3.7%
6 to 10 years
19
14.1%
11 to 20 years
33
24.4%
More than 20 years
77
57.0%
Total
135
100.0%
background?
Judge
Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
119
88.8%
African
American /
Black
2
1.5%
Hispanic /
Latino / Latina
4
3.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
6.0%
Native
American
0
0.0%
Judge Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
29
21.5%
General Civil
62
45.9%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
28
20.7%
Government
Practice
9
6.7%
Other
7
5.2%
Judge
Middaugh
Frequency
Percent
Total
135
100.0%
Male
82
60.7%
Female
53
39.3%
Total
135
100.0%
Other
1
0.7%
Total
134
100.0%
190
JUDGEDOUGLASSNORTH
94Respondents
3.99
3.97
Judge Court Average
3.89
4.30 4.15
0
1
2
3
RATINGSCALE
Judge Average
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
191
4
5
Judge North Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.06 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.06 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.04 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.05 4.10 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.25 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.42 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.51 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.89 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.19 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.30 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.40 4.24 4.41 4.16 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.17 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.19 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.15 4.15 4.18 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
8
8.6%
Below Expectations
7
7.7%
Acceptable
15
16.1%
Acceptable
14
15.4%
Very Good
25
26.9%
Very Good
30
33.0%
Excellent
43
46.2%
Excellent
38
41.8%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
192
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.4%
Unacceptable
4
4.3%
Below Expectations
9
9.9%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Acceptable
18
19.8%
Acceptable
16
17.0%
Very Good
22
24.2%
Very Good
29
30.9%
Excellent
38
41.8%
Excellent
41
43.6%
Total
91
100.0%
Total
94
100.0%
bench
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
6
6.5%
Below Expectations
6
6.5%
Acceptable
18
19.4%
Acceptable
12
12.9%
Very Good
30
32.3%
Very Good
25
26.9%
Excellent
39
41.9%
Excellent
48
51.6%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
11
12.0%
Acceptable
12
13.3%
Very Good
26
28.3%
Very Good
21
23.3%
Excellent
53
57.6%
Excellent
55
61.1%
Total
92
100.0%
Total
90
100.0%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
3.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
18
19.6%
Below Expectations
1
1.2%
Very Good
21
22.8%
Acceptable
10
11.6%
Excellent
49
53.3%
Very Good
19
22.1%
Total
92
100.0%
Excellent
56
65.1%
Total
86
100.0%
193
timely manner
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Acceptable
10
11.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Very Good
27
30.0%
Acceptable
20
22.5%
Excellent
51
56.7%
Very Good
29
32.6%
Total
90
100.0%
Excellent
38
42.7%
Total
89
100.0%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
18
19.6%
Acceptable
24
26.7%
Very Good
29
31.5%
Very Good
23
25.6%
Excellent
41
44.6%
Excellent
42
46.7%
Total
92
100.0%
Total
90
100.0%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Acceptable
19
21.1%
Very Good
29
32.2%
Excellent
40
44.4%
Total
90
100.0%
deadlines
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.5%
Acceptable
18
22.2%
Very Good
27
33.3%
Excellent
34
42.0%
Total
81
100.0%
194
law firm?
years?
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
14
14.9%
Once
35
37.2%
2 to 5 Attorneys
22
23.4%
2 to 3 times
41
43.6%
6 to 10 Attorneys
13
13.8%
4 to 10 times
14
14.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
13
13.8%
More than 10 times
4
4.3%
32
34.0%
Total
94
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
94
100.0%
attorney?
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.1%
3 to 5 years
1
1.1%
6 to 10 years
16
17.0%
11 to 20 years
23
24.5%
More than 20 years
53
56.4%
Total
94
100.0%
background?
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
87
92.6%
African
American /
Black
1
1.1%
Hispanic /
Latino / Latina
1
1.1%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
2
2.1%
Judge North
Frequency
Percent
Native
American
1
1.1%
Criminal Law
19
20.4%
Other
2
2.1%
General Civil
64
68.8%
Total
94
100.0%
Domestic
Relations / Family
Law
5
5.4%
Government
Practice
2
2.2%
Other
3
3.2%
Total
93
100.0%
195
Judge
North
Frequency
Percent
Male
70
74.5%
Female
24
25.5%
Total
94
100.0%
JUDGESEANO’DONNELL
155Respondents
3.99
4.35 3.97
Communication
Judge Average
3.89
4.53 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
196
5
Judge O’Donnell Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.35 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.33 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.37 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.29 4.39 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.57 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.52 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.20 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.46 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.53 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control 4.55 4.63 4.53 4.40 4.36 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.45 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.28 4.33 4.38 Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
10. Capably identified and analyzed legal and
factual issues
procedure
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
5
3.3%
Below Expectations
7
4.8%
Acceptable
17
11.1%
Acceptable
9
6.2%
Very Good
45
29.4%
Very Good
45
30.8%
Excellent
84
54.9%
Excellent
83
56.8%
Total
153
100.0%
Total
146
100.0%
197
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
8
5.3%
Below Expectations
5
3.3%
Acceptable
23
15.1%
Acceptable
20
13.3%
Very Good
44
28.9%
Very Good
47
31.3%
Excellent
75
49.3%
Excellent
77
51.3%
Total
152
100.0%
Total
150
100.0%
bench
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
2
1.3%
Below Expectations
6
4.0%
Acceptable
13
8.6%
Acceptable
12
8.0%
Very Good
52
34.2%
Very Good
35
23.3%
Excellent
83
54.6%
Excellent
96
64.0%
Total
152
100.0%
Total
150
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
4
2.7%
Below Expectations
1
0.7%
Acceptable
8
5.4%
Acceptable
11
7.3%
Very Good
34
23.1%
Very Good
35
23.3%
Excellent
100
68.0%
Excellent
102
68.0%
Total
147
100.0%
Total
150
100.0%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Acceptable
5
3.3%
Below Expectations
3
2.0%
Very Good
33
21.9%
Acceptable
12
8.2%
Excellent
109
72.2%
Very Good
33
22.4%
Total
151
100.0%
Excellent
98
66.7%
Total
147
100.0%
198
timely manner
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Acceptable
12
8.2%
Below Expectations
3
2.1%
Very Good
41
28.1%
Acceptable
21
14.7%
Excellent
92
63.0%
Very Good
41
28.7%
Total
146
100.0%
Excellent
77
53.8%
Total
143
100.0%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
4
2.7%
Below Expectations
2
1.4%
Acceptable
13
8.7%
Acceptable
16
11.3%
Very Good
48
32.0%
Very Good
46
32.4%
Excellent
84
56.0%
Excellent
77
54.2%
Total
150
100.0%
Total
142
100.0%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.7%
Below Expectations
1
0.7%
Acceptable
16
11.0%
Very Good
42
28.8%
Excellent
86
58.9%
Total
146
100.0%
deadlines
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Below Expectations
6
4.3%
Acceptable
15
10.8%
Very Good
44
31.7%
Excellent
72
51.8%
Total
139
100.0%
199
law firm?
years?
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
47
30.3%
Once
54
34.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
35
22.6%
2 to 3 times
62
40.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
18
11.6%
15
9.7%
4 to 10 times
32
20.6%
11 to 20 Attorneys
More than 10 times
7
4.5%
40
25.8%
Total
155
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
155
100.0%
attorney?
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
3
1.9%
3 to 5 years
11
7.1%
6 to 10 years
24
15.5%
11 to 20 years
38
24.5%
More than 20 years
79
51.0%
Total
155
100.0%
background?
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
134
87.0%
African American
/ Black
3
1.9%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
3
1.9%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
9
5.8%
Native American
1
0.6%
Other
4
2.6%
Total
154
100.0%
Judge O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
18
11.6%
General Civil
35
22.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
89
57.4%
Government
Practice
6
3.9%
Other
7
4.5%
Total
155
100.0%
200
Judge
O’Donnell
Frequency
Percent
Male
67
43.8%
Female
86
56.2%
Total
153
100.0%
JUDGEPATRICKOISHI
99Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.17 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Judge Court Average
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
201
5
Judge Oishi Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.94 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.90 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.92 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.90 4.04 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.09 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.21 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.28 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.92 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.98 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.17 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.18 4.29 4.10 4.10 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.05 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.12 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.00 4.05 4.02 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Unacceptable
4
4.4%
Below Expectations
5
5.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.3%
Acceptable
22
22.7%
Acceptable
22
24.2%
Very Good
32
33.0%
Very Good
29
31.9%
Excellent
34
35.1%
Excellent
33
36.3%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
202
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.3%
Unacceptable
4
4.2%
Below Expectations
4
4.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.1%
Acceptable
21
22.1%
Acceptable
26
27.1%
Very Good
25
26.3%
Very Good
29
30.2%
Excellent
39
41.1%
Excellent
34
35.4%
Total
95
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
bench
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Unacceptable
6
6.3%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
7
7.3%
Acceptable
22
22.7%
Acceptable
11
11.5%
Very Good
31
32.0%
Very Good
31
32.3%
Excellent
39
40.2%
Excellent
41
42.7%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.2%
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.1%
Acceptable
15
15.8%
Acceptable
11
11.5%
Very Good
27
28.4%
Very Good
33
34.4%
Excellent
47
49.5%
Excellent
46
47.9%
Total
95
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Unacceptable
3
3.2%
Acceptable
12
12.4%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Very Good
31
32.0%
Acceptable
12
12.8%
Excellent
50
51.5%
Very Good
26
27.7%
Total
97
100.0%
Excellent
51
54.3%
Total
94
100.0%
203
timely manner
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Unacceptable
5
5.3%
Acceptable
21
21.6%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
31
32.0%
Acceptable
17
17.9%
Excellent
41
42.3%
Very Good
36
37.9%
Total
97
100.0%
Excellent
37
38.9%
Total
95
100.0%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Unacceptable
4
4.4%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
3
3.3%
Acceptable
21
21.6%
Acceptable
15
16.5%
Very Good
31
32.0%
Very Good
34
37.4%
Excellent
41
42.3%
Excellent
35
38.5%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
16
16.8%
Very Good
41
43.2%
Excellent
35
36.8%
Total
95
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.7%
Below Expectations
3
3.5%
Acceptable
12
14.1%
Very Good
36
42.4%
Excellent
30
35.3%
Total
85
100.0%
204
law firm?
years?
Frequency
Percent
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
28
28.3%
Once
40
40.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
18
18.2%
2 to 3 times
14
14.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
4
4.0%
9
9.1%
4 to 10 times
17
17.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
More than 10 times
28
28.3%
40
40.4%
Total
99
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
99
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
5
5.1%
6 to 10 years
19
19.2%
11 to 20 years
28
28.3%
More than 20 years
47
47.5%
Total
99
100.0%
background?
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
49
49.5%
General Civil
36
36.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
3
3.0%
Government
Practice
5
5.1%
Other
6
6.1%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
87
87.9%
African
American /
Black
3
3.0%
Hispanic /
Latino /
Latina
1
1.0%
Asian /
Pacific
Islander
6
6.1%
Native
American
1
1.0%
Other
1
1.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Oishi
205
Judge
Oishi
Frequency
Percent
Male
55
55.6%
Female
44
44.4%
Total
99
100.0%
JUDGESUZANNEPARISIEN
87Respondents
3.50 3.97
Communication
Judge Court Average
3.89
3.78 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
3.99
206
5
Judge Parisien Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.50 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.45 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.45 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.47 3.63 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.72 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.86 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.94 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.39 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.72 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.78 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.79 3.80 3.85 3.67 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.81 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.83 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.75 3.83 3.85 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
11
13.1%
Unacceptable
10
12.2%
Below Expectations
9
10.7%
Below Expectations
11
13.4%
Acceptable
15
17.9%
Acceptable
14
17.1%
Very Good
29
34.5%
Very Good
26
31.7%
Excellent
20
23.8%
Excellent
21
25.6%
Total
84
100.0%
Total
82
100.0%
207
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
12
14.5%
Unacceptable
6
7.1%
Below Expectations
9
10.8%
Below Expectations
12
14.1%
Acceptable
18
21.7%
Acceptable
20
23.5%
Very Good
23
27.7%
Very Good
30
35.3%
Excellent
21
25.3%
Excellent
17
20.0%
Total
83
100.0%
Total
85
100.0%
bench
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.2%
Unacceptable
6
7.4%
Below Expectations
6
7.4%
Below Expectations
7
8.6%
Acceptable
21
25.9%
Acceptable
17
21.0%
Very Good
31
38.3%
Very Good
25
30.9%
Excellent
18
22.2%
Excellent
26
32.1%
Total
81
100.0%
Total
81
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
8.1%
Unacceptable
5
5.9%
Below Expectations
6
7.0%
Below Expectations
6
7.1%
Acceptable
18
20.9%
Acceptable
15
17.6%
Very Good
22
25.6%
Very Good
29
34.1%
Excellent
33
38.4%
Excellent
30
35.3%
Total
86
100.0%
Total
85
100.0%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.7%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
6
7.1%
Unacceptable
6
7.6%
Acceptable
19
22.4%
Below Expectations
3
3.8%
Very Good
30
35.3%
Acceptable
13
16.5%
Excellent
26
30.6%
Very Good
25
31.6%
Total
85
100.0%
Excellent
32
40.5%
Total
79
100.0%
208
timely manner
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.9%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
6.1%
Unacceptable
4
4.7%
Acceptable
18
22.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.2%
Very Good
27
32.9%
Acceptable
23
26.7%
Excellent
28
34.1%
Very Good
36
41.9%
Total
82
100.0%
Excellent
22
25.6%
Total
86
100.0%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.8%
Unacceptable
3
3.6%
Below Expectations
9
10.7%
Below Expectations
4
4.8%
Acceptable
20
23.8%
Acceptable
21
25.0%
Very Good
29
34.5%
Very Good
31
36.9%
Excellent
22
26.2%
Excellent
25
29.8%
Total
84
100.0%
Total
84
100.0%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.6%
Below Expectations
3
3.6%
Acceptable
21
25.0%
Very Good
35
41.7%
Excellent
22
26.2%
Total
84
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.6%
Below Expectations
6
7.9%
Acceptable
13
17.1%
Very Good
31
40.8%
Excellent
21
27.6%
Total
76
100.0%
209
law firm?
years?
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
29
33.3%
Once
34
39.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
22
25.3%
2 to 3 times
40
46.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
14
16.1%
4 to 10 times
10
11.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
11
12.6%
More than 10 times
3
3.4%
11
12.6%
Total
87
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
87
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
3
3.4%
3 to 5 years
9
10.3%
6 to 10 years
10
11.5%
11 to 20 years
22
25.3%
More than 20 years
43
49.4%
Total
87
100.0%
background?
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
70
81.4%
African
American /
Black
2
2.3%
Hispanic /
Latino / Latina
3
3.5%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
8.1%
Judge Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Native
American
0
0.0%
Criminal Law
4
4.6%
Other
4
4.7%
General Civil
16
18.4%
Total
86
100.0%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
60
Government
Practice
3
3.4%
Other
4
4.6%
Total
87
100.0%
69.0%
Judge
Parisien
Frequency
Percent
Male
31
36.0%
Female
55
64.0%
Total
86
100.0%
210
JUDGEKIMBERLEYPROCHNAU
96Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.38 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.32 211
5
Judge Prochnau Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.19 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.14 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.12 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.19 4.31 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.32 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.46 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.48 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.06 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.27 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.38 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.45 4.44 4.35 4.29 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.34 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.42 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.33 4.33 4.27 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.2%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
6
6.4%
Below Expectations
6
6.7%
Acceptable
10
10.6%
Acceptable
12
13.3%
Very Good
31
33.0%
Very Good
29
32.2%
Excellent
44
46.8%
Excellent
41
45.6%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
90
100.0%
212
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.5%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Below Expectations
4
4.4%
Acceptable
9
9.7%
Acceptable
11
12.1%
Very Good
33
35.5%
Very Good
32
35.2%
Excellent
41
44.1%
Excellent
42
46.2%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
91
100.0%
bench
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Acceptable
14
14.7%
Acceptable
10
10.8%
Very Good
28
29.5%
Very Good
28
30.1%
Excellent
50
52.6%
Excellent
49
52.7%
Total
95
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Acceptable
8
8.5%
Acceptable
9
9.6%
Very Good
24
25.5%
Very Good
23
24.5%
Excellent
58
61.7%
Excellent
59
62.8%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
94
100.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
7.4%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Very Good
32
33.7%
Acceptable
8
8.6%
Excellent
54
56.8%
Very Good
20
21.5%
Total
95
100.0%
Excellent
61
65.6%
Total
93
100.0%
213
timely manner
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Acceptable
12
12.8%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Very Good
25
26.6%
Acceptable
9
10.0%
Excellent
53
56.4%
Very Good
35
38.9%
Total
94
100.0%
Excellent
44
48.9%
Total
90
100.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Acceptable
9
9.8%
Acceptable
14
15.7%
Very Good
31
33.7%
Very Good
27
30.3%
Excellent
47
51.1%
Excellent
45
50.6%
Total
92
100.0%
Total
89
100.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Acceptable
10
10.5%
Very Good
29
30.5%
Excellent
54
56.8%
Total
95
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Below Expectations
2
2.4%
Acceptable
12
14.5%
Very Good
22
26.5%
Excellent
46
55.4%
Total
83
100.0%
214
years?
law firm?
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
20
20.8%
Once
44
45.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
19
19.8%
2 to 3 times
37
38.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
18
18.8%
4 to 10 times
14
14.6%
11 to 20 Attorneys
11
11.5%
More than 10 times
1
1.0%
Total
96
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
28
29.2%
Total
96
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
6.3%
Caucasian / White
87
90.6%
6 to 10 years
12
12.5%
2
2.1%
11 to 20 years
24
25.0%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
53
55.2%
0
0.0%
Total
96
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
4.2%
Native American
1
1.0%
Other
2
2.1%
Total
96
100.0%
Judge Prochnau
Frequenc
y
Percent
Criminal Law
12
12.8%
General Civil
51
54.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
20
21.3%
Government
Practice
5
5.3%
Other
6
6.4%
Total
94
100.0%
215
Judge
Prochnau
Frequency
Percent
Male
48
50.5%
Female
47
49.5%
Total
95
100.0%
JUDGEJEFFREYRAMSDELL
105Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.38 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.33 216
5
Judge Ramsdell Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.23 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.25 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.26 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.17 4.25 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.33 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.42 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.50 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.07 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.34 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.38 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.41 4.42 4.40 4.30 4.29 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.34 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.27 4.29 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.26 EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
6
5.9%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
15
14.7%
Acceptable
17
17.2%
Very Good
29
28.4%
Very Good
33
33.3%
Excellent
52
51.0%
Excellent
47
47.5%
Total
102
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
217
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
7
7.1%
Below Expectations
6
6.0%
Acceptable
16
16.2%
Acceptable
13
13.0%
Very Good
27
27.3%
Very Good
39
39.0%
Excellent
46
46.5%
Excellent
42
42.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
100
100.0%
bench
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Acceptable
19
18.6%
Acceptable
13
12.7%
Very Good
35
34.3%
Very Good
30
29.4%
Excellent
47
46.1%
Excellent
56
54.9%
Total
102
100.0%
Total
102
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
10.8%
Acceptable
9
9.1%
Very Good
31
30.4%
Very Good
31
31.3%
Excellent
58
56.9%
Excellent
57
57.6%
Total
102
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
10
9.9%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Very Good
36
35.6%
Acceptable
7
7.1%
Excellent
54
53.5%
Very Good
32
32.7%
Total
101
100.0%
Excellent
58
59.2%
Total
98
100.0%
218
timely manner
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
9.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Very Good
35
35.4%
Acceptable
15
15.2%
Excellent
53
53.5%
Very Good
37
37.4%
Total
99
100.0%
Excellent
46
46.5%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
12
11.9%
Acceptable
15
15.0%
Very Good
38
37.6%
Very Good
38
38.0%
Excellent
48
47.5%
Excellent
45
45.0%
Total
101
100.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.2%
Acceptable
9
9.4%
Very Good
33
34.4%
Excellent
50
52.1%
Total
96
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
13.2%
Very Good
38
41.8%
Excellent
40
44.0%
Total
91
100.0%
219
law firm?
years?
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
24
22.9%
Once
46
43.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
22
21.0%
2 to 3 times
37
35.2%
6 to 10 Attorneys
11
10.5%
14
13.3%
4 to 10 times
16
15.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
More than 10 times
6
5.7%
34
32.4%
Total
105
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
105
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
6
5.7%
6 to 10 years
12
11.4%
11 to 20 years
26
24.8%
More than 20 years
61
58.1%
Total
105
100.0%
background?
Judge
Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
93
88.6%
African
American /
Black
1
1.0%
Hispanic /
Latino / Latina
1
1.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
6.7%
Native
American
0
0.0%
Other
3
2.9%
Total
105
100.0%
Judge Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
18
17.1%
General Civil
43
41.0%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
35
33.3%
Government
Practice
3
2.9%
Other
6
5.7%
Judge
Ramsdell
Frequency
Percent
Total
105
100.0%
Male
55
52.9%
Female
49
47.1%
Total
104
100.0%
220
JUDGEJUDITHRAMSEYER
106Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
4.42 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.29 221
5
Judge Ramseyer Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.10 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.97 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.03 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.19 4.22 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.29 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.40 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.45 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.95 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.34 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.42 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.50 4.41 4.45 4.30 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.32 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.33 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.24 4.33 4.39 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.0%
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
5
5.0%
Below Expectations
4
4.1%
Acceptable
14
14.0%
Acceptable
16
16.5%
Very Good
36
36.0%
Very Good
34
35.1%
Excellent
39
39.0%
Excellent
39
40.2%
Total
100
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
222
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.2%
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
18
18.6%
Acceptable
10
10.2%
Very Good
30
30.9%
Very Good
37
37.8%
Excellent
39
40.2%
Excellent
45
45.9%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
98
100.0%
bench
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.9%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
12
11.8%
Acceptable
13
13.5%
Very Good
35
34.3%
Very Good
33
34.4%
Excellent
49
48.0%
Excellent
49
51.0%
Total
102
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Acceptable
7
7.1%
Acceptable
9
9.2%
Very Good
32
32.7%
Very Good
34
34.7%
Excellent
58
59.2%
Excellent
53
54.1%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
98
100.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
10
10.1%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
34
34.3%
Acceptable
9
9.1%
Excellent
54
54.5%
Very Good
32
32.3%
Total
99
100.0%
Excellent
57
57.6%
Total
99
100.0%
223
timely manner
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
10
10.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Very Good
30
30.3%
Acceptable
12
12.6%
Excellent
58
58.6%
Very Good
37
38.9%
Total
99
100.0%
Excellent
45
47.4%
Total
95
100.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
13.1%
Acceptable
12
12.4%
Very Good
30
30.3%
Very Good
35
36.1%
Excellent
52
52.5%
Excellent
50
51.5%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Acceptable
12
12.4%
Very Good
35
36.1%
Excellent
48
49.5%
Total
97
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
16
17.8%
Very Good
29
32.2%
Excellent
43
47.8%
Total
90
100.0%
224
law firm?
years?
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Once
44
41.5%
2 to 3 times
47
44.3%
4 to 10 times
10
9.4%
More than 10 times
5
Total
106
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
33
31.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
33
31.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
13
12.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
12
11.3%
4.7%
More than 20
Attorneys
15
14.2%
100.0%
Total
106
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
8
7.5%
Caucasian /
White
93
88.6%
6 to 10 years
13
12.3%
2
1.9%
11 to 20 years
21
19.8%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
64
60.4%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
0
0.0%
Total
106
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
4.8%
Native American
1
1.0%
Other
4
3.8%
Total
105
100.0%
Judge Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
8
7.5%
General Civil
26
24.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
66
62.3%
Judge
Ramseyer
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
4
3.8%
Male
38
36.2%
Other
2
1.9%
Female
67
63.8%
Total
106
100.0%
Total
105
100.0%
225
JUDGEJEANRIETSCHEL
122Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.28 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
226
5
Judge Rietschel Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.99 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.93 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.96 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.98 4.10 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.18 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.27 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.39 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.85 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.21 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.28 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.35 4.34 4.34 4.09 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.22 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.30 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.17 4.17 4.24 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.3%
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Below Expectations
11
9.2%
Below Expectations
12
10.5%
Acceptable
22
18.3%
Acceptable
19
16.7%
Very Good
35
29.2%
Very Good
37
32.5%
Excellent
48
40.0%
Excellent
44
38.6%
Total
120
100.0%
Total
114
100.0%
227
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
8.3%
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Below Expectations
11
9.2%
Below Expectations
10
8.6%
Acceptable
17
14.2%
Acceptable
24
20.7%
Very Good
31
25.8%
Very Good
32
27.6%
Excellent
51
42.5%
Excellent
48
41.4%
Total
120
100.0%
Total
116
100.0%
bench
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Below Expectations
10
8.5%
Below Expectations
10
8.5%
Acceptable
20
17.1%
Acceptable
14
11.9%
Very Good
35
29.9%
Very Good
23
19.5%
Excellent
52
44.4%
Excellent
68
57.6%
Total
117
100.0%
Total
118
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Unacceptable
4
3.5%
Below Expectations
6
5.1%
Below Expectations
6
5.3%
Acceptable
13
11.0%
Acceptable
12
10.5%
Very Good
25
21.2%
Very Good
25
21.9%
Excellent
72
61.0%
Excellent
67
58.8%
Total
118
100.0%
Total
114
100.0%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
3.4%
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Acceptable
14
12.1%
Below Expectations
6
5.3%
Very Good
36
31.0%
Acceptable
9
7.9%
Excellent
62
53.4%
Very Good
25
21.9%
Total
116
100.0%
Excellent
72
63.2%
Total
114
100.0%
228
timely manner
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
2.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
17
14.7%
Below Expectations
6
5.2%
Very Good
30
25.9%
Acceptable
21
18.3%
Excellent
65
56.0%
Very Good
35
30.4%
Total
116
100.0%
Excellent
53
46.1%
Total
115
100.0%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
8
6.9%
Below Expectations
4
3.6%
Acceptable
23
19.8%
Acceptable
19
17.3%
Very Good
31
26.7%
Very Good
34
30.9%
Excellent
53
45.7%
Excellent
53
48.2%
Total
116
100.0%
Total
110
100.0%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
3.5%
Acceptable
17
15.0%
Very Good
33
29.2%
Excellent
59
52.2%
Total
113
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.7%
Acceptable
11
10.5%
Very Good
39
37.1%
Excellent
47
44.8%
Total
105
100.0%
229
law firm?
years?
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Once
49
40.2%
2 to 3 times
44
36.1%
4 to 10 times
25
20.5%
More than 10 times
4
Total
122
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
25
20.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
35
28.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
17
13.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
11
9.0%
3.3%
More than 20
Attorneys
34
27.9%
100.0%
Total
122
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Caucasian / White
107
88.4%
3 to 5 years
5
4.1%
6 to 10 years
18
14.8%
African American
/ Black
1
0.8%
11 to 20 years
30
24.6%
0
0.0%
More than 20 years
69
56.6%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Total
122
100.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
5.0%
Native American
2
1.7%
Other
5
4.1%
Total
121
100.0%
Judge Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
14
11.5%
General Civil
54
44.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
41
33.6%
Government
Practice
7
5.7%
Other
6
4.9%
Total
122
100.0%
230
Judge
Rietschel
Frequency
Percent
Male
68
56.2%
Female
53
43.8%
Total
121
100.0%
JUDGEMARYROBERTS
81Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
3.98 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
231
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Roberts Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.85 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.86 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.82 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.80 3.92 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.99 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.14 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.16 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.69 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.99 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.04 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control U d l
l
i ti
hil i
t
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.08 4.09 4.00 3 99
3.98 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.13 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.96 3.76 4.08 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Unacceptable
6
7.9%
Below Expectations
9
11.4%
Below Expectations
7
9.2%
Acceptable
12
15.2%
Acceptable
12
15.8%
Very Good
23
29.1%
Very Good
21
27.6%
Excellent
31
39.2%
Excellent
30
39.5%
Total
79
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
232
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
9.0%
Unacceptable
6
7.5%
Below Expectations
9
11.5%
Below Expectations
6
7.5%
Acceptable
14
17.9%
Acceptable
15
18.8%
Very Good
19
24.4%
Very Good
24
30.0%
Excellent
29
37.2%
Excellent
29
36.3%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
80
100.0%
bench
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.4%
Unacceptable
4
4.9%
Below Expectations
6
7.7%
Below Expectations
6
7.4%
Acceptable
12
15.4%
Acceptable
16
19.8%
Very Good
22
28.2%
Very Good
16
19.8%
Excellent
33
42.3%
Excellent
39
48.1%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
81
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.0%
Unacceptable
4
5.4%
Below Expectations
7
8.8%
Below Expectations
5
6.8%
Acceptable
11
13.8%
Acceptable
6
8.1%
Very Good
15
18.8%
Very Good
21
28.4%
Excellent
43
53.8%
Excellent
38
51.4%
Total
80
100.0%
Total
74
100.0%
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.9%
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
6
7.4%
Unacceptable
4
5.4%
Acceptable
10
12.3%
Below Expectations
5
6.8%
Very Good
20
24.7%
Acceptable
7
9.5%
Excellent
41
50.6%
Very Good
17
23.0%
Total
81
100.0%
Excellent
41
55.4%
Total
74
100.0%
233
timely manner
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.0%
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
7
8.8%
Unacceptable
8
10.8%
Acceptable
12
15.0%
Below Expectations
5
6.8%
Very Good
19
23.8%
Acceptable
14
18.9%
Excellent
38
47.5%
Very Good
17
23.0%
Total
80
100.0%
Excellent
30
40.5%
Total
74
100.0%
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
5.1%
Unacceptable
2
2.6%
Below Expectations
6
7.6%
Below Expectations
7
9.2%
Acceptable
13
16.5%
Acceptable
12
15.8%
Very Good
20
25.3%
Very Good
17
22.4%
Excellent
36
45.6%
Excellent
38
50.0%
Total
79
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.8%
Below Expectations
3
3.8%
Acceptable
13
16.5%
Very Good
22
27.8%
Excellent
38
48.1%
Total
79
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
6.8%
Below Expectations
5
6.8%
Acceptable
11
14.9%
Very Good
20
27.0%
Excellent
33
44.6%
Total
74
100.0%
234
law firm?
years?
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
25
30.9%
Once
30
37.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
18
22.2%
2 to 3 times
19
23.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
3
3.7%
10
12.3%
4 to 10 times
13
16.0%
11 to 20 Attorneys
More than 10 times
19
23.5%
25
30.9%
Total
81
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
81
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.2%
3 to 5 years
4
4.9%
6 to 10 years
10
12.3%
11 to 20 years
24
29.6%
More than 20 years
42
51.9%
Total
81
100.0%
background?
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
33
40.7%
General Civil
33
40.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
12
14.8%
Government
Practice
2
2.5%
Other
1
Total
81
Judge Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian /
White
67
82.7%
African American
/ Black
1
1.2%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
1
1.2%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
7
8.6%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
5
6.2%
Total
81
100.0%
Judge
Roberts
Frequency
Percent
Male
55
67.9%
1.2%
Female
26
32.1%
100.0%
Total
81
100.0%
235
JUDGEPALMERROBINSON
178Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.37 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.33 236
5
Judge Robinson Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.23 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.23 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.24 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.21 4.26 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.33 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.44 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.41 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.12 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.33 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.37 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.42 4.37 4.38 4.32 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.36 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.44 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.35 4.33 4.33 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
10
5.7%
Below Expectations
10
5.9%
Acceptable
25
14.3%
Acceptable
20
11.8%
Very Good
51
29.1%
Very Good
56
32.9%
Excellent
88
50.3%
Excellent
83
48.8%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
170
100.0%
237
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Below Expectations
11
6.3%
Below Expectations
7
4.0%
Acceptable
24
13.7%
Acceptable
25
14.5%
Very Good
53
30.3%
Very Good
58
33.5%
Excellent
82
46.9%
Excellent
81
46.8%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
173
100.0%
bench
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Below Expectations
7
4.0%
Below Expectations
4
2.3%
Acceptable
24
13.7%
Acceptable
24
14.0%
Very Good
56
32.0%
Very Good
46
26.9%
Excellent
87
49.7%
Excellent
95
55.6%
Total
175
100.0%
Total
171
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.1%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
5
2.8%
Below Expectations
5
2.9%
Acceptable
17
9.6%
Acceptable
17
10.0%
Very Good
45
25.4%
Very Good
42
24.7%
Excellent
108
61.0%
Excellent
105
61.8%
Total
177
100.0%
Total
170
100.0%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
1.7%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Acceptable
23
13.1%
Below Expectations
6
3.5%
Very Good
51
29.1%
Acceptable
17
10.0%
Excellent
97
55.4%
Very Good
40
23.5%
Total
175
100.0%
Excellent
105
61.8%
Total
170
100.0%
238
timely manner
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
5
2.9%
Unacceptable
3
1.8%
Acceptable
21
12.1%
Below Expectations
5
3.0%
Very Good
46
26.6%
Acceptable
16
9.5%
Excellent
100
57.8%
Very Good
54
32.1%
Total
173
100.0%
Excellent
90
53.6%
Total
168
100.0%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.2%
Below Expectations
7
4.0%
Below Expectations
3
1.8%
Acceptable
20
11.6%
Acceptable
20
11.8%
Very Good
57
32.9%
Very Good
57
33.5%
Excellent
89
51.4%
Excellent
88
51.8%
Total
173
100.0%
Total
170
100.0%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
2
1.1%
Acceptable
15
8.6%
Very Good
58
33.3%
Excellent
98
56.3%
Total
174
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.3%
Below Expectations
3
1.9%
Acceptable
17
11.0%
Very Good
49
31.6%
Excellent
84
54.2%
Total
155
100.0%
239
law firm?
years?
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
69
39.0%
Once
65
36.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
40
22.6%
2 to 3 times
65
36.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
17
9.6%
15
8.5%
4 to 10 times
38
21.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
More than 10 times
10
5.6%
36
20.3%
Total
178
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
177
100.0%
attorney?
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.6%
3 to 5 years
13
7.3%
6 to 10 years
18
10.1%
11 to 20 years
39
21.9%
More than 20 years
107
60.1%
Total
178
100.0%
background?
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
28
15.7%
General Civil
42
23.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
91
51.1%
Government
Practice
7
3.9%
Other
10
5.6%
Total
178
100.0%
Judge Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
155
87.1%
African American
/ Black
5
2.8%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
4
2.2%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
10
5.6%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
4
2.2%
Total
178
100.0%
240
Judge
Robinson
Frequency
Percent
Male
84
47.7%
Female
92
52.3%
Total
176
100.0%
JUDGEJIMROGERS
89Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.17 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
241
5
Judge Rogers Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.05 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.99 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.01 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.02 4.16 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.11 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.27 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.25 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.85 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.07 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.17 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.16 4.31 4.13 4.08 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.99 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.16 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.86 4.02 3.92 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Below Expectations
9
10.2%
Below Expectations
8
9.3%
Acceptable
15
17.0%
Acceptable
15
17.4%
Very Good
24
27.3%
Very Good
27
31.4%
Excellent
38
43.2%
Excellent
35
40.7%
Total
88
100.0%
Total
86
100.0%
242
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Below Expectations
12
14.0%
Below Expectations
6
6.8%
Acceptable
16
18.6%
Acceptable
19
21.6%
Very Good
23
26.7%
Very Good
22
25.0%
Excellent
33
38.4%
Excellent
39
44.3%
Total
86
100.0%
Total
88
100.0%
bench
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.5%
Below Expectations
8
9.2%
Acceptable
20
23.5%
Acceptable
15
17.2%
Very Good
22
25.9%
Very Good
19
21.8%
Excellent
40
47.1%
Excellent
43
49.4%
Total
85
100.0%
Total
87
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
5.8%
Below Expectations
5
6.1%
Acceptable
16
18.6%
Acceptable
12
14.6%
Very Good
17
19.8%
Very Good
21
25.6%
Excellent
46
53.5%
Excellent
44
53.7%
Total
86
100.0%
Total
82
100.0%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.4%
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Acceptable
12
14.1%
Below Expectations
3
3.6%
Very Good
25
29.4%
Acceptable
16
19.0%
Excellent
45
52.9%
Very Good
18
21.4%
Total
85
100.0%
Excellent
46
54.8%
Total
84
100.0%
243
timely manner
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
7
8.1%
Unacceptable
3
3.6%
Acceptable
15
17.4%
Below Expectations
4
4.8%
Very Good
20
23.3%
Acceptable
17
20.5%
Excellent
43
50.0%
Very Good
23
27.7%
Total
86
100.0%
Excellent
36
43.4%
Total
83
100.0%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.2%
Unacceptable
3
3.6%
Below Expectations
6
7.0%
Below Expectations
6
7.2%
Acceptable
18
20.9%
Acceptable
18
21.7%
Very Good
21
24.4%
Very Good
24
28.9%
Excellent
40
46.5%
Excellent
32
38.6%
Total
86
100.0%
Total
83
100.0%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.6%
Acceptable
16
18.4%
Very Good
25
28.7%
Excellent
41
47.1%
Total
87
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
7.5%
Below Expectations
3
3.8%
Acceptable
19
23.8%
Very Good
20
25.0%
Excellent
32
40.0%
Total
80
100.0%
244
law firm?
years?
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
27
30.3%
Once
22
24.7%
2 to 5 Attorneys
15
16.9%
2 to 3 times
14
15.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
6
6.7%
11 to 20
Attorneys
7
7.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
34
38.2%
Total
89
100.0%
4 to 10 times
16
18.0%
More than 10 times
37
41.6%
Total
89
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
5
5.6%
6 to 10 years
16
18.0%
Caucasian /
White
79
88.8%
11 to 20 years
24
27.0%
1
1.1%
More than 20 years
44
49.4%
African American
/ Black
Total
89
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
2
2.2%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
4.5%
Native American
1
1.1%
Judge Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Other
2
2.2%
Criminal Law
46
51.7%
Total
89
100.0%
General Civil
26
29.2%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
6
6.7%
Government
Practice
2
2.2%
Other
9
10.1%
Total
89
100.0%
245
Judge
Rogers
Frequency
Percent
Male
59
66.3%
Female
30
33.7%
Total
89
100.0%
JUDGEROGERROGOFF
79Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.41 4.53 Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
4.39 246
5
Judge Rogoff Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.39 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.34 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.35 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.38 4.49 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.49 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.57 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.23 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.36 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.53 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.53 4.63 4.45 4.51 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.42 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.44 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.36 4.43 4.46 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.6%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
10
13.2%
Acceptable
13
18.3%
Very Good
24
31.6%
Very Good
20
28.2%
Excellent
40
52.6%
Excellent
38
53.5%
Total
76
100.0%
Total
71
100.0%
247
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
4.1%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
17.8%
Acceptable
13
17.1%
Very Good
21
28.8%
Very Good
21
27.6%
Excellent
36
49.3%
Excellent
42
55.3%
Total
73
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
bench
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
4
5.3%
Acceptable
8
10.8%
Acceptable
6
7.9%
Very Good
22
29.7%
Very Good
25
32.9%
Excellent
44
59.5%
Excellent
41
53.9%
Total
74
100.0%
Total
76
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
9.0%
Acceptable
8
10.8%
Very Good
20
25.6%
Very Good
22
29.7%
Excellent
50
64.1%
Excellent
44
59.5%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
74
100.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
2.7%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Very Good
21
28.0%
Acceptable
6
8.3%
Excellent
51
68.0%
Very Good
16
22.2%
Total
75
100.0%
Excellent
49
68.1%
Total
72
100.0%
248
timely manner
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
2.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
9.2%
Below Expectations
1
1.3%
Very Good
22
28.9%
Acceptable
7
9.2%
Excellent
45
59.2%
Very Good
26
34.2%
Total
76
100.0%
Excellent
42
55.3%
Total
76
100.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
9.3%
Acceptable
6
8.1%
Very Good
23
30.7%
Very Good
28
37.8%
Excellent
45
60.0%
Excellent
40
54.1%
Total
75
100.0%
Total
74
100.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Acceptable
7
9.6%
Very Good
24
32.9%
Excellent
41
56.2%
Total
73
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.4%
Acceptable
8
11.6%
Very Good
25
36.2%
Excellent
35
50.7%
Total
69
100.0%
249
years?
law firm?
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
17
21.5%
Once
36
45.6%
2 to 5 Attorneys
11
13.9%
2 to 3 times
25
31.6%
6 to 10 Attorneys
6
7.6%
4 to 10 times
11
13.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
11
13.9%
More than 10 times
7
8.9%
Total
79
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
34
43.0%
Total
79
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
3
3.8%
Caucasian / White
69
87.3%
6 to 10 years
14
17.7%
3
3.8%
11 to 20 years
25
31.6%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
37
46.8%
2
2.5%
Total
79
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
5.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
1
1.3%
Total
79
100.0%
Judge Rogoff
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
23
29.5%
General Civil
39
50.0%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
6
7.7%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Rogoff
5
6.4%
Male
50
64.1%
Other
5
6.4%
Female
28
35.9%
Total
78
100.0%
Total
78
100.0%
250
JUDGEJOHNRUHL
47Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.35 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
251
5
Judge Ruhl Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.88 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.84 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.84 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.84 4.00 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.19 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.38 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.36 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.80 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.21 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.35 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.48 4.49 4.30 4.15 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.12 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.33 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.10 3.98 4.07 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.2%
Unacceptable
2
4.5%
Below Expectations
7
15.6%
Below Expectations
5
11.4%
Acceptable
6
13.3%
Acceptable
6
13.6%
Very Good
15
33.3%
Very Good
16
36.4%
Excellent
16
35.6%
Excellent
15
34.1%
Total
45
100.0%
Total
44
100.0%
252
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
4.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
6
13.6%
Below Expectations
4
9.1%
Acceptable
5
11.4%
Acceptable
12
27.3%
Very Good
17
38.6%
Very Good
15
34.1%
Excellent
14
31.8%
Excellent
13
29.5%
Total
44
100.0%
Total
44
100.0%
bench
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
2.1%
4
8.5%
Below Expectations
1
2.2%
Below Expectations
Acceptable
11
23.9%
Acceptable
5
10.6%
Very Good
21
45.7%
Very Good
11
23.4%
Excellent
13
28.3%
Excellent
26
55.3%
Total
46
100.0%
Total
47
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
2.2%
Below Expectations
1
2.2%
Acceptable
5
10.9%
Acceptable
6
13.3%
Very Good
11
23.9%
Very Good
13
28.9%
Excellent
29
63.0%
Excellent
25
55.6%
Total
46
100.0%
Total
45
100.0%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.3%
Below Expectations
2
4.5%
Acceptable
3
6.8%
Very Good
12
27.3%
Excellent
26
59.1%
Total
44
100.0%
253
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
5
10.6%
Very Good
14
29.8%
Excellent
28
59.6%
Total
47
100.0%
timely manner
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.1%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
2.1%
Unacceptable
1
2.3%
Acceptable
7
14.9%
Below Expectations
1
2.3%
Very Good
12
25.5%
Acceptable
9
20.9%
Excellent
26
55.3%
Very Good
19
44.2%
Total
47
100.0%
Excellent
13
30.2%
Total
43
100.0%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
4.3%
Below Expectations
2
4.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
19.1%
Acceptable
8
17.4%
Very Good
16
34.0%
Very Good
19
41.3%
Excellent
20
42.6%
Excellent
17
37.0%
Total
47
100.0%
Total
46
100.0%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
2.2%
Acceptable
7
15.2%
Very Good
14
30.4%
Excellent
24
52.2%
Total
46
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
10
25.0%
Very Good
12
30.0%
Excellent
17
42.5%
Total
40
100.0%
254
years?
law firm?
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
9
19.1%
Once
26
55.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
11
23.4%
2 to 3 times
13
27.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
6
12.8%
4 to 10 times
7
14.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
6
12.8%
More than 10 times
1
2.1%
Total
47
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
15
31.9%
Total
47
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
2.1%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
1
2.1%
Caucasian / White
44
93.6%
6 to 10 years
4
8.5%
1
2.1%
11 to 20 years
14
29.8%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
27
57.4%
0
0.0%
Total
47
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
1
2.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
1
2.1%
Total
47
100.0%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
4
8.5%
General Civil
25
53.2%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
12
25.5%
Government
Practice
3
6.4%
Other
3
6.4%
Total
47
100.0%
Judge Ruhl
Frequency
Percent
Male
28
60.9%
Female
18
39.1%
Total
46
100.0%
255
JUDGEWESLEYSAINTCLAIR
23Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
4.05 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
256
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Saint Clair Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.78 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.64 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.76 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.82 3.91 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.94 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.91 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.09 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.82 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.96 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.04 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.83 4.36 3.91 4.04 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.05 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.32 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.05 4.30 3.55 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
4.8%
Below Expectations
4
18.2%
Below Expectations
3
14.3%
Acceptable
3
13.6%
Acceptable
2
9.5%
Very Good
12
54.5%
Very Good
9
42.9%
Excellent
3
13.6%
Excellent
6
28.6%
Total
22
100.0%
Total
21
100.0%
257
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
4.5%
Unacceptable
1
4.5%
Below Expectations
3
13.6%
Below Expectations
1
4.5%
Acceptable
3
13.6%
Acceptable
4
18.2%
Very Good
7
31.8%
Very Good
11
50.0%
Excellent
8
36.4%
Excellent
5
22.7%
Total
22
100.0%
Total
22
100.0%
bench
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
4.3%
Below Expectations
2
8.7%
Acceptable
5
21.7%
Acceptable
5
21.7%
Very Good
12
52.2%
Very Good
8
34.8%
Excellent
5
21.7%
Excellent
8
34.8%
Total
23
100.0%
Total
23
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
4.3%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
13.0%
Below Expectations
3
13.0%
Acceptable
3
13.0%
Acceptable
4
17.4%
Very Good
8
34.8%
Very Good
8
34.8%
Excellent
8
34.8%
Excellent
8
34.8%
Total
23
100.0%
Total
23
100.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
4.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
9.1%
Below Expectations
2
9.1%
Very Good
7
31.8%
Acceptable
5
22.7%
Excellent
12
54.5%
Very Good
4
18.2%
Total
22
100.0%
Excellent
11
50.0%
Total
22
100.0%
258
timely manner
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
9.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
18.2%
Below Expectations
1
5.0%
Very Good
10
45.5%
Acceptable
1
5.0%
Excellent
6
27.3%
Very Good
9
45.0%
Total
22
100.0%
Excellent
9
45.0%
Total
20
100.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
4.5%
Below Expectations
3
13.0%
Below Expectations
2
9.1%
Acceptable
1
4.3%
Acceptable
8
36.4%
Very Good
11
47.8%
Very Good
6
27.3%
Excellent
8
34.8%
Excellent
5
22.7%
Total
23
100.0%
Total
22
100.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
4.5%
Acceptable
3
13.6%
Very Good
6
27.3%
Excellent
12
54.5%
Total
22
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
4.8%
Acceptable
4
19.0%
Very Good
9
42.9%
Excellent
7
33.3%
Total
21
100.0%
259
years?
law firm?
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
5
21.7%
Once
0
0.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
4
17.4%
2 to 3 times
5
21.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
0
0.0%
4 to 10 times
5
21.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
1
4.3%
More than 10 times
13
56.5%
Total
23
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
13
56.5%
Total
23
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
4.3%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
1
4.3%
Caucasian / White
17
73.9%
6 to 10 years
5
21.7%
1
4.3%
11 to 20 years
8
34.8%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
8
34.8%
1
4.3%
Total
23
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
2
8.7%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
2
8.7%
Total
23
100.0%
Judge Saint Clair
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
19
82.6%
General Civil
2
8.7%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
1
4.3%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge Saint
Clair
1
4.3%
Male
12
52.2%
Other
0
0.0%
Female
11
47.8%
Total
23
100.0%
Total
23
100.0%
260
JUDGECAROLSCHAPIRA
115Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
Judge Average
4.27 4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
261
5
Judge Schapira Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.88 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.94 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.83 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.81 3.96 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.16 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.50 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.74 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.08 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.27 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.43 4.27 4.33 4.04 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.11 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.17 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.04 4.15 4.06 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.6%
Unacceptable
5
4.4%
Below Expectations
13
11.3%
Below Expectations
14
12.4%
Acceptable
21
18.3%
Acceptable
20
17.7%
Very Good
29
25.2%
Very Good
30
26.5%
Excellent
49
42.6%
Excellent
44
38.9%
Total
115
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
262
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
6.3%
Unacceptable
8
7.0%
Below Expectations
15
13.4%
Below Expectations
10
8.7%
Acceptable
26
23.2%
Acceptable
23
20.0%
Very Good
16
14.3%
Very Good
29
25.2%
Excellent
48
42.9%
Excellent
45
39.1%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
115
100.0%
bench
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
4.4%
Unacceptable
5
4.4%
Below Expectations
8
7.1%
Below Expectations
5
4.4%
Acceptable
21
18.6%
Acceptable
21
18.6%
Very Good
32
28.3%
Very Good
27
23.9%
Excellent
47
41.6%
Excellent
55
48.7%
Total
113
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Unacceptable
7
6.2%
Below Expectations
4
3.5%
Below Expectations
4
3.5%
Acceptable
12
10.6%
Acceptable
16
14.2%
Very Good
20
17.7%
Very Good
23
20.4%
Excellent
75
66.4%
Excellent
63
55.8%
Total
113
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
8
7.1%
Unacceptable
3
2.7%
Acceptable
12
10.6%
Below Expectations
4
3.6%
Very Good
30
26.5%
Acceptable
7
6.3%
Excellent
62
54.9%
Very Good
18
16.2%
Total
113
100.0%
Excellent
79
71.2%
Total
111
100.0%
263
timely manner
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
7
6.3%
Unacceptable
4
3.7%
Acceptable
11
9.8%
Below Expectations
4
3.7%
Very Good
24
21.4%
Acceptable
21
19.4%
Excellent
68
60.7%
Very Good
22
20.4%
Total
112
100.0%
Excellent
57
52.8%
Total
108
100.0%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Judge Schapira
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Unacceptable
3
2.8%
Below Expectations
10
8.9%
Below Expectations
10
9.2%
Acceptable
17
15.2%
Acceptable
17
15.6%
Very Good
35
31.3%
Very Good
26
23.9%
Excellent
48
42.9%
Excellent
53
48.6%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
109
100.0%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.7%
Below Expectations
5
4.5%
Acceptable
18
16.1%
Very Good
30
26.8%
Excellent
56
50.0%
Total
112
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
13
13.0%
Acceptable
16
16.0%
Very Good
21
21.0%
Excellent
49
49.0%
Total
100
100.0%
264
years?
law firm?
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
22
19.1%
Once
41
35.7%
2 to 5 Attorneys
31
27.0%
2 to 3 times
40
34.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
8
7.0%
4 to 10 times
23
20.0%
11 to 20 Attorneys
6
5.2%
More than 10 times
11
9.6%
Total
115
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
48
41.7%
Total
115
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
7
6.1%
Caucasian / White
102
88.7%
6 to 10 years
20
17.4%
3
2.6%
11 to 20 years
38
33.0%
African American
/ Black
More than 20 years
50
43.5%
2
1.7%
Total
115
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
3.5%
Native American
1
0.9%
Other
3
2.6%
Total
115
100.0%
Judge Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
28
24.3%
General Civil
68
59.1%
Domestic
Relations /
Family Law
7
6.1%
Government
Practice
6
5.2%
Other
6
5.2%
Total
115
100.0%
265
Judge
Schapira
Frequency
Percent
Male
75
65.2%
Female
40
34.8%
Total
115
100.0%
JUDGEKENNETHSCHUBERT
64Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
4.04 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
266
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Schubert Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.95 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.86 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.83 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.95 4.16 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.93 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.97 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.19 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.73 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.83 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.06 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.06 4.24 3.98 3.97 4.04 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.03 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.98 4.16 Used the court’s time efficiently 4.00 EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.7%
Unacceptable
2
3.2%
Below Expectations
5
7.8%
Below Expectations
6
9.5%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Acceptable
14
22.2%
Very Good
24
37.5%
Very Good
20
31.7%
Excellent
21
32.8%
Excellent
21
33.3%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
63
100.0%
267
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.1%
Unacceptable
2
3.1%
Below Expectations
11
17.2%
Below Expectations
3
4.7%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Acceptable
14
21.9%
Very Good
18
28.1%
Very Good
22
34.4%
Excellent
22
34.4%
Excellent
23
35.9%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
64
100.0%
bench
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
4
6.3%
Below Expectations
3
4.7%
Below Expectations
5
7.8%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Acceptable
12
18.8%
Very Good
23
35.9%
Very Good
20
31.3%
Excellent
27
42.2%
Excellent
23
35.9%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
64
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
4.7%
Unacceptable
5
7.9%
Below Expectations
3
4.7%
Below Expectations
3
4.8%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Acceptable
8
12.7%
Very Good
17
26.6%
Very Good
20
31.7%
Excellent
30
46.9%
Excellent
27
42.9%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
63
100.0%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Unacceptable
3
5.1%
Acceptable
8
12.7%
Below Expectations
4
6.8%
Very Good
25
39.7%
Acceptable
3
5.1%
Excellent
28
44.4%
Very Good
18
30.5%
Total
63
100.0%
Excellent
31
52.5%
Total
59
100.0%
268
timely manner
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
6.3%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
3.1%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
17.2%
Below Expectations
1
1.6%
Very Good
21
32.8%
Acceptable
11
18.0%
Excellent
26
40.6%
Very Good
26
42.6%
Total
64
100.0%
Excellent
23
37.7%
Total
61
100.0%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.2%
Unacceptable
1
1.6%
Below Expectations
4
6.5%
Below Expectations
3
4.9%
Acceptable
9
14.5%
Acceptable
12
19.7%
Very Good
26
41.9%
Very Good
24
39.3%
Excellent
21
33.9%
Excellent
21
34.4%
Total
62
100.0%
Total
61
100.0%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.2%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
16
25.4%
Very Good
21
33.3%
Excellent
24
38.1%
Total
63
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
3.3%
Below Expectations
2
3.3%
Acceptable
12
19.7%
Very Good
24
39.3%
Excellent
21
34.4%
Total
61
100.0%
269
years?
law firm?
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
8
12.5%
Once
24
37.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
12
18.8%
2 to 3 times
16
25.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
5
7.8%
4 to 10 times
14
21.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
7
10.9%
More than 10 times
10
15.6%
Total
64
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
32
50.0%
Total
64
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
1.6%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
5
7.8%
Caucasian / White
55
85.9%
6 to 10 years
13
20.3%
3
4.7%
11 to 20 years
16
25.0%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
29
45.3%
2
3.1%
Total
64
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
4
6.3%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
0
0.0%
Total
64
100.0%
Judge Schubert
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
15
23.4%
General Civil
33
51.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
8
12.5%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Schubert
5
7.8%
Male
31
49.2%
Other
3
4.7%
Female
32
50.8%
Total
64
100.0%
Total
63
100.0%
270
JUDGECATHERINESCHAFFER
100Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.07 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
271
5
Judge Schaffer Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.06 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.01 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.97 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.03 4.23 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.03 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.10 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.24 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.87 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.91 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.07 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.97 4.34 3.95 4.03 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.25 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.30 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.14 4.28 4.27 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
5.1%
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Below Expectations
6
6.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Acceptable
12
12.2%
Acceptable
17
17.5%
Very Good
35
35.7%
Very Good
30
30.9%
Excellent
40
40.8%
Excellent
39
40.2%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
272
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
6.2%
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Below Expectations
9
9.3%
Below Expectations
6
6.2%
Acceptable
17
17.5%
Acceptable
18
18.6%
Very Good
25
25.8%
Very Good
28
28.9%
Excellent
40
41.2%
Excellent
42
43.3%
Total
97
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
bench
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
7
7.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.1%
Acceptable
16
16.3%
Acceptable
16
16.2%
Very Good
27
27.6%
Very Good
24
24.2%
Excellent
50
51.0%
Excellent
44
44.4%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.0%
Unacceptable
5
5.2%
Below Expectations
9
9.1%
Below Expectations
5
5.2%
Acceptable
18
18.2%
Acceptable
13
13.5%
Very Good
23
23.2%
Very Good
25
26.0%
Excellent
45
45.5%
Excellent
48
50.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Unacceptable
4
4.5%
Acceptable
17
17.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.4%
Very Good
22
22.2%
Acceptable
12
13.5%
Excellent
57
57.6%
Very Good
19
21.3%
Total
99
100.0%
Excellent
51
57.3%
Total
89
100.0%
273
timely manner
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.1%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
10
10.4%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
17
17.7%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Very Good
25
26.0%
Acceptable
19
19.6%
Excellent
41
42.7%
Very Good
22
22.7%
Total
96
100.0%
Excellent
53
54.6%
Total
97
100.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
9
9.2%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Acceptable
19
19.4%
Acceptable
17
18.3%
Very Good
26
26.5%
Very Good
25
26.9%
Excellent
43
43.9%
Excellent
48
51.6%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
93
100.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Acceptable
17
18.1%
Very Good
23
24.5%
Excellent
51
54.3%
Total
94
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
5
5.7%
Acceptable
14
15.9%
Very Good
33
37.5%
Excellent
36
40.9%
Total
88
100.0%
274
years?
law firm?
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
16
16.0%
Once
31
31.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
25
25.0%
2 to 3 times
41
41.0%
6 to 10 Attorneys
4
4.0%
4 to 10 times
16
16.0%
More than 10 times
12
12.0%
11 to 20
Attorneys
15
15.0%
Total
100
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
40
40.0%
Total
100
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
2.0%
3 to 5 years
2
2.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
6 to 10 years
16
16.0%
89
89.9%
11 to 20 years
25
25.0%
Caucasian /
White
More than 20 years
55
55.0%
African American
/ Black
1
1.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino
/ Latina
0
0.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
6
6.1%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
3.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
24
24.0%
General Civil
60
60.0%
Domestic
Relations /
Family Law
6
6.0%
Government
Practice
4
4.0%
Other
6
6.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Judge
Shaffer
Frequency
Percent
Male
65
65.7%
Female
34
34.3%
Total
99
100.0%
275
JUDGELORISMITH
116Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
4.35 3.89
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
276
4.46 4.57 Judge Court Average
Judge Average
4.46 5
Judge Smith Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.35 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.32 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.30 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.34 4.45 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.46 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.54 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.57 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.20 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.52 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.57 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.64 4.58 4.60 4.44 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.46 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.54 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.46 4.44 4.40 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
5
4.4%
Below Expectations
5
4.6%
Acceptable
15
13.2%
Acceptable
13
11.9%
Very Good
29
25.4%
Very Good
31
28.4%
Excellent
64
56.1%
Excellent
59
54.1%
Total
114
100.0%
Total
109
100.0%
277
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
7
6.3%
Below Expectations
4
3.5%
Acceptable
17
15.2%
Acceptable
12
10.6%
Very Good
31
27.7%
Very Good
35
31.0%
Excellent
56
50.0%
Excellent
61
54.0%
Total
112
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
bench
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
4
3.6%
Acceptable
13
11.5%
Acceptable
9
8.0%
Very Good
29
25.7%
Very Good
24
21.4%
Excellent
69
61.1%
Excellent
75
67.0%
Total
113
100.0%
Total
112
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.7%
Acceptable
10
8.7%
Acceptable
7
6.3%
Very Good
21
18.3%
Very Good
24
21.6%
Excellent
84
73.0%
Excellent
76
68.5%
Total
115
100.0%
Total
111
100.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.9%
Acceptable
9
8.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.7%
Very Good
29
25.7%
Acceptable
7
6.4%
Excellent
75
66.4%
Very Good
20
18.2%
Total
113
100.0%
Excellent
79
71.8%
Total
110
100.0%
278
timely manner
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
7.9%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Very Good
25
21.9%
Acceptable
13
11.6%
Excellent
79
69.3%
Very Good
34
30.4%
Total
114
100.0%
Excellent
64
57.1%
Total
112
100.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.7%
Below Expectations
5
4.4%
Acceptable
12
10.6%
Acceptable
12
10.6%
Very Good
30
26.5%
Very Good
29
25.7%
Excellent
68
60.2%
Excellent
67
59.3%
Total
113
100.0%
Total
113
100.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
11.5%
Very Good
26
23.0%
Excellent
74
65.5%
Total
113
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
18
17.1%
Very Good
21
20.0%
Excellent
66
62.9%
Total
105
100.0%
279
years?
law firm?
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
40
34.5%
Once
27
23.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
27
23.3%
2 to 3 times
44
37.9%
6 to 10 Attorneys
18
15.5%
4 to 10 times
31
26.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
12
10.3%
More than 10 times
14
12.1%
Total
116
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
19
16.4%
Total
116
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
0.9%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
10
8.6%
Caucasian / White
97
83.6%
6 to 10 years
18
15.5%
3
2.6%
11 to 20 years
25
21.6%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
62
53.4%
2
1.7%
Total
116
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
4.3%
Native American
1
0.9%
Other
8
6.9%
Total
116
100.0%
Judge Smith
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
14
12.1%
General Civil
23
19.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
75
64.7%
Government
Practice
1
0.9%
Other
3
2.6%
Total
116
100.0%
280
Judge
Smith
Frequency
Percent
Male
45
39.1%
Female
70
60.9%
Total
115
100.0%
JUDGEMARIANESPEARMAN
124Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
4.15
4.15 0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
281
Judge Court Average
Judge Average
5
Judge Spearman Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.84 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.82 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.80 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.80 3.92 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.23 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.42 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.76 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.07 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.16 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.22 4.19 4.18 4.04 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.15 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.19 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.02 4.16 4.23 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.4%
Unacceptable
6
5.1%
Below Expectations
13
10.9%
Below Expectations
11
9.4%
Acceptable
23
19.3%
Acceptable
21
17.9%
Very Good
39
32.8%
Very Good
41
35.0%
Excellent
40
33.6%
Excellent
38
32.5%
Total
119
100.0%
Total
117
100.0%
282
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
6.7%
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Below Expectations
13
10.9%
Below Expectations
12
10.0%
Acceptable
21
17.6%
Acceptable
33
27.5%
Very Good
35
29.4%
Very Good
34
28.3%
Excellent
42
35.3%
Excellent
39
32.5%
Total
119
100.0%
Total
120
100.0%
bench
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Unacceptable
5
4.2%
Below Expectations
6
5.1%
Below Expectations
5
4.2%
Acceptable
31
26.3%
Acceptable
20
16.9%
Very Good
39
33.1%
Very Good
35
29.7%
Excellent
40
33.9%
Excellent
53
44.9%
Total
118
100.0%
Total
118
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Unacceptable
3
2.6%
Below Expectations
5
4.1%
Below Expectations
4
3.4%
Acceptable
17
14.0%
Acceptable
13
11.2%
Very Good
33
27.3%
Very Good
39
33.6%
Excellent
63
52.1%
Excellent
57
49.1%
Total
121
100.0%
Total
116
100.0%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
22
18.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.8%
Very Good
37
30.3%
Acceptable
15
13.5%
Excellent
58
47.5%
Very Good
28
25.2%
Total
122
100.0%
Excellent
66
59.5%
Total
111
100.0%
283
timely manner
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
3.3%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Acceptable
17
14.2%
Below Expectations
3
2.5%
Very Good
40
33.3%
Acceptable
21
17.8%
Excellent
56
46.7%
Very Good
44
37.3%
Total
120
100.0%
Excellent
49
41.5%
Total
118
100.0%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.7%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
7
6.0%
Below Expectations
5
4.3%
Acceptable
26
22.2%
Acceptable
18
15.7%
Very Good
31
26.5%
Very Good
37
32.2%
Excellent
51
43.6%
Excellent
55
47.8%
Total
117
100.0%
Total
115
100.0%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
2.5%
Acceptable
22
18.5%
Very Good
43
36.1%
Excellent
51
42.9%
Total
119
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.8%
Below Expectations
5
4.6%
Acceptable
23
21.1%
Very Good
38
34.9%
Excellent
41
37.6%
Total
109
100.0%
284
years?
law firm?
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
34
27.4%
Once
51
41.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
23
18.5%
2 to 3 times
46
37.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
15
12.1%
4 to 10 times
24
19.4%
11 to 20 Attorneys
14
11.3%
More than 10 times
3
2.4%
Total
124
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
38
30.6%
Total
124
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
1.6%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
6
4.8%
Caucasian / White
112
90.3%
6 to 10 years
16
12.9%
3
2.4%
11 to 20 years
32
25.8%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
68
54.8%
1
0.8%
Total
124
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
4.0%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
3
2.4%
Total
124
100.0%
Judge Spearman
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
16
12.9%
General Civil
86
69.4%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
9
7.3%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Spearman
4
3.2%
Male
88
71.5%
Other
9
7.3%
Female
35
28.5%
Total
124
100.0%
Total
123
100.0%
285
JUDGEJULIESPECTOR
99Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
3.93 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
286
5
Judge Spector Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.80 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.74 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.73 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.80 3.94 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.85 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.96 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.11 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.65 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.70 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.93 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.88 4.09 3.86 3.89 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.10 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.17 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.07 4.04 4.12 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
10.2%
Unacceptable
6
6.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.4%
Acceptable
23
23.5%
Acceptable
20
21.1%
Very Good
28
28.6%
Very Good
33
34.7%
Excellent
34
34.7%
Excellent
28
29.5%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
95
100.0%
287
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
9
9.2%
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Below Expectations
10
10.2%
Below Expectations
10
10.2%
Acceptable
20
20.4%
Acceptable
18
18.4%
Very Good
26
26.5%
Very Good
36
36.7%
Excellent
33
33.7%
Excellent
30
30.6%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
98
100.0%
bench
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.3%
Unacceptable
11
11.3%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Acceptable
22
23.4%
Acceptable
16
16.5%
Very Good
31
33.0%
Very Good
26
26.8%
Excellent
34
36.2%
Excellent
36
37.1%
Total
94
100.0%
Total
97
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
7.1%
Unacceptable
9
9.4%
Below Expectations
9
9.2%
Below Expectations
5
5.2%
Acceptable
15
15.3%
Acceptable
12
12.5%
Very Good
25
25.5%
Very Good
25
26.0%
Excellent
42
42.9%
Excellent
45
46.9%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
96
100.0%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
4
4.1%
Unacceptable
8
8.4%
Acceptable
20
20.6%
Below Expectations
3
3.2%
Very Good
28
28.9%
Acceptable
12
12.6%
Excellent
43
44.3%
Very Good
20
21.1%
Total
97
100.0%
Excellent
52
54.7%
Total
95
100.0%
288
timely manner
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
9
9.6%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
8
8.5%
Unacceptable
2
2.2%
Acceptable
10
10.6%
Below Expectations
2
2.2%
Very Good
27
28.7%
Acceptable
23
25.6%
Excellent
40
42.6%
Very Good
26
28.9%
Total
94
100.0%
Excellent
37
41.1%
Total
90
100.0%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.1%
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
8
8.2%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Acceptable
21
21.4%
Acceptable
22
23.4%
Very Good
27
27.6%
Very Good
29
30.9%
Excellent
38
38.8%
Excellent
40
42.6%
Total
98
100.0%
Total
94
100.0%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
2
2.1%
Acceptable
17
17.9%
Very Good
35
36.8%
Excellent
40
42.1%
Total
95
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
4
4.3%
Acceptable
21
22.8%
Very Good
28
30.4%
Excellent
38
41.3%
Total
92
100.0%
289
years?
law firm?
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
20
20.4%
Once
31
31.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
13
13.3%
2 to 3 times
42
42.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
10
10.2%
4 to 10 times
21
21.2%
11 to 20 Attorneys
10
10.2%
More than 10 times
5
5.1%
Total
99
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
45
45.9%
Total
98
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
4
4.0%
Caucasian / White
88
88.9%
6 to 10 years
16
16.2%
2
2.0%
11 to 20 years
24
24.2%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
55
55.6%
2
2.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
5.1%
Native American
1
1.0%
Other
1
1.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Judge Spector
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
23
23.2%
General Civil
57
57.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
5
5.1%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Spector
7
7.1%
Male
65
66.3%
Other
7
7.1%
Female
33
33.7%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
98
100.0%
290
JUDGETANYATHORP
38Respondents
3.99
3.97
Communication
3.89
3.78 Judge Average
4.15
0
1
2
3
4
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
Judge Court Average
291
5
Judge Thorp Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.80 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.81 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.68 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.68 4.05 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.83 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.86 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.03 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.73 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.68 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.78 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.47 4.18 3.68 3.79 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.11 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.09 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.17 4.21 3.97 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
8.1%
Unacceptable
2
5.9%
Below Expectations
3
8.1%
Below Expectations
6
17.6%
Acceptable
7
18.9%
Acceptable
6
17.6%
Very Good
9
24.3%
Very Good
7
20.6%
Excellent
15
40.5%
Excellent
13
38.2%
Total
37
100.0%
Total
34
100.0%
292
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
5.4%
Unacceptable
2
5.4%
Below Expectations
5
13.5%
Below Expectations
3
8.1%
Acceptable
10
27.0%
Acceptable
13
35.1%
Very Good
4
10.8%
Very Good
6
16.2%
Excellent
16
43.2%
Excellent
13
35.1%
Total
37
100.0%
Total
37
100.0%
bench
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.6%
Unacceptable
4
10.5%
Below Expectations
3
7.9%
Below Expectations
3
7.9%
Acceptable
7
18.4%
Acceptable
8
21.1%
Very Good
9
23.7%
Very Good
9
23.7%
Excellent
18
47.4%
Excellent
14
36.8%
Total
38
100.0%
Total
38
100.0%
of impropriety
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
13.2%
Unacceptable
4
10.8%
Below Expectations
2
5.3%
Below Expectations
2
5.4%
Acceptable
12
31.6%
Acceptable
7
18.9%
Very Good
8
21.1%
Very Good
6
16.2%
Excellent
11
28.9%
Excellent
18
48.6%
Total
38
100.0%
Total
37
100.0%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
2.6%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
2.6%
Unacceptable
2
5.7%
Acceptable
7
18.4%
Below Expectations
1
2.9%
Very Good
10
26.3%
Acceptable
6
17.1%
Excellent
19
50.0%
Very Good
11
31.4%
Total
38
100.0%
Excellent
15
42.9%
Total
35
100.0%
293
timely manner
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
10.8%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
1
2.7%
Unacceptable
1
3.0%
Acceptable
11
29.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
8
21.6%
Acceptable
9
27.3%
Excellent
13
35.1%
Very Good
4
12.1%
Total
37
100.0%
Excellent
19
57.6%
Total
33
100.0%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
5.3%
Unacceptable
1
2.8%
Below Expectations
4
10.5%
Below Expectations
1
2.8%
Acceptable
7
18.4%
Acceptable
11
30.6%
Very Good
12
31.6%
Very Good
8
22.2%
Excellent
13
34.2%
Excellent
15
41.7%
Total
38
100.0%
Total
36
100.0%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
5.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
7
20.0%
Very Good
10
28.6%
Excellent
16
45.7%
Total
35
100.0%
deadlines
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
6.9%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
4
13.8%
Very Good
8
27.6%
Excellent
15
51.7%
Total
29
100.0%
294
years?
law firm?
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
6
15.8%
Once
15
39.5%
2 to 5 Attorneys
7
18.4%
2 to 3 times
14
36.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
2
5.3%
4 to 10 times
6
15.8%
11 to 20 Attorneys
5
13.2%
More than 10 times
3
7.9%
Total
38
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
18
47.4%
Total
38
100.0%
attorney?
background?
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
1
2.6%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
5
13.2%
Caucasian / White
32
84.2%
6 to 10 years
9
23.7%
2
5.3%
11 to 20 years
11
28.9%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
12
31.6%
0
0.0%
Total
38
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
3
7.9%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
1
2.6%
Total
38
100.0%
Judge Thorp
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
17
44.7%
General Civil
15
39.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
2
5.3%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Judge
Thorp
2
5.3%
Male
21
55.3%
Other
2
5.3%
Female
17
44.7%
Total
38
100.0%
Total
38
100.0%
295
COMMISSIONERNANCYBRADBURN‐JOHNSON
321Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
296
Commissioner Bradburn‐Johnson Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.67 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.65 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.62 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.65 3.76 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.75 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.91 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.81 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.57 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.69 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.55 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.28 3.98 3.26 3.68 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.88 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.90 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.83 4.02 3.77 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
14
4.4%
Unacceptable
16
5.2%
Below Expectations
37
11.7%
Below Expectations
38
12.4%
Acceptable
81
25.7%
Acceptable
75
24.4%
Very Good
95
30.2%
Very Good
95
30.9%
Excellent
88
27.9%
Excellent
83
27.0%
Total
315
100.0%
Total
307
100.0%
297
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
15
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
4.8%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
38
12.1%
Unacceptable
17
5.6%
Acceptable
72
23.0%
Below Expectations
39
12.9%
Very Good
103
32.9%
Acceptable
48
15.9%
78
25.8%
Excellent
85
27.2%
Very Good
Total
313
100.0%
Excellent
120
39.7%
Total
302
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
13
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
4.3%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
20
6.6%
Unacceptable
17
5.4%
Acceptable
82
27.2%
Below Expectations
47
15.0%
Very Good
97
32.2%
Acceptable
78
24.8%
Excellent
89
29.6%
Very Good
83
26.4%
Total
301
100.0%
Excellent
89
28.3%
Total
314
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
15
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
4.9%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
24
7.9%
Unacceptable
24
7.6%
Acceptable
63
20.7%
Below Expectations
37
11.7%
Very Good
75
24.6%
Acceptable
63
19.9%
Excellent
128
42.0%
Very Good
80
25.3%
Total
305
100.0%
Excellent
112
35.4%
Total
316
100.0%
298
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
46
14.6%
Below Expectations
55
17.4%
Acceptable
71
Very Good
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
16
5.1%
22.5%
Below Expectations
36
11.4%
53
16.8%
Acceptable
80
25.3%
Excellent
91
28.8%
Very Good
86
27.2%
Total
316
100.0%
Excellent
98
31.0%
Total
316
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
2.6%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
13
4.2%
Unacceptable
10
3.3%
Acceptable
75
24.0%
Below Expectations
15
4.9%
Very Good
96
30.8%
Acceptable
79
25.7%
Excellent
120
38.5%
Very Good
96
31.3%
Total
312
100.0%
Excellent
107
34.9%
Total
307
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
41
13.1%
Below Expectations
61
19.5%
Acceptable
67
21.4%
Very Good
63
20.1%
Excellent
81
25.9%
Total
313
100.0%
deadlines
299
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
13
5.2%
Below Expectations
15
6.0%
Acceptable
60
24.0%
Very Good
76
30.4%
Excellent
86
34.4%
Total
250
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
8
2.7%
Below Expectations
15
5.1%
Acceptable
69
23.2%
Very Good
77
25.9%
Excellent
128
43.1%
Total
297
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
13
4.4%
Below Expectations
31
10.4%
Acceptable
68
22.8%
Very Good
86
28.9%
Excellent
100
33.6%
Total
298
100.0%
300
years?
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Once
30
9.3%
2 to 3 times
87
27.1%
4 to 10 times
113
35.2%
More than 10 times
91
28.3%
Total
321
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
5
1.6%
3 to 5 years
34
6 to 10 years
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
124
38.9%
2 to 5 Attorneys
101
31.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
40
12.5%
11 to 20 Attorneys
28
8.8%
More than 20
Attorneys
26
8.2%
Total
319
100.0%
background?
Frequency
Percent
10.7%
Commissioner
BradburnJohnson
45
14.1%
Caucasian / White
280
88.1%
11 to 20 years
69
21.6%
5
1.6%
More than 20 years
166
52.0%
African American /
Black
Total
319
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
6
1.9%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
17
5.3%
Native American
4
1.3%
Other
6
1.9%
Total
318
100.0%
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
6
1.9%
General Civil
165
51.9%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
136
42.8%
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
Commissioner
Bradburn-Johnson
1
0.3%
Male
161
50.6%
Other
10
3.1%
Female
157
49.4%
Total
318
100.0%
Total
318
100.0%
301
COMMISSIONERBONNIECANADA‐THURSTON
202Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
302
Commissioner Canada‐Thurston Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.38 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.37 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.44 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.22 3.48 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.24 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.33 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.42 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.22 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 2.97 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 2.85 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 2.36 3.59 2.30 3.13 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.74 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.64 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.66 3.95 3.70 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
25
12.4%
Unacceptable
18
9.2%
Below Expectations
29
14.4%
Below Expectations
28
14.3%
Acceptable
48
23.9%
Acceptable
51
26.0%
Very Good
44
21.9%
Very Good
47
24.0%
Excellent
55
27.4%
Excellent
52
26.5%
Total
201
100.0%
Total
196
100.0%
303
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
24
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
12.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
39
19.5%
Unacceptable
31
15.9%
Acceptable
51
25.5%
Below Expectations
21
10.8%
Very Good
41
20.5%
Acceptable
42
21.5%
37
19.0%
Excellent
45
22.5%
Very Good
Total
200
100.0%
Excellent
64
32.8%
Total
195
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
14
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
7.2%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
31
15.9%
Unacceptable
24
12.1%
Acceptable
54
27.7%
Below Expectations
34
17.1%
Very Good
40
20.5%
Acceptable
56
28.1%
Excellent
56
28.7%
Very Good
44
22.1%
Total
195
100.0%
Excellent
41
20.6%
Total
199
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
34
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
17.4%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
18
9.2%
Unacceptable
43
21.6%
Acceptable
50
25.6%
Below Expectations
40
20.1%
Very Good
35
17.9%
Acceptable
40
20.1%
Excellent
58
29.7%
Very Good
32
16.1%
Total
195
100.0%
Excellent
44
22.1%
Total
199
100.0%
304
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
82
41.2%
Below Expectations
41
20.6%
Acceptable
26
Very Good
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
25
12.6%
13.1%
Below Expectations
44
22.2%
23
11.6%
Acceptable
47
23.7%
Excellent
27
13.6%
Very Good
44
22.2%
Total
199
100.0%
Excellent
38
19.2%
Total
198
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
5.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
29
14.6%
Unacceptable
13
6.5%
Acceptable
54
27.1%
Below Expectations
21
10.6%
Very Good
45
22.6%
Acceptable
58
29.1%
Excellent
61
30.7%
Very Good
40
20.1%
Total
199
100.0%
Excellent
67
33.7%
Total
199
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
78
39.6%
Below Expectations
49
24.9%
Acceptable
24
12.2%
Very Good
25
12.7%
Excellent
21
10.7%
Total
197
100.0%
deadlines
305
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
11
6.4%
Below Expectations
9
5.2%
Acceptable
62
36.0%
Very Good
36
20.9%
Excellent
54
31.4%
Total
172
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
1.6%
Below Expectations
9
4.8%
Acceptable
55
29.1%
Very Good
49
25.9%
Excellent
73
38.6%
Total
189
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
12
6.3%
Below Expectations
20
10.5%
Acceptable
49
25.7%
Very Good
42
22.0%
Excellent
68
35.6%
Total
191
100.0%
306
years?
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Once
22
10.9%
2 to 3 times
52
25.7%
4 to 10 times
77
38.1%
More than 10 times
51
25.2%
Total
202
100.0%
law firm?
attorney?
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
88
44.4%
2 to 5 Attorneys
63
31.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
22
11.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
13
6.6%
More than 20
Attorneys
12
6.1%
Total
198
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
3
1.5%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
3 to 5 years
20
10.1%
Caucasian / White
169
85.4%
6 to 10 years
31
15.6%
3
1.5%
11 to 20 years
42
21.1%
African American /
Black
More than 20 years
103
51.8%
6
3.0%
Total
199
100.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
Asian / Pacific
Islander
9
4.5%
Native American
3
1.5%
Other
8
4.0%
Total
198
100.0%
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
9
4.5%
General Civil
37
18.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
145
72.9%
Government
Practice
3
1.5%
Other
5
2.5%
Total
199
100.0%
307
Commissioner
Canada-Thurston
Frequency
Percent
Male
82
41.4%
Female
116
58.6%
Total
198
100.0%
COMMISSIONERMARKHILLMAN
136Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
308
Commissioner Hillman Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.07 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.04 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.98 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.99 4.25 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.92 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.98 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.94 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.93 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.82 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.81 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.47 4.18 3.58 3.99 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.20 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.19 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.17 4.26 4.18 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.0%
Unacceptable
4
3.0%
Below Expectations
9
6.7%
Below Expectations
9
6.8%
Acceptable
26
19.4%
Acceptable
27
20.3%
Very Good
33
24.6%
Very Good
38
28.6%
Excellent
62
46.3%
Excellent
55
41.4%
Total
134
100.0%
Total
133
100.0%
309
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
3.8%
Commissioner
Hillman
6
4.5%
Unacceptable
9
6.9%
Acceptable
28
21.1%
Below Expectations
10
7.6%
Very Good
40
30.1%
Acceptable
20
15.3%
33
25.2%
Excellent
54
40.6%
Very Good
Total
133
100.0%
Excellent
59
45.0%
Total
131
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.5%
Commissioner
Hillman
3
2.3%
Unacceptable
7
5.2%
Acceptable
18
13.8%
Below Expectations
11
8.2%
Very Good
44
33.8%
Acceptable
23
17.2%
Excellent
63
48.5%
Very Good
37
27.6%
Total
130
100.0%
Excellent
56
41.8%
Total
134
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
3.8%
Commissioner
Hillman
13
9.9%
Unacceptable
8
5.9%
Acceptable
20
15.3%
Below Expectations
17
12.6%
Very Good
34
26.0%
Acceptable
20
14.8%
Excellent
59
45.0%
Very Good
36
26.7%
Total
131
100.0%
Excellent
54
40.0%
Total
135
100.0%
310
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
15
11.3%
Below Expectations
17
12.8%
Acceptable
32
Very Good
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.0%
24.1%
Below Expectations
7
5.2%
28
21.1%
Acceptable
31
23.0%
Excellent
41
30.8%
Very Good
37
27.4%
Total
133
100.0%
Excellent
56
41.5%
Total
135
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
2.2%
Commissioner
Hillman
2
1.5%
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Acceptable
23
16.9%
Below Expectations
2
1.5%
Very Good
47
34.6%
Acceptable
25
18.5%
Excellent
61
44.9%
Very Good
46
34.1%
Total
136
100.0%
Excellent
60
44.4%
Total
135
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
12
8.8%
Below Expectations
18
13.2%
Acceptable
27
19.9%
Very Good
37
27.2%
Excellent
42
30.9%
Total
136
100.0%
deadlines
311
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.5%
Below Expectations
2
1.7%
Acceptable
22
18.6%
Very Good
36
30.5%
Excellent
55
46.6%
Total
118
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
22
16.9%
Very Good
44
33.8%
Excellent
62
47.7%
Total
130
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
27
20.5%
Very Good
46
34.8%
Excellent
57
43.2%
Total
132
100.0%
312
law firm?
years?
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
59
43.4%
Once
24
17.6%
2 to 5 Attorneys
41
30.1%
2 to 3 times
42
30.9%
6 to 10 Attorneys
17
12.5%
4 to 10 times
38
27.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
6
4.4%
More than 10 times
32
23.5%
13
9.6%
Total
136
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
136
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
4
2.9%
3 to 5 years
13
9.6%
6 to 10 years
26
19.1%
11 to 20 years
30
22.1%
More than 20 years
63
46.3%
Total
136
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
8
5.9%
General Civil
16
11.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
101
74.3%
Government
Practice
4
2.9%
Other
7
5.1%
Total
136
100.0%
Commissioner
Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
114
83.8%
African American /
Black
3
2.2%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
4
2.9%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
5.9%
Native American
2
1.5%
Other
5
3.7%
Total
136
100.0%
313
Commissio
ner Hillman
Frequency
Percent
Male
42
31.1%
Female
93
68.9%
Total
135
100.0%
COMMISSIONERHOLLISHOLMAN
105Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
314
Commissioner Holman Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.88 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.84 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.86 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.86 3.95 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.91 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.97 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.04 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.74 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.88 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.93 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.83 4.09 3.79 4.01 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.10 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.12 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.06 4.14 4.07 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
2.0%
Below Expectations
9
8.7%
Below Expectations
7
7.1%
Acceptable
25
24.3%
Acceptable
25
25.3%
Very Good
30
29.1%
Very Good
34
34.3%
Excellent
36
35.0%
Excellent
31
31.3%
Total
103
100.0%
Total
99
100.0%
315
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.9%
Commissioner
Holman
3
2.9%
Unacceptable
2
2.1%
Acceptable
37
35.6%
Below Expectations
5
5.3%
Very Good
28
26.9%
Acceptable
20
21.3%
27
28.7%
Excellent
34
32.7%
Very Good
Total
104
100.0%
Excellent
40
42.6%
Total
94
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
2.1%
Commissioner
Holman
3
3.1%
Unacceptable
4
3.8%
Acceptable
28
28.9%
Below Expectations
8
7.6%
Very Good
29
29.9%
Acceptable
30
28.6%
Excellent
35
36.1%
Very Good
32
30.5%
Total
97
100.0%
Excellent
31
29.5%
Total
105
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
2.0%
Commissioner
Holman
4
4.0%
Unacceptable
4
3.9%
Acceptable
28
28.0%
Below Expectations
7
6.9%
Very Good
27
27.0%
Acceptable
22
21.6%
Excellent
39
39.0%
Very Good
33
32.4%
Total
100
100.0%
Excellent
36
35.3%
Total
102
100.0%
316
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
4.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.8%
Acceptable
23
Very Good
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
22.3%
Below Expectations
2
1.9%
37
35.9%
Acceptable
27
26.2%
Excellent
32
31.1%
Very Good
38
36.9%
Total
103
100.0%
Excellent
35
34.0%
Total
103
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.0%
Commissioner
Holman
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
27
26.2%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
33
32.0%
Acceptable
25
25.5%
Excellent
41
39.8%
Very Good
32
32.7%
Total
103
100.0%
Excellent
40
40.8%
Total
98
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.9%
Below Expectations
6
5.9%
Acceptable
27
26.5%
Very Good
35
34.3%
Excellent
30
29.4%
Total
102
100.0%
deadlines
317
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
23
25.8%
Very Good
31
34.8%
Excellent
33
37.1%
Total
89
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Acceptable
22
21.8%
Very Good
33
32.7%
Excellent
43
42.6%
Total
101
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
27
28.4%
Very Good
30
31.6%
Excellent
37
38.9%
Total
95
100.0%
318
years?
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Once
28
26.7%
2 to 3 times
39
37.1%
4 to 10 times
25
23.8%
More than 10 times
13
12.4%
Total
105
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
43
41.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
31
29.5%
6 to 10 Attorneys
7
6.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
8
7.6%
More than 20
Attorneys
16
15.2%
Total
105
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
12
11.4%
6 to 10 years
19
18.1%
11 to 20 years
26
24.8%
More than 20 years
48
45.7%
Total
105
100.0%
background?
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
93
88.6%
African American /
Black
4
3.8%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
4
3.8%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
2
1.9%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
2
1.9%
Total
105
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
8
7.6%
General Civil
52
49.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
34
32.4%
Commissioner
Holman
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
5
4.8%
Male
51
49.0%
Other
6
5.7%
Female
53
51.0%
Total
105
100.0%
Total
104
100.0%
Commissioner
Holman
319
COMMISSIONERJACQUELINEJESKE
142Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
320
Commissioner Jeske Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.01 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.94 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.93 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.94 4.22 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.07 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.17 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.20 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.86 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.04 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.23 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.27 4.36 4.23 4.05 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.02 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.11 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.07 4.11 3.78 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
3.6%
Unacceptable
5
3.5%
Below Expectations
7
5.0%
Below Expectations
9
6.3%
Acceptable
33
23.6%
Acceptable
29
20.4%
Very Good
42
30.0%
Very Good
47
33.1%
Excellent
53
37.9%
Excellent
52
36.6%
Total
140
100.0%
Total
142
100.0%
321
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
2.8%
Commissioner
Jeske
8
5.7%
Unacceptable
4
2.9%
Acceptable
36
25.5%
Below Expectations
10
7.3%
Very Good
38
27.0%
Acceptable
16
11.7%
32
23.4%
Excellent
55
39.0%
Very Good
Total
141
100.0%
Excellent
75
54.7%
Total
137
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.4%
Commissioner
Jeske
1
0.7%
Unacceptable
7
5.0%
Acceptable
26
18.4%
Below Expectations
9
6.4%
Very Good
47
33.3%
Acceptable
34
24.1%
Excellent
65
46.1%
Very Good
38
27.0%
Total
141
100.0%
Excellent
53
37.6%
Total
141
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
2.1%
Commissioner
Jeske
6
4.3%
Unacceptable
5
3.5%
Acceptable
25
17.7%
Below Expectations
8
5.7%
Very Good
37
26.2%
Acceptable
28
19.9%
Excellent
70
49.6%
Very Good
36
25.5%
Total
141
100.0%
Excellent
64
45.4%
Total
141
100.0%
322
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
2.8%
Below Expectations
4
2.8%
Acceptable
16
Very Good
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.1%
11.3%
Below Expectations
7
5.0%
43
30.3%
Acceptable
26
18.6%
Excellent
75
52.8%
Very Good
48
34.3%
Total
142
100.0%
Excellent
56
40.0%
Total
140
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
2.2%
Commissioner
Jeske
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
2
1.4%
Acceptable
16
11.5%
Below Expectations
4
2.8%
Very Good
45
32.4%
Acceptable
31
22.0%
Excellent
75
54.0%
Very Good
44
31.2%
Total
139
100.0%
Excellent
60
42.6%
Total
141
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
2.1%
Below Expectations
4
2.9%
Acceptable
21
15.0%
Very Good
42
30.0%
Excellent
70
50.0%
Total
140
100.0%
deadlines
323
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
3.3%
Below Expectations
4
3.3%
Acceptable
24
19.5%
Very Good
39
31.7%
Excellent
52
42.3%
Total
123
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
3.7%
Below Expectations
3
2.2%
Acceptable
27
19.9%
Very Good
38
27.9%
Excellent
63
46.3%
Total
136
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
3.6%
Below Expectations
12
8.8%
Acceptable
37
27.0%
Very Good
37
27.0%
Excellent
46
33.6%
Total
137
100.0%
324
law firm?
years?
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
60
42.3%
Once
21
14.8%
2 to 5 Attorneys
40
28.2%
2 to 3 times
48
33.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
15
10.6%
4 to 10 times
46
32.4%
11 to 20 Attorneys
9
6.3%
More than 10 times
27
19.0%
18
12.7%
Total
142
100.0%
More than 20
Attorneys
Total
142
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
4
2.8%
3 to 5 years
11
7.7%
6 to 10 years
28
19.7%
11 to 20 years
33
23.2%
More than 20 years
66
46.5%
Total
142
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
118
83.7%
African American /
Black
6
4.3%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
3
2.1%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
5.7%
Native American
1
0.7%
Other
5
3.5%
Total
141
100.0%
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
12
8.5%
General Civil
21
14.8%
Domestic
Relations / Family
Law
Commissioner
Jeske
Frequency
Percent
104
73.2%
Male
46
32.6%
Government
Practice
Female
95
67.4%
3
2.1%
Total
141
100.0%
Other
2
1.4%
Total
142
100.0%
325
COMMISSIONERMELINDAJOHNSON‐TAYLOR
102Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
326
Commissioner Johnson‐Taylor Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.95 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.94 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.83 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.92 4.12 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.25 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.25 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.87 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.11 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.32 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.40 4.33 4.43 4.13 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.13 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.15 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.04 4.28 4.06 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Below Expectations
6
6.1%
Below Expectations
6
6.0%
Acceptable
21
21.2%
Acceptable
24
24.0%
Very Good
45
45.5%
Very Good
47
47.0%
Excellent
27
27.3%
Excellent
22
22.0%
Total
99
100.0%
Total
100
100.0%
327
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
5
5.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
23
22.8%
Below Expectations
5
5.2%
Very Good
44
43.6%
Acceptable
11
11.3%
36
37.1%
Excellent
28
27.7%
Very Good
Total
101
100.0%
Excellent
45
46.4%
Total
97
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
1
1.0%
Unacceptable
1
1.0%
Acceptable
17
17.0%
Below Expectations
6
6.0%
Very Good
47
47.0%
Acceptable
24
24.0%
Excellent
34
34.0%
Very Good
43
43.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Excellent
26
26.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
2
2.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
15
15.0%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
Very Good
39
39.0%
Acceptable
23
23.0%
Excellent
44
44.0%
Very Good
37
37.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Excellent
38
38.0%
Total
100
100.0%
328
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Acceptable
11
Very Good
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
10.9%
Below Expectations
2
2.0%
36
35.6%
Acceptable
18
18.0%
Excellent
53
52.5%
Very Good
45
45.0%
Total
101
100.0%
Excellent
35
35.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
11.0%
Below Expectations
1
1.0%
Very Good
45
45.0%
Acceptable
18
18.0%
Excellent
44
44.0%
Very Good
46
46.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Excellent
35
35.0%
Total
100
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
9
9.0%
Very Good
39
39.0%
Excellent
52
52.0%
Total
100
100.0%
deadlines
329
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
1.1%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
18
19.4%
Very Good
46
49.5%
Excellent
27
29.0%
Total
93
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
13.5%
Very Good
43
44.8%
Excellent
40
41.7%
Total
96
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
3.0%
Acceptable
20
20.0%
Very Good
45
45.0%
Excellent
32
32.0%
Total
100
100.0%
330
years?
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Once
20
19.6%
2 to 3 times
42
41.2%
4 to 10 times
32
31.4%
More than 10 times
8
7.8%
Total
102
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
37
36.3%
2 to 5 Attorneys
32
31.4%
6 to 10 Attorneys
16
15.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
8
7.8%
More than 20
Attorneys
9
8.8%
Total
102
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
4
3.9%
3 to 5 years
12
11.8%
6 to 10 years
17
16.7%
11 to 20 years
24
23.5%
More than 20 years
45
44.1%
Total
102
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
3
2.9%
General Civil
7
6.9%
Domestic
Relations /
Family Law
88
86.3%
Government
Practice
3
2.9%
Other
1
1.0%
Total
102
100.0%
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
90
89.1%
African American /
Black
0
0.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
2
2.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
5
5.0%
Native American
2
2.0%
Other
2
2.0%
Total
101
100.0%
331
Commissioner
Johnson-Taylor
Frequency
Percent
Male
27
26.7%
Female
74
73.3%
Total
101
100.0%
COMMISSIONERHENRYJUDSON
212Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
332
Commissioner Judson Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.34 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.34 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.31 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.33 4.39 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.51 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.58 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.65 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.29 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.55 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.57 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.65 4.57 4.63 4.44 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.43 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.41 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.40 4.49 4.42 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.0%
Unacceptable
1
0.5%
Below Expectations
3
1.5%
Below Expectations
6
3.1%
Acceptable
27
13.1%
Acceptable
23
11.8%
Very Good
65
31.6%
Very Good
67
34.4%
Excellent
109
52.9%
Excellent
98
50.3%
Total
206
100.0%
Total
195
100.0%
333
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.5%
Commissioner
Judson
4
2.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
29
14.7%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
58
29.4%
Acceptable
12
6.1%
45
23.0%
Excellent
105
53.3%
Very Good
Total
197
100.0%
Excellent
139
70.9%
Total
196
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.5%
Commissioner
Judson
1
0.5%
Unacceptable
2
1.0%
Acceptable
23
12.0%
Below Expectations
8
3.9%
Very Good
63
33.0%
Acceptable
22
10.8%
Excellent
103
53.9%
Very Good
69
34.0%
Total
191
100.0%
Excellent
102
50.2%
Total
203
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
0.5%
Commissioner
Judson
1
0.5%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
5.4%
Below Expectations
4
2.0%
Very Good
56
27.7%
Acceptable
12
6.0%
Excellent
133
65.8%
Very Good
55
27.5%
Total
202
100.0%
Excellent
129
64.5%
Total
200
100.0%
334
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.5%
Acceptable
12
Very Good
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.5%
5.8%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
46
22.2%
Acceptable
25
12.3%
Excellent
148
71.5%
Very Good
60
29.6%
Total
207
100.0%
Excellent
117
57.6%
Total
203
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Commissioner
Judson
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
13
6.3%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
63
30.7%
Acceptable
23
11.4%
Excellent
129
62.9%
Very Good
73
36.1%
Total
205
100.0%
Excellent
106
52.5%
Total
202
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
11
5.3%
Very Good
55
26.6%
Excellent
141
68.1%
Total
207
100.0%
deadlines
335
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
3
1.7%
Acceptable
16
9.3%
Very Good
63
36.6%
Excellent
90
52.3%
Total
172
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.5%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
18
9.0%
Very Good
62
30.8%
Excellent
120
59.7%
Total
201
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
2
1.0%
Acceptable
23
11.6%
Very Good
64
32.2%
Excellent
110
55.3%
Total
199
100.0%
336
years?
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Once
30
14.2%
2 to 3 times
69
32.5%
4 to 10 times
85
40.1%
More than 10 times
28
13.2%
Total
212
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
84
40.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
60
28.6%
6 to 10 Attorneys
26
12.4%
11 to 20 Attorneys
17
8.1%
More than 20
Attorneys
23
11.0%
Total
210
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
5
2.4%
3 to 5 years
21
10.0%
6 to 10 years
29
13.8%
11 to 20 years
44
21.0%
More than 20 years
111
52.9%
Total
210
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
193
92.3%
African American /
Black
3
1.4%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
2
1.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
3.8%
Native American
2
1.0%
Other
1
0.5%
Total
209
100.0%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
4
1.9%
General Civil
112
53.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
85
40.5%
Commissioner
Judson
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
1
0.5%
Male
108
51.4%
Other
8
3.8%
Female
102
48.6%
Total
210
100.0%
Total
210
100.0%
337
COMMISSIONERJAMESKAHAN
130Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
338
Commissioner Kahan Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.16 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.13 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.11 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.13 4.27 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.19 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.29 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.33 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.94 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.22 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.30 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.35 4.35 4.30 4.20 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.27 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.27 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.21 4.34 4.27 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
8
6.3%
Below Expectations
5
3.9%
Acceptable
17
13.4%
Acceptable
24
18.8%
Very Good
44
34.6%
Very Good
47
36.7%
Excellent
56
44.1%
Excellent
51
39.8%
Total
127
100.0%
Total
128
100.0%
339
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
7
5.5%
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Acceptable
26
20.3%
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Very Good
39
30.5%
Acceptable
13
10.6%
43
35.0%
Excellent
56
43.8%
Very Good
Total
128
100.0%
Excellent
63
51.2%
Total
123
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.6%
Commissioner
Kahan
3
2.4%
Unacceptable
4
3.1%
Acceptable
16
12.7%
Below Expectations
9
7.1%
Very Good
43
34.1%
Acceptable
24
18.9%
Excellent
62
49.2%
Very Good
44
34.6%
Total
126
100.0%
Excellent
46
36.2%
Total
127
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
1.6%
Commissioner
Kahan
3
2.4%
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Acceptable
15
12.0%
Below Expectations
4
3.2%
Very Good
42
33.6%
Acceptable
20
15.9%
Excellent
63
50.4%
Very Good
38
30.2%
Total
125
100.0%
Excellent
62
49.2%
Total
126
100.0%
340
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Acceptable
16
Very Good
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
12.5%
Below Expectations
3
2.4%
37
28.9%
Acceptable
23
18.3%
Excellent
71
55.5%
Very Good
46
36.5%
Total
128
100.0%
Excellent
54
42.9%
Total
126
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Acceptable
13
10.2%
Acceptable
14
10.9%
Very Good
45
35.4%
Very Good
56
43.8%
Excellent
66
52.0%
Excellent
55
43.0%
Total
127
100.0%
Total
128
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.6%
Below Expectations
2
1.6%
Acceptable
15
11.8%
Very Good
45
35.4%
Excellent
63
49.6%
Total
127
100.0%
341
deadlines
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.9%
Acceptable
22
19.5%
Very Good
42
37.2%
Excellent
48
42.5%
Total
113
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
1
0.8%
Acceptable
15
12.2%
Very Good
48
39.0%
Excellent
59
48.0%
Total
123
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.8%
Below Expectations
3
2.4%
Acceptable
18
14.2%
Very Good
44
34.6%
Excellent
61
48.0%
Total
127
100.0%
342
years?
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Once
21
16.2%
2 to 3 times
49
37.7%
4 to 10 times
46
35.4%
More than 10 times
14
10.8%
Total
130
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
56
43.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
36
27.7%
6 to 10 Attorneys
18
13.8%
11 to 20 Attorneys
11
8.5%
More than 20
Attorneys
9
6.9%
Total
130
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
2
1.5%
3 to 5 years
13
10.0%
6 to 10 years
24
18.5%
11 to 20 years
29
22.3%
More than 20 years
62
47.7%
Total
130
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
107
82.9%
African American /
Black
3
2.3%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
4
3.1%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
8
6.2%
Native American
2
1.6%
Other
5
3.9%
Total
129
100.0%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
7
5.4%
General Civil
11
8.5%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
107
82.3%
Commissioner
Kahan
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
3
2.3%
Male
43
33.3%
Other
2
1.5%
Female
86
66.7%
Total
130
100.0%
Total
129
100.0%
343
COMMISSIONERJENNIELAIRD
29Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
344
Commissioner Laird Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.58 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.62 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.61 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.55 4.55 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.60 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.66 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.66 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.55 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.55 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.64 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 4.66 4.69 4.62 4.59 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.51 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.52 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.54 4.59 4.41 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
1
3.4%
Acceptable
3
10.7%
Very Good
9
31.0%
Very Good
5
17.9%
Excellent
19
65.5%
Excellent
20
71.4%
Total
29
100.0%
Total
28
100.0%
345
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
10.3%
Very Good
7
24.1%
Excellent
19
65.5%
Total
29
100.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
6.9%
Very Good
6
20.7%
Excellent
21
72.4%
Total
29
100.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Acceptable
4
13.8%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Very Good
5
17.2%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Excellent
20
69.0%
Acceptable
3
10.3%
Total
29
100.0%
Very Good
7
24.1%
Excellent
19
65.5%
Total
29
100.0%
bench
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Acceptable
4
13.8%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Very Good
5
17.2%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Excellent
20
69.0%
Acceptable
2
6.9%
Total
29
100.0%
Very Good
6
20.7%
Excellent
21
72.4%
Total
29
100.0%
346
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
10.3%
Very Good
4
13.8%
Excellent
22
75.9%
Total
29
100.0%
deadlines
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
6.9%
Below Expectations
1
3.6%
Very Good
5
17.2%
Acceptable
1
3.6%
Excellent
22
75.9%
Very Good
8
28.6%
Total
29
100.0%
Excellent
18
64.3%
Total
28
100.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
6.9%
Very Good
7
24.1%
Excellent
20
69.0%
Total
29
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
3
10.3%
Very Good
6
20.7%
Excellent
20
69.0%
Total
29
100.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
Acceptable
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
2
6.9%
Below Expectations
1
3.4%
Very Good
8
27.6%
Acceptable
3
10.3%
Excellent
19
65.5%
Very Good
8
27.6%
Total
29
100.0%
Excellent
17
58.6%
Total
29
100.0%
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
2
6.9%
Very Good
10
34.5%
Excellent
17
58.6%
Total
29
100.0%
347
years?
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Once
4
13.8%
2 to 3 times
10
34.5%
4 to 10 times
1
3.4%
More than 10 times
14
48.3%
Total
29
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner Laird
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
9
31.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
8
27.6%
6 to 10 Attorneys
3
10.3%
11 to 20 Attorneys
2
6.9%
More than 20
Attorneys
7
24.1%
Total
29
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Laird
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
0
0.0%
6 to 10 years
6
20.7%
11 to 20 years
8
27.6%
More than 20 years
15
51.7%
Total
29
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Laird
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
23
79.3%
African American /
Black
0
0.0%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
0
0.0%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
2
6.9%
Native American
0
0.0%
Other
4
13.8%
Total
29
100.0%
Commissioner
Laird
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
2
6.9%
General Civil
3
10.3%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
13
44.8%
Commissioner
Laird
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
3
10.3%
Male
7
25.0%
Other
8
27.6%
Female
21
75.0%
Total
29
100.0%
Total
28
100.0%
348
COMMISSIONERLEONIDPONOMARCHUK
184Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
349
Commissioner Ponomarchuk Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.54 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.58 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.58 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.51 4.50 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.32 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.40 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.36 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.36 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.18 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.18 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.94 4.49 3.87 4.44 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.50 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.51 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.46 4.54 4.48 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.5%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
4
2.2%
Below Expectations
1
0.6%
Acceptable
10
5.5%
Acceptable
14
7.8%
Very Good
41
22.5%
Very Good
41
22.8%
Excellent
126
69.2%
Excellent
123
68.3%
Total
182
100.0%
Total
180
100.0%
350
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.5%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
5
2.7%
Unacceptable
2
1.1%
Acceptable
11
6.0%
Below Expectations
4
2.2%
Very Good
48
26.2%
Acceptable
25
14.0%
44
24.7%
Excellent
118
64.5%
Very Good
Total
183
100.0%
Excellent
103
57.9%
Total
178
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.6%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
3
1.7%
Unacceptable
3
1.7%
Acceptable
14
7.9%
Below Expectations
5
2.8%
Very Good
48
27.0%
Acceptable
18
10.0%
Excellent
112
62.9%
Very Good
52
28.9%
Total
178
100.0%
Excellent
102
56.7%
Total
180
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
1.7%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
2
1.1%
Unacceptable
6
3.3%
Acceptable
23
13.0%
Below Expectations
8
4.4%
Very Good
43
24.3%
Acceptable
24
13.1%
Excellent
106
59.9%
Very Good
54
29.5%
Total
177
100.0%
Excellent
91
49.7%
Total
183
100.0%
351
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
3.3%
Below Expectations
11
6.0%
Acceptable
44
Very Good
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.5%
23.9%
Below Expectations
1
0.5%
50
27.2%
Acceptable
21
11.5%
Excellent
73
39.7%
Very Good
53
29.1%
Total
184
100.0%
Excellent
106
58.2%
Total
182
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
2
1.1%
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Acceptable
18
9.8%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Very Good
52
28.3%
Acceptable
19
10.5%
Excellent
112
60.9%
Very Good
46
25.4%
Total
184
100.0%
Excellent
115
63.5%
Total
181
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
2.7%
Below Expectations
13
7.1%
Acceptable
48
26.4%
Very Good
51
28.0%
Excellent
65
35.7%
Total
182
100.0%
deadlines
352
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
1
0.6%
Below Expectations
1
0.6%
Acceptable
20
12.1%
Very Good
42
25.5%
Excellent
101
61.2%
Total
165
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
0
0.0%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
19
10.6%
Very Good
44
24.4%
Excellent
117
65.0%
Total
180
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
1.1%
Below Expectations
0
0.0%
Acceptable
19
10.6%
Very Good
47
26.1%
Excellent
112
62.2%
Total
180
100.0%
353
years?
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Once
15
8.1%
2 to 3 times
48
25.9%
4 to 10 times
70
37.8%
More than 10 times
52
28.1%
Total
185
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
81
44.0%
2 to 5 Attorneys
54
29.3%
6 to 10 Attorneys
20
10.9%
11 to 20 Attorneys
13
7.1%
More than 20
Attorneys
16
8.7%
Total
184
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
6
3.3%
3 to 5 years
15
8.2%
6 to 10 years
32
17.4%
11 to 20 years
39
21.2%
More than 20 years
92
50.0%
Total
184
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
153
83.6%
African American /
Black
2
1.1%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
3
1.6%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
13
7.1%
Native American
3
1.6%
Other
9
4.9%
Total
183
100.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
7
3.8%
General Civil
29
15.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
138
75.0%
Commissioner
Ponomarchuk
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
6
3.3%
Male
69
37.7%
Other
4
2.2%
Female
114
62.3%
Total
184
100.0%
Total
183
100.0%
354
COMMISSIONERMEGSASSAMAN
94Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
355
Commissioner Sassaman Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.35 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 3.32 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3.26 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 3.31 3.50 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.26 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 3.45 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 3.25 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.15 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.17 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.36 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.10 3.75 3.10 3.48 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.66 Maintained control in the courtroom 3.66 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 3.56 3.83 3.59 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
10
11.0%
Unacceptable
9
10.1%
Below Expectations
17
18.7%
Below Expectations
17
19.1%
Acceptable
18
19.8%
Acceptable
24
27.0%
Very Good
26
28.6%
Very Good
20
22.5%
Excellent
20
22.0%
Excellent
19
21.3%
Total
91
100.0%
Total
89
100.0%
356
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
7
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
7.7%
Commissioner
Sassaman
20
22.0%
Unacceptable
13
14.3%
Acceptable
21
23.1%
Below Expectations
16
17.6%
Very Good
24
26.4%
Acceptable
20
22.0%
19
20.9%
Excellent
19
20.9%
Very Good
Total
91
100.0%
Excellent
23
25.3%
Total
91
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
5.6%
Commissioner
Sassaman
11
12.2%
Unacceptable
10
10.9%
Acceptable
27
30.0%
Below Expectations
22
23.9%
Very Good
28
31.1%
Acceptable
19
20.7%
Excellent
19
21.1%
Very Good
26
28.3%
Total
90
100.0%
Excellent
15
16.3%
Total
92
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
9
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
9.8%
Commissioner
Sassaman
12
13.0%
Unacceptable
11
11.8%
Acceptable
25
27.2%
Below Expectations
19
20.4%
Very Good
21
22.8%
Acceptable
24
25.8%
Excellent
25
27.2%
Very Good
21
22.6%
Total
92
100.0%
Excellent
18
19.4%
Total
93
100.0%
357
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
13
13.8%
Below Expectations
20
21.3%
Acceptable
25
Very Good
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
5.4%
26.6%
Below Expectations
9
9.8%
17
18.1%
Acceptable
33
35.9%
Excellent
19
20.2%
Very Good
27
29.3%
Total
94
100.0%
Excellent
18
19.6%
Total
92
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
3.3%
Commissioner
Sassaman
4
4.3%
Unacceptable
4
4.4%
Acceptable
29
31.5%
Below Expectations
6
6.6%
Very Good
33
35.9%
Acceptable
28
30.8%
Excellent
23
25.0%
Very Good
32
35.2%
Total
92
100.0%
Excellent
21
23.1%
Total
91
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
16
17.4%
Below Expectations
12
13.0%
Acceptable
28
30.4%
Very Good
19
20.7%
Excellent
17
18.5%
Total
92
100.0%
deadlines
358
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
4.8%
Below Expectations
9
10.7%
Acceptable
27
32.1%
Very Good
24
28.6%
Excellent
20
23.8%
Total
84
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
3.4%
Below Expectations
1
1.1%
Acceptable
29
32.6%
Very Good
31
34.8%
Excellent
25
28.1%
Total
89
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
5.5%
Below Expectations
8
8.8%
Acceptable
27
29.7%
Very Good
30
33.0%
Excellent
21
23.1%
Total
91
100.0%
359
years?
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Once
14
14.9%
2 to 3 times
38
40.4%
4 to 10 times
18
19.1%
More than 10 times
24
25.5%
Total
94
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
41
44.1%
2 to 5 Attorneys
24
25.8%
6 to 10 Attorneys
9
9.7%
11 to 20 Attorneys
4
4.3%
More than 20
Attorneys
15
16.1%
Total
93
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
0
0.0%
3 to 5 years
4
4.3%
6 to 10 years
19
20.4%
11 to 20 years
24
25.8%
More than 20 years
46
49.5%
Total
93
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
75
80.6%
African American /
Black
2
2.2%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
1
1.1%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
10
10.8%
Native American
2
2.2%
Other
3
3.2%
Total
93
100.0%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
9
9.7%
General Civil
11
11.8%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
60
64.5%
Commissioner
Sassaman
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
5
5.4%
Male
29
31.5%
Other
8
8.6%
Female
63
68.5%
Total
93
100.0%
Total
92
100.0%
360
COMMISSIONERCARLOSVELATEGUI
399Respondents
RATINGSCALE
Excellent
5
Verygood
4
Acceptable
3
Belowexpectations
2
Unacceptable 1
361
Commissioner Velategui Item Average Category Average LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.20 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.28 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.26 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner Was prepared for court 4.17 4.09 INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.11 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.15 Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic 4.27 Based rulings on the facts and the law 4.05 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 3.95 DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.91 Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self‐control Used clear oral communication while in court 3.59 4.18 3.69 4.16 ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35 Maintained control in the courtroom 4.38 Appropriately maintained case management and enforced court rules and deadlines Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.29 4.38 4.36 Used the court’s time efficiently EVALUATIONTABLES
and factual issues
procedure
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
1.3%
Unacceptable
4
1.0%
Below Expectations
14
3.6%
Below Expectations
11
2.8%
Acceptable
56
14.2%
Acceptable
64
16.6%
Very Good
109
27.7%
Very Good
109
28.2%
Excellent
209
53.2%
Excellent
198
51.3%
Total
393
100.0%
Total
386
100.0%
362
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
5
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.3%
Commissioner
Velategui
15
3.9%
Unacceptable
5
1.3%
Acceptable
70
18.1%
Below Expectations
13
3.4%
Very Good
115
29.7%
Acceptable
74
19.6%
70
18.5%
Excellent
182
47.0%
Very Good
Total
387
100.0%
Excellent
216
57.1%
Total
378
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
1.1%
Commissioner
Velategui
18
4.8%
Unacceptable
10
2.6%
Acceptable
87
23.1%
Below Expectations
23
5.9%
Very Good
99
26.3%
Acceptable
75
19.3%
Excellent
168
44.7%
Very Good
108
27.8%
Total
376
100.0%
Excellent
172
44.3%
Total
388
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
6
Below Expectations
bench
Frequency
Percent
1.6%
Commissioner
Velategui
19
4.9%
Unacceptable
6
1.5%
Acceptable
72
18.8%
Below Expectations
36
9.2%
Very Good
103
26.8%
Acceptable
91
23.2%
Excellent
184
47.9%
Very Good
97
24.7%
Total
384
100.0%
Excellent
163
41.5%
Total
393
100.0%
363
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
22
5.6%
Below Expectations
52
13.2%
Acceptable
107
Very Good
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
4
1.0%
27.1%
Below Expectations
12
3.1%
98
24.8%
Acceptable
84
21.4%
Excellent
116
29.4%
Very Good
110
28.0%
Total
395
100.0%
Excellent
183
46.6%
Total
393
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
Below Expectations
Frequency
Percent
0.5%
Commissioner
Velategui
10
2.5%
Unacceptable
2
0.5%
Acceptable
80
20.4%
Below Expectations
2
0.5%
Very Good
123
31.3%
Acceptable
57
14.6%
Excellent
178
45.3%
Very Good
114
29.2%
Total
393
100.0%
Excellent
216
55.2%
Total
391
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
13
3.3%
Below Expectations
49
12.5%
Acceptable
110
28.1%
Very Good
93
23.7%
Excellent
127
32.4%
Total
392
100.0%
deadlines
364
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
0.6%
Below Expectations
8
2.4%
Acceptable
60
18.1%
Very Good
84
25.3%
Excellent
178
53.6%
Total
332
100.0%
timely manner
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
3
0.8%
Below Expectations
2
0.5%
Acceptable
57
14.8%
Very Good
105
27.3%
Excellent
217
56.5%
Total
384
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Unacceptable
2
0.5%
Below Expectations
7
1.9%
Acceptable
57
15.2%
Very Good
97
25.9%
Excellent
212
56.5%
Total
375
100.0%
365
years?
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Once
34
8.5%
2 to 3 times
105
26.3%
4 to 10 times
128
32.1%
More than 10 times
132
33.1%
Total
399
100.0%
law firm?
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Sole Practitioner
149
37.6%
2 to 5 Attorneys
119
30.1%
6 to 10 Attorneys
48
12.1%
11 to 20 Attorneys
33
8.3%
More than 20
Attorneys
47
11.9%
Total
396
100.0%
attorney?
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
1 to 2 years
5
1.3%
3 to 5 years
29
7.3%
6 to 10 years
51
12.9%
11 to 20 years
90
22.7%
More than 20 years
221
55.8%
Total
396
100.0%
background?
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Caucasian / White
355
90.1%
African American /
Black
2
0.5%
Hispanic / Latino /
Latina
6
1.5%
Asian / Pacific
Islander
18
4.6%
Native American
2
0.5%
Other
11
2.8%
Total
394
100.0%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Criminal Law
9
2.3%
General Civil
231
58.6%
Domestic Relations
/ Family Law
132
33.5%
Commissioner
Velategui
Frequency
Percent
Government
Practice
2
0.5%
Male
233
59.1%
Other
20
5.1%
Female
161
40.9%
Total
394
100.0%
Total
394
100.0%
366

2016 survey complete report - King County Bar Association

Transcription

Similar documents

2014 Real Change Annual Report

February 25, 2015 Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and