2012 judicial evaluation survey - kcba · 2012 judicial evaluation survey . evaluations of the...

King County Bar Association

2012 Judicial Evaluation Survey Evaluations of the Judges of the King County Superior Court Prepared by: Judicial Evaluation Committee King County Bar Association 600 IBM Building 1200 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 267-7100 www.kcba.org With Assistance From: David C. Brody, JD PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology Washington State University PO Box 4752 Pullman, WA 99163-4752 (509) 358-7952

Introduction

The King County Bar Association (KCBA) has conducted and published surveys of its members’ evaluations of judicial officers since 1948. The survey results are a summary of practicing attorneys’ subjective assessments of the judges who hear and decide their cases. The survey provides information to the public for judicial elections by presenting assessments of each judge so that voters can make informed decisions by taking into account the collective assessments of those lawyers who practice in front of these judicial officers. It also provides important information to the public, the Bar, and the Bench on performance of the local judicial branch as a whole.

Survey Methodology

The 2012 survey of evaluations of the judges of the King County Superior Court was conducted during the months of February and March 2012. The survey included attorney evaluations of 55 judges1

of the King County Superior Court. The survey development and administration was similar to the methods used by the KCBA since 2007.

An important component of a judicial evaluation program is to obtain information from individuals who have had an opportunity to personally observe the judge being evaluated during the relevant time period. (American Bar Association, 2005; Brody, 2008). Accordingly, rather than attempt to survey all members of the King County Bar Association or all lawyers practicing in King County, only attorneys who were identified as having appeared before a particular judge were invited to participate in the evaluation of that judge. Attorneys were identified by two means. First, a report listing attorneys who appeared at trials, hearings, and other in-court proceedings in King County Superior Court in 2010 and 2011 was generated by the King County Superior Court Clerk's Office. The names of attorneys appearing before each judge were entered into individual judge databases. Second, KCBA members who did not receive a survey for a particular judge were invited via e-mail and the Bar Bulletin to request a survey for a judge before whom they appeared. Upon confirmation of the appearance they too were added to the database and sent a survey.

For the 2012 survey, individual attorneys identified as having appeared before a particular judge were sent an e-mail asking them to participate in the survey. The e-mail contained a link to a web-based survey questionnaire for the attorney to evaluate that particular judge. An attorney who has appeared before multiple judges received a separate e-mail providing that attorney with the survey to evaluate each individual judge. (An attorney who appeared before the same judge more than once only received one survey e-mail regarding that judge as a result. Moreover, the software was programmed so that an attorney could complete the survey only one time for any particular judge.) The responses to the survey were received via this web-based system, for tabulation in the survey results.

The judicial evaluation survey was administered by Washington State University. Surveys were processed through a secure web server, then delivered directly to WSU researchers for tabulation and analysis of

1 Results were obtained for Judges Paris Kallas, Phillip Hubbard, Michael Fox, George Mattson, and Justice Steven Gonzalez., who are no longer on the superior court bench. Insufficient responses (fewer than 30) were obtained for Judges Fox, Hubbard, and Mattson, and are not presented in this report. Results for Judge Kallas and Justice Gonzalez are presented herein. Evaluations were not conducted for Judges Patrick Oishi, Lori Smith, and Barbara Linde who were appointed to the bench in 2011 or 2012.

2012 Judicial Performance Evaluation King County Superior Court

2

results. WSU researchers also provided methodological and statistical consultation to the Judicial Evaluation Committee, including in the preparation of this report.

Following the ABA Guidelines for Judicial Performance Evaluation, the evaluation focused upon behavior-based measures. To do this, attorneys who appeared before a judge were asked to evaluate judges regarding specific criteria that are widely acknowledged to be qualities that judges are expected to possess (Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 2006). Specifically, attorneys were asked to consider four individual criteria in each of four areas:

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 and concise

manner. • Was prepared for court. Demeanor, Temperament, • Treated people with courtesy and respect. and Communication • Was attentive to proceedings. • Acted with patience and self-control. • Used clear oral communication while in court. Administrative Skills • Maintained control the courtroom. • Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. • Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. • Used the court’s time efficiently. 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

A copy of the actual survey questionnaire is attached as Appendix A.

Attorneys were asked to rate judges on the above criteria using one of six possible responses (unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, excellent, and don’t know). Responses to the four questions in each of the four areas were added together to form a composite index for each of the four areas. This method of evaluation and tabulation of results provides a more detailed set of information for use by voters, members of the bar, and judges under evaluation than single-question measures (Schmidt and Kaplan, 1971). Using this method, results are reported for individual questions as well as for the composite index developed for each of the four areas.

Additionally, survey participants were not asked to provide an “overall” evaluation of the performance of an individual judge. Following recommended evaluation research practices (Jacobs, Kafry, & Zedeck, 1980), such a question was deemed inappropriate in light of its inherent subjectivity, and its inability to differentiate between the more specific, behavior-based criteria represented by the subject matter of the actual survey questions.


3

When tabulating survey results, no attempt has been made to mathematically derive an “overall score” for any particular judge. Rather, results of the individual criteria as well as the four different categories that were the subject of the survey are presented for each judge. The Judicial Evaluation Committee believes it would be inappropriate, and potentially misleading, to simply calculate a single mathematical average of the results in these four separate areas. While each of the four areas are important attributes for a judge to possess and display, they are not necessarily equal in importance; undoubtedly individuals will have their own opinion on relative importance of each attribute. An averaging method that assumed each was of equal weight thus would be presumptuous, as would be any attempt by the committee itself to apply a weighted average by assigning differing importance to the 4 areas of the survey. Furthermore, any attempt by the Committee to provide a weighted average by assigning differing importance to the four different areas of the survey would substitute the judgment of the Committee itself for that of the reader, or of the evaluators, regarding the relative important of the different areas. There also was concern that potentially significant information that might appear amid the different areas of the survey would be obscured if those results were then averaged into a single overall score. The results thus are summarized only for the four different areas, which, after all, is the manner in which the survey was administered.

Survey Reliability

A goal of every type of evaluation is to ensure the reliability of the results obtained. In examining results obtained in this judicial performance evaluation, a determination of reliability is not amenable to a single measure, but rather an amalgamation of several factors. As discussed below, after considering these factors, the committee is confident that the results obtained in the 2012 judicial performance survey are reliable.

The first item is the number of respondents completing evaluations for individual judges. While there is no minimum amount for the number of responses required to validate evaluation results, generally a minimum of 25 responses for each judge is desirable. That being said, if there is a clear, consistent pattern in the answers to survey questions provided by respondents, and there is no obvious pattern of bias (sampling or self-selection) in whom the respondents are, an evaluation with as few as 20 respondents is likely to reliably reflect a judge’s performance.

A total of 4,274 surveys were completed by attorneys. The number of responses per judge, omitting those who were excluded due to insufficient responses, ranged from a low of 35 to a high of 141. The average and median number of responses per judge were 77.7 and 78, respectively. These figures are sufficiently high so as not to indicate unreliability.

An important factor in considering a survey’s validity is the composition of respondents in comparison to the sampling frame. Differences between the relevant demographic and professional characteristics of attorneys who participated in the evaluation and attorneys who did not may be an indication of non-response bias. To explore this possibility demographic and professional information obtained from respondents was compared to corresponding characteristics of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) membership. As seen in Table 1 the demographic makeup of respondents is similar to the makeup of the WSBA membership.

In a judicial performance evaluation it is important to take steps to ensure that only individuals with personal, firsthand experience with a judge participate in the evaluation. Only attorneys who were believed to have appeared before a judge during the two years prior to the evaluation were asked to participate in the evaluation. Due to the imprecision of docket records some attorneys (and current judges) who did not actually appear in court before a judge received evaluation materials. In the invitation to complete the


4

survey, and in the survey itself, attorneys were asked not to evaluate a judge if they did not appear before him or her. Additionally, attorneys were asked to indicate the approximate number of times they had appeared before the judge being evaluated during the prior two years. As can be seen in Table 2, 77.6% of respondents reported appearing before the judge multiple times during 2010 and 2011.

Table 1: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics

Percent of Respondents Percent of WSBA Members Race White 92.7% 89.5% African American 2.4% 2.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 3.3% 2.7% Native American .3% .8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1.4% 1.8% Gender Male 61.7% 62.1% Female 38.3% 37.9% Practice Size Sole Practitioner 32.3% 29.1% 2-5 Attorneys 28.9% 19.4% 6-10 Attorneys 9.6% 7.6% 11-20 Attorneys 9.9% 5.0% More than 20 Attorneys 19.3% 18.7% Experience Less than 10 years 25.5% 36.7% 10 to 20 years 23.2% 25.5% More than 20 years 51.3% 37.8%

. Table 2: Number of Appearances

Number Percent Once 926 22.4% 2-3 times 1628 39.5% 4-10 times 944 22.9% More than 10 times 628 15.2%

Aggregate Description of Respondents

The survey asked attorneys to provide information about themselves and their practice. This data was obtained for future analysis of response patterns. Characteristics of the attorneys providing survey responses for each judge are included in the individual results reported for those judges that follow. The characteristics, in aggregate, of the attorneys participating in the survey are listed in Tables 3-8.


5

Table 3: Primary Area of Practice

Number Percent Criminal Defense 969 23.8% Criminal Prosecution 317 7.8% General Civil 1795 44.1% Domestic Relations 661 16.2% Government Practice 205 5.0% Other 122 3.0%

Table 4: Work Setting

Number Percent Prosecuting Attorney 326 8.1% Governmental Agency 187 4.7% Indigent Defense Agency 460 11.4% Legal Aid 43 1.1% Private Practice 2937 73.1% Other 67 1.7%

Table 5: Years in Practice

Number Percent 1-2 years 51 1.2% 3-5 years 318 7.7% 6-10 years 687 16.6% 11-20 years 960 23.2% More than 20 years 2125 51.3%

Table 6: Size of Law Firm (private attorneys)

Number Percent Sole Practitioner 980 32.3% 2-5 Attorneys 879 28.9% 6-10 Attorneys 293 9.6% 11-20 Attorneys 301 9.9% More than 20 Attorneys 585 19.3%

Table 7: Respondent Racial Background

Number Percent Caucasian/White 3453 92.7% African American/Black 88 2.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 51 1.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 123 3.3% Native American 10 .3% Other (biracial) 40 1.0%


6

Table 8: Respondent Gender

Number Percent Male 2368 61.7% Female 1471 38.3%

Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges

Table 9: Aggregate Results

Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent

Legal Decision Making

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4110 4.3% 10.3% 12.3% 25.2% 47.8%

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 3980 4.1% 8.3% 15.3% 25.3% 47.1%

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner

4080 4.6% 9.9% 13.8% 24.3% 47.4%

Was prepared for court 4081 2.0% 5.8% 14.0% 22.2% 56.0%

Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication

Treated people with courtesy and respect 4102 2.5% 4.2% 10.8% 18.5% 64.0%

Was attentive to proceedings 4087 1.2% 2.7% 12.4% 19.6% 64.1%

Acted with patience and self-control 4057 2.2% 4.4% 13.5% 20.7% 59.1%

Used clear oral communication while in court 4068 2.6% 7.2% 13.7% 23.8% 52.9%

Administrative Skills

Maintained control the courtroom 4041 .8% 1.9% 15.2% 25.5% 56.6%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines 3928 2.8% 6.1% 15.0% 27.1% 49.0%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4032 3.0% 3.9% 15.4% 24.8% 52.9%

Used the court’s time efficiently 4032 2.3% 3.4% 16.1% 26.7% 51.5%

Integrity and Impartiality

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4065 3.6% 4.8% 11.4% 18.3% 61.8%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4090 3.9% 7.8% 12.1% 20.5% 55.8%

Based rulings on the facts and the law 4050 6.6% 10.2% 13.2% 22.9% 47.2%

Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic

4007 3.2% 4.0% 10.1% 15.7% 66.9%

As noted above, composite indexes were also computed for the four areas of evaluation. The average ratings received for each item and category are presented in Table 10. While the results are similar to those presented in Table 9, the average score provides another method for members of the bar and the public to consider a judge’s performance on the bench.


7

Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings

Item Average Category Average

Legal Decision Making 4.07

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.02

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.03

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner 4.00

Was prepared for court 4.24

Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication 4.32

Treated people with courtesy and respect 4.37

Was attentive to proceedings 4.43

Acted with patience and self-control 4.30

Used clear oral communication while in court 4.17

Administrative Skills 4.23

Maintained control over the courtroom 4.35

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines 4.14

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.21

Used the court's time efficiently 4.22

Integrity and Impartiality 4.20

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.30

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.16

Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.94

Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.39

Summary of Results for Individual Judges

Tables 11-14, which appear on the following eight pages, present summaries of the results for the 52 judges of the King County Superior Court who were evaluated. Each table provides results for one of the four areas surveyed (Legal Decision Making; Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication; Administrative Skills; and Integrity and Impartiality), including the number of valid evaluations received for each judge and the percentage of responses to individual questions that gave the judge a rating of “unacceptable,” “poor,” “acceptable,” “very good,” and “excellent.”

No attempt has been made in this report to present evaluation results in “ranked” numerical order. The ratings for individual judges are an indication of performance. They are not of such infallible precision as to permit one to differentiate small differences in ratings. While it is possible to calculate very precise values, this does not mean that similarly precise distinctions exist between or among judges. An average rating for a particular question or survey area of 4.2, for example, obviously is numerically higher than an average of 4.1. The difference of 0.1 points, however, does not justify viewing the performance of the former to be significantly better than the latter.


8

In addition to the following tables, Appendix B provides detailed survey results for each of the individual judges who were the subject of the judicial performance survey. The detailed report for each individual judge provides results for individual questions as well as categorical averages. The reports also provide information summarizing the characteristics of the attorneys who responded to the survey for that individual judge.

Table 11: Results for Individual Judges -- Legal Decision Making

In the area Legal Decision Making, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:

• Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues

• Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure

• Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner

• Was prepared for court

RATING SCALE

Excellent 5

Very Good 4

Acceptable 3

Poor 2

Unacceptable 1

Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent Average (1-5 scale)

Andrus, Beth 66 3% 7% 12% 34% 44% 4.11

Armstrong, Sharon 112 1% 4% 15% 17% 63% 4.39

Barnett, Suzanne 101 3% 10% 17% 34% 36% 3.90

Benton, Monica 104 8% 21% 23% 20% 28% 3.39

Bradshaw, Timothy 84 3% 7% 16% 26% 48% 4.09

Cahan, Regina 84 2% 6% 9% 26% 57% 4.31

Canova, Greg 101 4% 12% 11% 21% 52% 4.08

Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 6% 11% 29% 52% 4.20

Cayce, James 87 8% 9% 11% 19% 52% 3.98

Clark, Patricia 69 7% 11% 16% 37% 30% 3.64

Craighead, Susan 141 5% 7% 12% 17% 59% 4.16

Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 2% 7% 24% 63% 4.40

Doerty, James 125 3% 7% 9% 25% 56% 4.26

Downing, William 114 2% 2% 10% 21% 65% 4.47

Doyle, Theresa 88 7% 14% 17% 19% 43% 3.76

DuBuque, Joan 95 1% 2% 10% 26% 61% 4.47

Eadie, Richard 93 5% 13% 21% 22% 39% 3.76


9


Erlick, John 96 0 5% 8% 18% 70% 4.52

Fleck, Deborah 68 3% 5% 10% 16% 67% 4.38

Gain, Brian 64 0 3% 9% 42% 46% 4.32

Gonzalez, Steven 74 2% 5% 14% 14% 65% 4.33

Halpert, Helen 71 <1% 1% 16% 35% 48% 4.28

Hayden, Michael 83 2% 11% 20% 31% 36% 3.86

Heavey, Michael 84 6% 19% 19% 25% 32% 3.58

Heller, Bruce 65 2% 2% 11% 15% 70% 4.49

Hill, Hollis 75 7% 17% 24% 24% 28% 3.51

Hilyer, Bruce 49 4% 11% 15% 18% 52% 4.04

Inveen, Laura 82 1% 6% 10% 29% 54% 4.29

Kallas, Paris 35 1% 13% 7% 21% 58% 4.23

Kessler, Ronald 112 0 1% 13% 29% 56% 4.41

Lum, Dean 107 3% 9% 18% 27% 43% 3.97

Mack, Barbara 71 2% 17% 17% 22% 42% 3.84

McCarthy, Harry 54 0 18% 18% 25% 40% 3.86

McCullough, LeRoy 59 3% 3% 12% 27% 54% 4.27

McDermott, Richard 56 0 1% 15% 42% 41% 4.23

Middaugh, Laura 81 13% 22% 15% 24% 27% 3.31

North, Douglass 68 7% 9% 12% 20% 52% 4.02

Prochnau, Kimberley 89 2% 8% 11% 26% 52% 4.14

Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 <1% 3% 13% 33% 51% 4.30

Rietschel, Jean 70 3% 11% 15% 26% 45% 3.87

Roberts, Mary 65 2% 6% 17% 27% 49% 4.15

Robinson, Palmer 73 2% 7% 10% 21% 60% 4.30

Rogers, Jim 74 2% 4% 13% 21% 60% 4.34

Saint Clair, J. Wesley 73 10% 6% 17% 15% 53% 3.96

Schapira, Carol 107 6% 10% 22% 23% 39% 3.79

Shaffer, Catherine 83 4% 5% 14% 16% 61% 4.27

Spearman, Mariane 71 <1% 8% 22% 38% 32% 3.93

Spector, Julie 81 10% 16% 17% 18% 39% 3.59

Trickey, Michael 44 0 1% 6% 32% 61% 4.53

Washington, Chris 44 22% 30% 17% 13% 18% 2.74

White, Jay 78 6% 10% 16% 25% 43% 3.91

Yu, Mary 107 2% 4% 8% 24% 62% 4.41


10

Table 12: Results for Individual Judges – Integrity and Impartiality

In the area Integrity and Impartiality, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:

• Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety

• Displayed a neutral presence on the bench

• Based rulings on the facts and the law

• Treated individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic

RATING SCALE

Excellent 5

Very Good 4

Acceptable 3

Poor 2

Unacceptable 1


Andrus, Beth 66 5% 6% 7% 36% 46% 4.09


Barnett, Suzanne 101 3% 6% 11% 22% 58% 4.28

Benton, Monica 104 9% 13% 21% 19% 39% 3.66


Cahan, Regina 84 2% 7% 8% 17% 66% 4.38

Canova, Greg 101 5% 6% 8% 21% 60% 4.24

Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 4% 12% 19% 63% 4.36

Cayce, James 87 8% 4% 16% 12% 59% 4.11

Clark, Patricia 69 11% 8% 14% 29% 37% 3.73

Craighead, Susan 141 5% 7% 10% 16% 62% 4.22

Darvas, Andrea 84 3% 3% 4% 20% 70% 4.49

Doerty, James 125 3% 5% 8% 19% 65% 4.38

Downing, William 114 1% 3% 9% 17% 70% 4.51

Doyle, Theresa 88 4% 8% 15% 14% 59% 4.16

DuBuque, Joan 95 2% 3% 10% 19% 66% 4.46

Eadie, Richard 93 6% 9% 17% 16% 52% 3.98

Erlick, John 96 0 5% 4% 18% 73% 4.58

Fleck, Deborah 68 3% 5% 8% 18% 66% 4.41

Gain, Brian 64 1% 1% 5% 28% 65% 4.54

Gonzalez, Steven 74 5% 3% 8% 15% 70% 4.42

Halpert, Helen 71 <1% 6% 17% 25% 52% 4.21

Hayden, Michael 83 7% 10% 18% 30% 34% 3.75


11


Heavey, Michael 84 6% 13% 14% 23% 44% 3.85

Heller, Bruce 65 3% 4% 8% 12% 73% 4.47

Hill, Hollis 75 4% 13% 18% 21% 44% 3.90

Hilyer, Bruce 49 11% 6% 9% 15% 60% 4.07

Inveen, Laura 82 1% 4% 8% 20% 67% 4.47

Kallas, Paris 35 0 8% 11% 11% 70% 4.43

Kessler, Ronald 112 4% 6% 14% 21% 55% 4.15

Lum, Dean 107 2% 7% 11% 26% 53% 4.22

Mack, Barbara 71 11% 14% 9% 17% 49% 3.78

McCarthy, Harry 54 1% 12% 15% 11% 60% 4.16


McDermott, Richard 56 0 5% 12% 31% 52% 4.30

Middaugh, Laura 81 12% 13% 19% 18% 38% 3.56

North, Douglass 68 7% 6% 10% 24% 53% 4.09


Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 1% 4% 11% 23% 61% 4.38

Rietschel, Jean 70 1% 7% 15% 16% 61% 4.29

Roberts, Mary 65 4% 6% 16% 25% 48% 4.07

Robinson, Palmer 73 1% 6% 10% 16% 67% 4.42

Rogers, Jim 74 4% 2% 6% 17% 71% 4.48


Schapira, Carol 107 3% 7% 18% 22% 49% 4.07



Spector, Julie 81 15% 9% 14% 11% 51% 3.73

Trickey, Michael 44 2% 4% 12% 18% 65% 4.42


White, Jay 78 3% 10% 12% 19% 56% 4.15

Yu, Mary 107 2% 7% 10% 14% 68% 4.31


12

Table 13: Results for Individual Judges for Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication

In the area Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:

• Treated people with courtesy and respect

• Was attentive to proceedings

• Acted with patience and self-control

• Used clear oral communication while in court

RATING SCALE

Excellent 5

Very Good 4

Acceptable 3

Poor 2

Unacceptable 1


Andrus, Beth 66 3% 3% 7% 32% 55% 4.33

Armstrong, Sharon 112 .5% 3% 12% 18% 67% 4.47

Barnett, Suzanne 101 1% 3% 9% 28% 59% 4.42

Benton, Monica 104 6% 12% 24% 20% 39% 3.75


Cahan, Regina 84 1% 1% 8% 17% 73% 4.62

Canova, Greg 101 3% 5% 14% 27% 51% 4.20

Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 2% 6% 19% 71% 4.57

Cayce, James 87 2% 8% 14% 19% 57% 4.20

Clark, Patricia 69 8% 8% 19% 28% 38% 3.81

Craighead, Susan 141 2% 1% 4% 21% 72% 4.43

Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 3% 18% 26% 48% 4.59

Doerty, James 125 1% 4% 9% 17% 70% 4.52

Downing, William 114 1% 2% 7% 14% 76% 4.65

Doyle, Theresa 88 1% 3% 18% 16% 62% 4.37

DuBuque, Joan 95 0 1% 12% 24% 63% 4.48

Eadie, Richard 93 2% 9% 21% 17% 51% 4.06

Erlick, John 96 0 2% 7% 18% 73% 4.62

Fleck, Deborah 68 0 2% 6% 18% 74% 4.64

Gain, Brian 64 <1% <1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58

Gonzalez, Steven 74 1% 3% 10% 18% 68% 4.49

Halpert, Helen 71 0 6% 15% 29% 50% 4.22

Hayden, Michael 83 3% 11% 20% 28% 37% 3.86

Heavey, Michael 84 4% 8% 18% 23% 47% 4.01


13


Heller, Bruce 65 <1% 2% 10% 15% 73% 4.57

Hill, Hollis 75 1% 5% 24% 20% 50% 4.13

Hilyer, Bruce 49 2% 7% 10% 26% 54% 4.24

Inveen, Laura 82 <1% 1% 9% 23% 67% 4.56

Kallas, Paris 35 1% 8% 7% 18% 67% 4.42

Kessler, Ronald 112 8% 7% 23% 25% 37% 3.76

Lum, Dean 107 2% 3% 15% 20% 60% 4.34

Mack, Barbara 71 4% 7% 15% 23% 51% 4.10

McCarthy, Harry 54 1% 7% 19% 15% 57% 4.20


McDermott, Richard 56 0% 2% 6% 23% 70% 4.60

Middaugh, Laura 81 11% 10% 22% 21% 36% 3.60

North, Douglass 68 4% 3% 16% 25% 52% 4.18


Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 0 1% 10% 26% 63% 4.51

Rietschel, Jean 70 0 5% 13% 10% 73% 4.50

Roberts, Mary 65 3% 7% 12% 21% 57% 4.21

Robinson, Palmer 73 1% 3% 9% 17% 70% 4.52

Rogers, Jim 74 1% 2% 3% 19% 75% 4.65


Schapira, Carol 107 2% 6% 18% 23% 50% 4.14


Spearman, Mariane 71 1% 3% 15% 38% 43% 4.20

Spector, Julie 81 8% 11% 20% 15% 45% 3.79

Trickey, Michael 44 0 1% 6% 17% 75% 4.64


White, Jay 78 2% 7% 14% 23% 55% 4.21

Yu, Mary 107 1% 5% 10% 17% 67% 4.44


14

Table 14: Results for Individual Judges – Administrative Skills

In the area Administrative Skills, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:

• Maintained control the courtroom

• Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines

• Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner

• Used the court’s time efficiently

RATING SCALE

Excellent 5

Very Good 4

Acceptable 3

Poor 2

Unacceptable 1


Andrus, Beth 66 2% 1% 11% 47% 39% 4.21


Barnett, Suzanne 101 2% 5% 16% 32% 45% 4.13

Benton, Monica 104 4% 10% 26% 24% 35% 3.77


Cahan, Regina 84 1% 1% 10% 32% 56% 4.41

Canova, Greg 101 3% 5% 14% 20% 57% 4.21

Carey, Cheryl 71 1% 1% 10% 25% 63% 4.48

Cayce, James 87 3% 5% 17% 22% 53% 4.17

Clark, Patricia 69 9% 25% 46% 11% 9% 4.07

Craighead, Susan 141 2% 2% 9% 25% 62% 4.14

Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 3% 18% 26% 48% 4.45

Doerty, James 125 1% 4% 10% 20% 65% 4.45

Downing, William 114 0 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59

Doyle, Theresa 88 2% 5% 22% 22% 49% 4.13

DuBuque, Joan 95 1% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54

Eadie, Richard 93 4% 9% 24% 22% 41% 3.85

Erlick, John 96 0 3% 7% 23% 67% 4.54

Fleck, Deborah 68 <1% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.48

Gain, Brian 64 1% 2% 9% 40% 48% 4.33

Gonzalez, Steven 74 1% 2% 11% 15% 71% 4.53

Halpert, Helen 71 1% 2% 18% 34% 45% 4.22

Hayden, Michael 83 1% 5% 19% 35% 40% 4.09

Heavey, Michael 84 3% 5% 23% 25% 44% 4.02


15


Heller, Bruce 65 1% 2% 10% 17% 70% 4.52

Hill, Hollis 75 5% 6% 32% 18% 39% 3.81

Hilyer, Bruce 49 3% 4% 11% 23% 60% 4.33

Inveen, Laura 82 1% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.38

Kallas, Paris 35 0 2% 16% 23% 59% 4.39

Kessler, Ronald 112 1% 1% 17% 27% 54% 4.30

Lum, Dean 107 2% 6% 16% 30% 45% 4.09

Mack, Barbara 71 4% 6% 19% 22% 48% 4.04

McCarthy, Harry 54 5% 2% 20% 29% 43% 4.04


McDermott, Richard 56 <1% 1% 10% 36% 52% 4.37

Middaugh, Laura 81 8% 7% 22% 31% 31% 3.69

North, Douglass 68 2% 1% 19% 33% 45% 4.18


Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 0 1% 10% 34% 56% 4.45

Rietschel, Jean 70 2% 1% 13% 22% 62% 4.40

Roberts, Mary 65 4% 5% 16% 28% 47% 4.10

Robinson, Palmer 73 <1% 4% 10% 29% 57% 4.39

Rogers, Jim 74 <1% 3% 9% 28% 60% 4.44


Schapira, Carol 107 3% 3% 27% 22% 46% 4.06



Spector, Julie 81 5% 7% 23% 23% 41% 3.87

Trickey, Michael 44 0 1% 10% 29% 60% 4.47


White, Jay 78 3% 6% 23% 31% 37% 3.93

Yu, Mary 107 <1% 2% 10% 22% 66% 4.52


16

Bibliography

American Bar Association (2005). Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Brody, D.C. (2008). “The Use of Judicial Performance Evaluation to Enhance Judicial Accountability, Judicial Independence, and Public Trust,” Denver University Law Review, 86: 115-157.

Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (2006). Transparent Courthouse: A Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation. Denver: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.

Jacobs, R., D. Kafry, and S. Zedeck (1980). “Expectations of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales,” Personnel Psychology, 33: 595-637.

Schmidt, F.L and L.B. Kaplan (1971). “Composite vs. Multiple Criteria: A Review and Resolution of the Controversy,” Personnel Psychology, 24: 419-434.


17

APPENDIX A


18

Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge XXXX YYYYYYYYY of the King County Superior Court. For each item, please indicate the level at which you believe the judge performed. For any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge, select "Don’t Know". The first few questions ask you to assess items related to the judge's LEGAL ABILITY.

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues.

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner.

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj


19

Was prepared for court.

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Treated all people equally without bias based on race, gender, or any other extralegal personal characteristic.

Based rulings on the facts and the law.

Integrity and Impartiality

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj


20

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench.

Treated people with courtesy and respect.

Was attentive to proceedings.

Acted with patience and selfcontrol.

Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj


21

Used clear and logical oral communication while in court.

Maintained control over the courtroom.

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines.

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner.

Administrative Skills

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj


22

Used the court's time efficiently.

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 as the person providing the evaluation.

In order to better place the evaluation results in context, we need to ask you some questions about your background.

Roughly how many times have you appeared before the judge over the past 2 years?

55

66

BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Excellent

nmlkj

Very Good

nmlkj

Acceptable

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Unacceptable

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

ONCE

nmlkj

23 TIMES

nmlkj

410 TIMES

nmlkj

MORE THAN 10 TIMES

nmlkj


23

How long have you been a practicing attorney?

Which of the following areas of law best describe your practice?

Which of the following best describes your work setting?

How many attorneys are employed by your law firm?

12 years

nmlkj

35 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

1120 years

nmlkj

More than 20 years

nmlkj

Criminal Defense

nmlkj

Criminal Prosecution

nmlkj

General Civil

nmlkj

Domestic Relations/Family Law

nmlkj

Government Practice

nmlkj

Other (please specify)

Prosecuting Attorney's Office

nmlkj

Government Agency

nmlkj

Indigent Defense Agency

nmlkj

Legal Aid

nmlkj

Private Law Firm

nmlkj


Sole practitioner

nmlkj

25 attorneys

nmlkj

610 attorneys

nmlkj

1120 attorneys

nmlkj

More than 20 attorneys

nmlkj


24

What best describes your racial background?

What is your gender?

Thank you for your participation. Please click the button below to submit your evaluation.

Caucasian/white

nmlkj

African American/Black

nmlkj

Hispanic/Latino(a)

nmlkj

Asian/Pacific islander

nmlkj

Native American

nmlkj


Male

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj


25

2012 judicial evaluation survey - kcba · 2012 judicial evaluation survey . evaluations of the...

Documents