2007 judicial evaluation surve - kcba.org · 2007 judicial evaluation surve. y. ... 600 ibm...

King County Bar Association

2007 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) 267-7015

www.kcba.org

With Assistance From:

David C. Brody, JD PhD

Associate Professor and Academic Director

Criminal Justice Program

Washington State University Spokane

PO Box 1495

Spokane, WA 99210-1495

(509) 358-7952 Fax 509 358-7933

http://www.kcba.org

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Survey Reliability.................................................................................................................................................... 3

Aggregate Description of Respondents................................................................................................................... 5

Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges............................................................................................................ 7

Summary of Results for Individual Judges .............................................................................................................. 9

Detailed Results for Individual Judges .................................................................................................................. 18

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire ...............................................................................................................A1 - A5

Appendices B1 – B51: Detailed Results for Individual Judges .................................................................... B1 - B205

Table of Tables

Page

Table 1: Response Rate for King County Superior Court Surveys ..................................................................... 3

Table 2: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics .................................................. 4

Table 3: Number of Appearances.................................................................................................................... 5

Table 4: Primary Area of Practice.................................................................................................................... 5

Table 5: Work Setting...................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 6: Number of Years Practicing Law ........................................................................................................ 6

Table 7: Respondent Racial Background.......................................................................................................... 6

Table 8: Respondent Gender........................................................................................................................... 6

Table 9: Aggregate Results.............................................................................................................................. 7

Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings ................................................................................................................ 8

Table 11: !ggregate “Positive” Evaluations, 1991 to 2007................................................................................. 9

Table 12: Results for Individual Judges – Legal Decision Making ................................................................ 10-11

Table 13: Results for Individual Judges – Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication ......................... 12-13

Table 14: Results for Individual Judges – Administrative Skills.................................................................... 14-15

Table 15: Results for Individual Judges – Integrity and Impartiality ............................................................ 16-17

i

Appendix B

Appendix B-1 ........................................................................................................................... Judge Sharon Armstrong

Appendix B-2 .............................................................................................................................. Judge Suzanne Barnett

Appendix B-3 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Greg Canova

Appendix B-4 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Cheryl Carey

Appendix B-5 .................................................................................................................................... Judge James Cayce

Appendix B-6 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Patricia Clark

Appendix B-7 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Andrea Darvas

Appendix B-8 ................................................................................................................................... Judge James Doerty

Appendix B-9 ............................................................................................................................. Judge William Downing

Appendix B-10 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Theresa Doyle

Appendix B-11 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Joan DuBuque

Appendix B-12 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Richard Eadie

Appendix B-13 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge John Erlick

Appendix B-14 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Deborah Fleck

Appendix B-15 ................................................................................................................................... Judge Michael Fox

Appendix B-16 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge Brian Gain

Appendix B-17 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Steven Gonzalez

Appendix B-18 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Glenna Hall

Appendix B-19 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Helen Halpert

Appendix B-20 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Hayden

Appendix B-21 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Heavey

Appendix B-22 ................................................................................................................................... Judge Bruce Hilyer

Appendix B-23 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Philip Hubbard

Appendix B-24 .................................................................................................................................. Judge Laura Inveen

Appendix B-25 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Richard Jones

Appendix B-26 ..................................................................................................................................... Judge Paris Kallas

Appendix B-27 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Ronald Kessler

Appendix B-28 ....................................................................................................................................... Judge Linda Lau

Appendix B-29 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge Dean Lum

Appendix B-30 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Nicole MacInnes

Appendix B-31 ............................................................................................................................ Judge George Mattson

Appendix B-32 ......................................................................................................................... Judge Douglas McBroom

Appendix B-33 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Harry McCarthy

Appendix B-34 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Leroy McCullough

Appendix B-35 ................................................................................................................... Judge Richard F. McDermott

Appendix B-36 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Charles Mertel

Appendix B-37 ................................................................................................................... Judge Laura Gene Middaugh

Appendix B-38 .............................................................................................................................. Judge Douglass North

Appendix B-39 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell

Appendix B-40 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Mary Roberts

Appendix B-41 ........................................................................................................................... Judge Palmer Robinson

Appendix B-42 ..................................................................................................................................... Judge Jim Rogers

Appendix B-43 ....................................................................................................................... Judge Wesley J. Saint Clair

Appendix B-44 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Carol Schapira

Appendix B-45 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Catherine Shaffer

Appendix B-46 ......................................................................................................................... Judge Michael Spearman

Appendix B-47 .................................................................................................................................. Judge Julie Spector

Appendix B-48 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Trickey

Appendix B-49 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Chris Washington

Appendix B-50 ....................................................................................................................................... Judge Jay White

Appendix B-51 ......................................................................................................................................... Judge Mary Yu

Introduction

The King County Bar Association (KCBA) has conducted and published surveys of its members’ evaluations of judicial

officers since 1972; 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 2007 survey of evaluations of the judges of the King County Superior Court took place during the months of April

through October 2007. The survey included attorney evaluations of 51 judges1 of the King County Superior Court.2

The survey administration was a departure from the past. With advancements in technology and methodological

capacity, the 2007 survey modified who would be asked to provide input on judicial performance, what information

would be obtained, how surveys would be distributed, and how results from the evaluation would be measured and

presented.

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, 2004). 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 was obtained from the Washington Administrative Office for the Courts listing attorneys who appeared

at trials, hearings, and other in-court proceedings in King County Superior Court cases that concluded in calendar

years 2005 and 2006. Second, courtroom logs were maintained of all attorney appearances before the various judges

from late March to mid-September 2007. Attorneys identified by either means as having made a court appearance

during those time frames were invited to participate in the survey for the judge before whom they appeared.

Another new development in the survey framework was the method by which participants were provided with the

survey form, and responses received back from them. In the past, surveys were mailed to all King County Bar

Association members, or to all lawyers practicing in King County, with responses also mailed back. In the immediate

prior survey, in 2003, mailing out of surveys was abandoned and the survey instead distributed by e-mail, printed in

the monthly Bar Bulletin, and made available on the KCBA web site. For the 2007 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. E-mails were sent on a staggered basis

1 Results were obtained for Judges Michael Spearman and Richard Jones, who are no longer on the superior court bench, and are presented in this

report. Evaluations were not conducted for judges who were appointed to the bench after March 1, 2007 (Judges Susan Craighead, Bruce Heller, and Kimberley Prochnau). 2 Thirteen appointed Commissioners also serve on the Superior Court. In the past, Commissioners were evaluated alongside Judges in the KCBA judicial performance survey. However, due to the different manner in which the survey was conducted in 2007, it was not necessary to do this and it was also decided that it would be more efficient and convenient to separately conduct a survey of the Commissioners (using the same survey framework and questions described herein) in the Spring of 2008.

Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey

King County Bar Association Page 1

between mid-April and mid-October 2007, to attorneys who have made appearances before the King County Superior

Court in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Additionally, attorneys for whom e-mail addresses could not be obtained were sent

paper copies of surveys for judges they were eligible to evaluate, through the mail or messenger service.

The judicial evaluation survey was conducted in collaboration with Washington State University. Surveys were

processed through a secure web server, and then delivered directly to WSU researchers for tabulation and analysis of

results. WSU researchers also provided methodological and statistical consultation to the Judicial Evaluation

Committee, including in the preparation of this report.

Another departure from past surveys was the specific criteria upon which judicial performance was measured.

Following the ABA Guidelines for Judicial Performance Evaluation, the 2007 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 five possible responses (unacceptable, poor,

acceptable, very good, and excellent). 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.

In another departure from past practice, 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.

When tabulating survey results, no attempt has been made to mathematically derive an “overall score” for any

particular judge, in favor of reporting the results of the four different areas that were the subject of the survey. 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 the four areas all are considered to be

important attributes for a judge, they are not necessarily equal in importance. An averaging method that assumed

each was of equal weight thus would be inappropriate. Furthermore, any attempt by the Committee to provide a

weighted average by itself assigning differing importance to the four different areas of the survey would substitute

the judgment of the Committee 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

conducted.

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 four factors. As discussed below, after considering these factors, the committee is confident that

the results obtained in the 2007 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;

As shown in Table 1, a total of 4821 surveys were completed by attorneys. These surveys were completed by 1504

different individual attorneys. The number of responses per judge ranged from a low of 30 to a high of 163. The

average and median number of responses per judge were 94.50 and 89, respectively. These figures are sufficiently

high so as not to indicate unreliability.

Table 1: Response Rate for King County Superior Court Surveys3

Year Surveys Sent Out Surveys Returned Response Rate

1999 12,466 1,204 9.7%

2003 10,000 627 6.7%

2007 18,927 4,821 25.5%

A second factor which may reflect on the reliability of a survey-based evaluation is the survey’s response rate;

Generally, the higher a response rate the better. While that is also the case in the 2007 evaluation survey, any

correlation between a high response rate and a survey’s reliability is marginal for several reasons; First, response

3 Due to differences in how the 2007 survey was conducted, including in how attorneys were identified as eligible to complete an evaluation, how the

survey questionnaire was distributed, and in the survey questionnaire itself, interyear comparisons between the figures presented in Table 1 are not practicable. The information is presented solely to provide historical context for the 2007 survey.



rates are critical considerations when a survey utilizes some form of sampling (random or non-random) to determine

who will be asked to participate. For the 2007 judicial performance evaluation survey all attorneys who were

identified as appearing before a judge during the evaluation period were asked to evaluate the judge; no sampling

procedure took place. As such, achieving specific response rates is not critical to validating the results. That being

said, a respectable response rate of 25.5% was obtained for the 2007 survey.4

! more 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.5 As seen in Table 2 the demographic

makeup of respondents is similar to the makeup of the WSBA membership.

Table 2: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics

Percent of Respondents Percent of WSBA Members

Race

White 88.3% 93.4%

African American 2.8% 1.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander 4.1% NA

Native American .5% .8%

Hispanic/Latino(a) 2.2% 1.6%

Other 2.0% .8%

Gender

Male 63.6% 64.5%

Female 36.4% 35.5%

Practice Size

Sole Practitioner 21.2% 33%

2-5 Attorneys 17.8% 23.1%

6-10 Attorneys 8.6% 9.3%

11-20 Attorneys 8.2% 6.5%

More than 20 Attorneys 44.2% 28.1%

Experience

Less than 10 years 30.3% 41.8%

10 to 20 years 29.1% 27.1%

More than 20 years 40.6% 31.1%

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 who did not actually appear in court before a judge received evaluation

4 The response rate of 25.5% is a very conservative estimate. Response rates are measured as the percent of people who received requests to complete

surveys who returned completed surveys. With Internet-based surveys that are distributed via e-mail, an unknowable number of people who were sent surveys did not receive them, either due to spam blockers, firewalls, outdated e-mail addresses , or other reasons. A true response rate would be calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of people who received but did not complete surveys: individuals who never received the request would be excluded from this calculation. As these individuals are not knowable, they were included in response rate calculations. As such response rates reported are surely lower and more conservative estimates than an omnisciently calculated rate. 5

Demographic data for WSBA membership was utilized because similar data was not available for any smaller group more likely to appear in front of King County Superior Court judges, such as WSBA members residing in King County, or KCBA members.



materials. In the invitation to complete the 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. Surveys in which

the number of appearances was not indicated were not included in the evaluation (N=98).

As can be seen in Table 3, 82% of respondents reported appearing before the judge in court multiple times during the

two years prior to completing the evaluation. In fact, nearly half of all respondents reported that they appeared in

the judge’s court at least four times during this timeframe; However, it should be noted that a single hearing may

provide a suitable basis for completing an evaluation.

Table 3: Number of Appearances

Number Percent

Once 852 18.0%

2-3 times 1688 35.7%

4-10 times 1286 27.2%

More than 10 times 896 19.0%

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 4-8.

Respondents were asked several questions regarding their practice. Respondents were presented with seven

categories of “practice areas” and asked to indicate which best described their practice; Respondents’ primary areas

of practice are well distributed across the categories offered (see Table 4). Attorneys practicing in the criminal justice

arena accounted for 42% of respondents. The highest single category of respondents is Criminal – Defense at 27.3%,

while prosecutors accounted for nearly 15% of respondents. The civil bar is also well represented, with 9.2% of

respondents indentifying their primary practice as either tort plaintiff or defense. Additionally, roughly 20% of

respondents maintained a general commercial or civil practice; For the 177 respondents who checked “Other,”

guardianship, juvenile dependency, land use, real estate, and employment are frequently mentioned.

Table 4: Primary Area of Practice

Number Percent

Civil Tort--- Defense 436 9.2%

Civil Tort--- Plaintiff 434 9.1%

Criminal--- Defense 1296 27.3%

Criminal--- Prosecution 698 14.7%

General Civil 956 20.1%

Domestic Relations 531 11.2%

Government Practice 218 4.6%

Other 177 3.7%



Relatedly, respondents were asked to describe the type of office in which they worked (see Table 5). A majority of

respondents (60%) practice in the private sector; !nother third of the attorneys work for either a prosecutor’s office

or a public defense agency.

Table 5: Work Setting

Number Percent

Prosecuting Attorney 790 16.6%

Attorney General 140 2.9%

Public Defender 809 17.0%

Legal Aid 35 0.7%

In House Corporate Counsel 56 1.2%

Private Practice 2852 60.0%

Other 74 1.6%

Attorneys were also asked how long they have been practicing law. Attorneys with less than ten years of experience

and attorneys with between ten and twenty years of experience each made up roughly thirty percent of respondents.

The other forty percent of respondents reported that they have practiced law for more than twenty years.

Table 6: Number of Years Practicing Law

Number Percent

Less than 10 years 1449 30.3% 10 to 20 years 1393 29.1% More than 20 years 1942 40.6%

In conducting an evaluation survey it is important to take steps to assure that results generated are not based on

gender or racial bias. While the survey was designed to minimize this risk, the potential for such factors can never be

eliminated. To facilitate the analysis of such factors for consideration in future evaluation surveys, information

regarding the race and gender of each respondent were requested. These figures are presented in Table 7 and Table

8.

Table 7: Respondent Racial Background

Number Percent

Caucasian/White 3944 87.9%African American/Black 127 2.8%Hispanic/Latino(a) 104 2.3%Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 181 4.0%Native American 41 .9%Other 90 2.0%

Table 8: Respondent Gender

Number Percent

Male 2925 63.8%Female 1660 36.2%



Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges

For the 2007 survey, there were five possible responses to each survey question: unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very

good, and excellent. Overall, most attorneys – over 70% – rated the performance of judges in each of the four

evaluation categories as either “excellent” or “very good” (see Table 9). A similar percentage of the responses to

individual questions within those areas fell into the categories “very good” and “excellent.” Furthermore, the percent

of “positive” responses (acceptable or better) ranged from 95% for judicial demeanor to 90% for integrity and

impartiality. Overall, respondents see the Superior Court to be well above average on each of the evaluative criteria.

Table 9: Aggregate Results

No. of responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent

Legal Decision Making 18580 3.1% 6.3% 16.1% 27.2% 47.3%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4681 3.9% 7.3% 16.1% 27.6% 45.2%

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4517 3.5% 7.0% 16.9% 28.8% 43.8%

Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and 4698 3.3% 7.8% 15.9% 26.6% 46.4%

concise manner

Was prepared for court 4684 1.8% 3.1% 15.5% 25.7% 53.8%

Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication 18798 2.1% 3.6% 12.8% 22.2% 59.3%

Treated people with courtesy and respect 4713 3.5% 4.3% 11.4% 20.0% 60.8%

Was attentive to proceedings 4707 1.0% 2.7% 12.2% 21.9% 62.2%

Acted with patience and self-control 4694 3.0% 4.4% 13.1% 21.8% 57.7%

Used clear oral communication while in court 4684 .9% 3.1% 14.5% 24.9% 56.6%

Administrative Skills 18456 1.7% 3.4% 15.7% 28.7% 50.5%

Maintained control the courtroom 4628 .6% 2.0% 14.9% 29.6% 52.9%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines 4491 2.5% 4.6% 15.9% 29.1% 47.9%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4676 2.0% 3.4% 16.0% 27.4% 51.2%

Used the court’s time efficiently 4661 1.6% 4.0% 15.8% 28.6% 50.0%

Integrity and Impartiality 18719 3.9% 5.5% 13.1% 20.2% 57.3%

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4683 3.0% 4.0% 13.2% 20.7% 59.1%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4729 3.8% 6.5% 13.6% 20.5% 55.6%

Based rulings on the facts and the law 4679 5.8% 8.3% 14.8% 20.8% 50.3%

Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal 4628 3.0% 3.3% 10.8% 18.9% 64.0% personal characteristic

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.



Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings

Item Average Category Average

Legal Decision Making

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner

Was prepared for court

4.03

4.02

4.05

4.26

4.06

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

4.30

4.41

4.26

4.33

4.32

Administrative Skills

Maintained control over the courtroom

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner

Used the court's time efficiently

4.32

4.15

4.22

4.21

4.22

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

4.29

4.18

4.01

4.37

4.19

In looking at the results, one can easily see that members of the bar have a very positive view of the King County

Superior Court bench. This comes as no surprise: attorneys have evaluated the Superior Court well above average

throughout the decade (see Table 11, below). Data available from surveys since 1991 show that this high assessment

of the Superior Court, at least for overall performance, extends back well over a decade.

In examining Table 11 it is obvious that on aggregate judges were rated higher in 2007 than in previous surveys. This

observation should be made with caution. As with Table 1, comparisons between the figures presented in Table 11

for the 2007 survey and for prior years are not practicable. Measures for the categories listed in the table were

obtained using different questions, different survey delivery and return procedures, and different identification of

eligible attorneys.

The higher 2007 ratings may be due to several factors. One possibility, of course, is that the bench on the whole

indeed is measurably better. More plausibly, the higher ratings may be the result of the methodological changes

implemented for the 2007 survey.6

Specifically, having attorneys answer multiple questions for each category may

have led to more reflective, behavior-based assessments than was possible in prior years, when each category was

measured with only one question. Another possibility is that by delivering surveys only to attorneys who appeared

before a judge, evaluations were more likely to be based on actual observations rather than rumor or courthouse

6 It is possible that had the 2007 survey methods been used in prior years, similar, or even higher ratings for the bench would have been present.



scuttlebutt. Also, attorneys were asked to base their evaluations on relatively recent appearances, as compared to

the four-year period covered by prior surveys. That might have eliminated evaluators who some years earlier had a

negative experience before a judge and who since have exercised an affidavit of prejudice. Another change from

prior years is that survey questionnaires dealt with only one judge at a time. This may have provided for more

considered evaluations of each individual judge. More simply, a questionnaire dealing with a single judge, rather

than one listing more than fifty, may have resulted in the evaluator perceiving that, on average, higher ratings were

appropriate. However, these are only observations of possibilities regarding the higher scores seen in 2007; absent

further inquiry, the basis for them will only be speculation.

Table 11: !ggregate “Positive” Evaluations, 1991 to 2007

Year Legal Decision Judicial Efficiency and Integrity and Making Demeanor Administrative Skills Impartiality

1991 82% 88% 88%

1995 81% 86% 87%

1999 85% 87% 89%

2003 84% 87% 88%

2007 91% 95% 94% 90%

Positive evaluations for 1991-2003 are “satisfactory,” “adequate,” or “acceptable,” and above. Positive evaluations for 2007 are “acceptable” and above, i.e., “acceptable,” “very good,” or “excellent.”

Summary of Results for Individual Judges

Tables 12-15, which appear on the following eight pages, present summaries of the results for the 51 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, 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 as significantly better than the latter.



Table 12: 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

Armstrong, Sharon

Barnett, Suzanne

Canova, Greg

Carey, Cheryl

Cayce, James

Clark, Patricia

Darvas, Andrea

Doerty, James

Downing, William

Doyle, Theresa

DuBuque, Joan

Eadie, Richard

Erlick, John

Fleck, Deborah

Fox, Michael

Gain, Brian

Gonzalez, Steven

Hall, Glenna

Halpert, Helen

Hayden, Michael

Heavey, Michael

Hilyer, Bruce

Hubbard, Philip

Responses

163

113

127

66

80

52

74

68

131

148

134

57

126

88

89

78

85

79

96

156

56

109

60

Unacceptable

2%

8%

3%

2%

3%

9%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

1%

<1%

1%

1%

3%

1%

3%

4%

3%

8%

2%

1%

RATING SCALE

Excellent

Very Good

Acceptable

Poor

Unacceptable

Poor

3%

11%

6%

3%

6%

25%

3%

2%

1%

8%

3%

9%

2%

4%

2%

6%

5%

12%

9%

6%

21%

5%

7%

5

4

3

2

1

Acceptable

9%

23%

16%

14%

17%

46%

18%

11%

10%

17%

12%

19%

5%

13%

5%

14%

15%

25%

15%

19%

34%

18%

21%

Very Good

27%

29%

25%

34%

28%

11%

26%

23%

26%

31%

23%

36%

30%

29%

26%

31%

21%

32%

32%

31%

15%

25%

39%

Excellent

58%

29%

51%

47%

46%

9%

48%

60%

60%

41%

58%

35%

63%

53%

66%

46%

57%

28%

40%

41%

22%

51%

32%

Acceptable Average or Above (1-5 scale)

95% 4.37

81% 3.60

91% 4.16

95% 4.21

91% 4.07

66% 2.87

93% 4.11

94% 4.33

96% 4.41

89% 4.01

96% 4.30

90% 3.95

98% 4.53

95% 4.29

97% 4.53

91% 4.12

93% 4.28

85% 3.67

87% 3.94

91% 4.01

71% 3.22

93% 4.17

92% 3.93



Responses Unacceptable Poor

Inveen, Laura 94 <1% 3%

Jones, Richard 114 3% 6%

Kallas, Paris 152 3% 2%

Kessler, Ronald 73 0% 4%

Lau, Linda 158 2% 7%

Lum, Dean 35 4% 8%

MacInnes, Nicole 121 5% 11%

Mattson, George 117 1% 3%

McBroom, Douglas 100 9% 11%

McCarthy, Harry 98 2% 5%

McCullough, LeRoy 42 4% 11%

McDermott, Richard 69 2% 3%

Mertel, Charles 157 4% 7%

Middaugh, Laura 85 2% 13%

North, Douglass 102 2% 5%

Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 0% 3%

Roberts, Mary 87 8% 13%

Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 3%

Rogers, Jim 123 4% 3%

Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 2% 6%

Schapira, Carol 61 7% 10%

Shaffer, Catherine 100 6% 8%

Spearman, Michael 45 2% <1%

Spector, Julie 118 7% 8%

Trickey, Michael 30 <1% 0%

Washington, Chris 82 7% 13%

White, Jay 90 2% 6%

Yu, Mary 158 1% 5%

Acceptable Very Good Excellent Acceptable

or Above Average

(1-5 scale)

18% 34% 44% 96% 4.18

9% 12% 70% 91% 4.40

11% 28% 56% 95% 4.32

13% 28% 54% 96% 4.31

14% 25% 52% 91% 4.18

24% 22% 43% 89% 3.91

20% 23% 41% 84% 3.85

9% 27% 59% 95% 4.41

23% 24% 34% 80% 3.62

20% 24% 49% 93% 4.14

24% 28% 33% 85% 3.75

14% 24% 57% 95% 4.30

16% 31% 42% 89% 3.99

24% 40% 21% 85% 3.64

17% 36% 40% 93% 4.08

15% 24% 59% 97% 4.38

16% 30% 33% 79% 3.67

8% 32% 56% 96% 4.39

10% 27% 56% 93% 4.30

17% 29% 46% 92% 4.09

29% 23% 30% 83% 3.58

23% 21% 42% 86% 3.83

11% 40% 46% 97% 4.27

15% 22% 48% 85% 3.95

3% 17% 79% 99% 4.72

29% 29% 22% 80% 3.47

21% 29% 42% 92% 4.03

14% 24% 56% 94% 4.29



Table 13: Results for Individual Judges – 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

Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent

Armstrong, Sharon 163 <1% 2% 6% 19% 73%

Barnett, Suzanne 113 4% 5% 13% 27% 51%

Canova, Greg 127 3% 5% 16% 25% 51%

Carey, Cheryl 66 <1% <1% 5% 18% 77%

Cayce, James 80 2% 3% 9% 25% 61%

Clark, Patricia 52 19% 20% 34% 16% 11%

Darvas, Andrea 74 0% 1% 13% 15% 71%

Doerty, James 68 <1% 2% 8% 15% 74%

Downing, William 131 1% 3% 11% 16% 69%

Doyle, Theresa 148 1% 2% 10% 22% 65%

DuBuque, Joan 134 2% 3% 14% 23% 58%

Eadie, Richard 57 0% 4% 14% 25% 57%

Erlick, John 126 <1% 1% 3% 16% 80%

Fleck, Deborah 88 0% <1% 7% 27% 66%

Fox, Michael 89 1% 1% 4% 22% 73%

Gain, Brian 78 0% <1% 8% 29% 62%

Gonzalez, Steven 85 1% 1% 10% 21% 67%

Hall, Glenna 79 6% 7% 21% 28% 38%

Halpert, Helen 96 4% 6% 19% 31% 40%

Hayden, Michael 156 4% 6% 21% 33% 36%

Heavey, Michael 56 2% 12% 29% 23% 34%

Hilyer, Bruce 109 2% 3% 16% 18% 60%

Hubbard, Philip 60 0% 2% 8% 22% 68%


98% 4.63

91% 4.15

92% 4.22

99% 4.68

95% 4.40

61% 2.78

99% 4.60

97% 4.51

96% 4.51

97% 4.49

95% 4.30

96% 4.36

99% 4.76

99% 4.58

98% 4.66

99% 4.52

98% 4.53

87% 3.86

90% 3.98

90% 3.92

86% 3.75

95% 4.31

98% 4.57




Inveen, Laura 94 0% 1%





Lum, Dean 35 3% 0%


Mattson, George 117 <1% 3%




McDermott, Richard 69 <1% 2%

Mertel, Charles 157 <1% 1%


North, Douglass 102 <1% 1%








Spearman, Michael 45 0% 0%


Trickey, Michael 30 0% 0%


White, Jay 90 1% 2%

Yu, Mary 158 2% 4%

Very Good Excellent Acceptable

or Above Average

(1-5 scale)

11% 28% 59% 99% 4.47

7% 13% 78% 98% 4.66

9% 23% 64% 96% 4.46

32% 24% 25% 81% 3.48

12% 19% 63% 96% 4.39

13% 24% 60% 97% 4.38

17% 25% 49% 91% 4.11

16% 28% 52% 96% 4.28

16% 23% 52% 91% 4.17

6% 18% 75% 99% 4.68

10% 28% 56% 94% 4.34

4% 18% 75% 97% 4.66

13% 21% 64% 98% 4.47

22% 28% 33% 83% 3.76

14% 27% 58% 99% 4.41

8% 24% 67% 99% 4.58

19% 27% 39% 85% 3.82

5% 23% 71% 99% 4.62

4% 14% 79% 97% 4.67

15% 14% 61% 90% 4.24

25% 23% 40% 88% 3.85

21% 24% 41% 86% 3.83

16% 26% 70% 100% 4.66

3% 18% 54% 88% 4.11

16% 6% 91% 100% 4.87

11% 26% 54% 96% 4.29

11% 24% 62% 97% 4.43

4% 18% 65% 94% 4.40

Acceptable



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

Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable

Armstrong, Sharon 163 1% 2% 8%

Barnett, Suzanne 113 4% 6% 22%

Canova, Greg 127 1% 2% 17%

Carey, Cheryl 66 1% 1% 13%

Cayce, James 80 1% 2% 15%

Clark, Patricia 52 5% 12% 33%

Darvas, Andrea 74 3% 2% 21%

Doerty, James 68 2% 2% 13%

Downing, William 131 1% 1% 9%

Doyle, Theresa 148 <1% 2% 16%

DuBuque, Joan 134 1% 1% 10%

Eadie, Richard 57 0% 5% 15%

Erlick, John 126 1% 1% 8%

Fleck, Deborah 88 1% 2% 10%

Fox, Michael 89 <1% 1% 7%

Gain, Brian 78 <1% 2% 11%

Gonzalez, Steven 85 0% 2% 12%

Hall, Glenna 79 3% 6% 23%

Halpert, Helen 96 2% 5% 23%

Hayden, Michael 156 2% 3% 15%

Heavey, Michael 56 3% 11% 33%

Hilyer, Bruce 109 1% 3% 19%

Hubbard, Philip 60 0% 0% 13%

Very Good

27%

34%

24%

28%

33%

20%

35%

23%

24%

33%

25%

28%

26%

32%

27%

40%

22%

38%

30%

35%

20%

26%

41%

Excellent

62%

34%

56%

56%

49%

50%

39%

60%

65%

48%

62%

46%

64%

54%

64%

46%

64%

30%

40%

45%

33%

51%

46%


97% 4.46

90% 3.88

97% 4.31

97% 4.37

97% 4.27

93% 3.58

95% 4.05

96% 4.38

98% 4.53

98% 4.29

97% 4.45

95% 4.22

98% 4.52

97% 4.37

98% 4.53

97% 4.29

98% 4.49

91% 3.86

93% 3.98

95% 4.19

86% 3.67

96% 4.23

100% 4.32



Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good

Inveen, Laura 94 <1% 3% 15% 35%

Jones, Richard 114 1% 3% 7% 18%

Kallas, Paris 152 1% 2% 13% 27%

Kessler, Ronald 73 0% 3% 13% 31%

Lau, Linda 158 2% 5% 16% 27%

Lum, Dean 35 4% 5% 10% 30%

MacInnes, Nicole 121 2% 4% 18% 30%

Mattson, George 117 3% 2% 11% 28%

McBroom, Douglas 100 5% 9% 22% 26%

McCarthy, Harry 98 <1% 4% 14% 30%

McCullough, LeRoy 42 3% 6% 29% 21%

McDermott, Richard 69 1% 2% 10% 27%

Mertel, Charles 157 1% 3% 19% 26%

Middaugh, Laura 85 3% 6% 26% 38%

North, Douglass 102 1% 2% 15% 41%

Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 1% 4% 12% 32%

Roberts, Mary 87 5% 5% 22% 32%

Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 2% 9% 28%

Rogers, Jim 123 2% 4% 9% 25%

Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 2% 3% 19% 25%

Schapira, Carol 61 4% 8% 27% 30%

Shaffer, Catherine 100 4% 5% 22% 22%

Spearman, Michael 45 3% 2% 4% 42%

Spector, Julie 118 2% 5% 18% 23%

Trickey, Michael 30 3% 0% 3% 14%

Washington, Chris 82 3% 10% 27% 35%

White, Jay 90 1% 5% 21% 27%

Yu, Mary 158 1% 1% 16% 28%

Excellent

47%

71%

57%

53%

50%

51%

46%

56%

38%

52%

41%

60%

51%

27%

42%

52%

36%

61%

60%

54%

31%

47%

49%

52%

83%

25%

46%

54%

Acceptableor Above

97%

96%

97%

97%

93%

91%

94%

95%

86%

96%

90%

97%

96%

91%

97%

96%

90%

98%

94%

95%

88%

91%

95%

93%

97%

87%

94%

98%

Average (1-5 scale)

4.25

4.55

4.38

4.35

4.18

4.18

4.14

4.33

3.83

4.30

3.92

4.44

4.22

3.81

4.24

4.31

3.88

4.46

4.39

4.23

3.75

3.96

4.32

4.19

4.67

3.69

4.11

4.39



Table 15: 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

Armstrong, Sharon

Barnett, Suzanne

Canova, Greg

Carey, Cheryl

Cayce, James

Clark, Patricia

Darvas, Andrea

Doerty, James

Downing, William

Doyle, Theresa

DuBuque, Joan

Eadie, Richard

Erlick, John

Fleck, Deborah

Fox, Michael

Gain, Brian

Gonzalez, Steven

Hall, Glenna

Halpert, Helen

Hayden, Michael

Heavey, Michael

Hilyer, Bruce

Hubbard, Philip

Responses

163

113

127

66

80

52

74

68

131

148

134

57

126

88

89

78

85

79

96

156

56

109

60

Unacceptable

2%

9%

4%

1%

3%

15%

1%

3%

2%

2%

4%

1%

1%

1%

3%

2%

4%

6%

5%

6%

11%

3%

<1%

RATING SCALE

Excellent

Very Good

Acceptable

Poor

Unacceptable

Poor

3%

10%

8%

2%

4%

23%

3%

2%

4%

4%

3%

7%

2%

4%

1%

2%

7%

10%

8%

8%

9%

6%

2%

5

4

3

2

1

Acceptable

9%

18%

16%

14%

15%

32%

14%

12%

10%

11%

10%

14%

4%

8%

4%

13%

9%

18%

13%

16%

30%

15%

15%

Very Good

19%

17%

18%

20%

22%

13%

24%

16%

17%

22%

21%

23%

21%

20%

17%

29%

15%

29%

30%

28%

13%

16%

24%

Excellent

66%

45%

54%

63%

55%

17%

57%

67%

67%

61%

62%

54%

72%

66%

75%

53%

64%

37%

44%

42%

37%

60%

59%


95% 4.44

80% 3.79

88% 4.07

97% 4.42

93% 4.21

62% 2.95

96% 4.31

95% 4.44

94% 4.42

94% 4.35

93% 4.33

92% 4.21

97% 4.63

95% 4.44

96% 4.62

96% 4.29

88% 4.29

84% 3.82

87% 4.00

86% 3.91

80% 3.56

91% 4.23

98% 4.39




Inveen, Laura 94 0% 5%





Lum, Dean 35 3% 2%


Mattson, George 117 2% 2%




McDermott, Richard 69 4% 2%

Mertel, Charles 157 5% 6%


North, Douglass 102 2% 4%








Spearman, Michael 45 3% <1%


Trickey, Michael 30 0% 1%


White, Jay 90 4% 3%

Yu, Mary 158 3% 7%

Very Good Excellent Acceptable

or Above Average

(1-5 scale)

12% 25% 58% 95% 4.36

6% 9% 77% 92% 4.53

12% 19% 64% 95% 4.39

19% 20% 52% 91% 4.12

13% 20% 58% 91% 4.24

15% 24% 55% 95% 4.27

13% 17% 53% 84% 4.00

12% 21% 63% 96% 4.43

17% 22% 49% 88% 4.01

12% 18% 65% 95% 4.41

20% 14% 56% 91% 4.12

9% 19% 65% 94% 4.41

14% 18% 57% 89% 4.17

23% 25% 38% 86% 3.83

14% 29% 51% 91% 4.22

9% 24% 63% 96% 4.49

13% 20% 47% 80% 3.83

9% 15% 72% 96% 4.54

8% 16% 68% 92% 4.40

14% 19% 57% 91% 4.21

23% 23% 37% 83% 3.73

20% 18% 40% 80% 3.67

5% 26% 66% 97% 4.51

14% 19% 51% 84% 3.96

2% 8% 89% 99% 4.86

18% 25% 44% 87% 3.94

12% 19% 62% 93% 4.32

10% 21% 59% 90% 4.27

Acceptable



Detailed Results for Individual Judges

Appendices B-1 through B-51 provide 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 1) the number of survey

invitations sent out and the number of respondents who participated in the survey; 2) a bar chart summarizing the

survey results for each of the four areas surveyed, expressing the results in a numerical (1-5) scale; 3) a table showing

a) the numerical average on a 1-5 scale of the responses and b) the percentage for each possible response

(unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, or excellent), for each individual question in the survey and for the four

survey areas; and 4) characteristics of the attorneys who responded to the survey for that individual judge.

Conclusion

The results of the 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey present a strongly favorable assessment of the judges of the King

County Superior Court. Overall, judges received positive ratings (acceptable and above) more than nearly 90% of the

time. The overall evaluations of the judges are consistent across respondent years of active practice, principal types

of practice, and number of appearances before the Court. Individual judges, for the most part, received positive

ratings.

Bibliography

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

Brody, D.C. (2004); “The Relationship Between Judicial Performance Evaluations and Judicial Elections,” Judicature, 87: 168-177.

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 �ehaviorally !nchored Rating Scales,” Personnel Psychology, 33: 595-637.

Schmidt, F.L. and L;�; Kaplan (1971); “�omposite vs; Multiple �riteria: ! Review and Resolution of the �ontroversy,” Personnel Psychology, 24: 419-434.



Appendix A: Questionnaire

The following four pages contain a copy of the questionnaire for the 2007 Evaluation Survey.


King County Bar Association Page A-1

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judge ___________

In an effort to maintain a high caliber judiciary and provide meaningful information to the citizens

of King County, the King County Bar Association is conducting judicial performance evaluations

of the King County Superior Court bench. The evaluations are designed to educate the public

about the many qualities that make a person a good judge, to assist citizens in casting more well-

informed ballots in judicial elections, and to help judges become better jurists by providing

feedback about their performance from attorneys and jurors who have appeared in their court.

As part of this process, attorneys who appeared before JUDGE ____ during the past several years

are being asked to complete a brief questionnaire. As you have had the opportunity to personally

observe the judge on the bench, you are in a position to provide meaningful, reliable information

by completing the attached questionnaire as completely and forthrightly as possible based solely

on your experience appearing before JUDGE ____ during the past two years. If you have not

appeared before the judge during the last two years please disregard this e-mail.

The survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. Your responses will remain totally

confidential and will be attributed to you in no manner. Neither your name nor any other

identifying information will be asked and should not be provided on the questionnaire. Any

potentially personally identifying information will remain confidential and responses will be

reported only in summary form and aggregated with the other attorneys that complete the survey.

When you have completed the survey please return it in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope or

by fax to (509) 358-7933.

Thank you for your participation and effort in this important endeavor.

Michael E. Ricketts

Chair, Judicial Evaluation Committee

This research has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at WSU. If you have any

questions or concerns about this research project, you can contact Professor David Brody at (509) 358-7952

([email protected]). If you have questions about your rights as a participant please contact the WSU IRB at 509-

335-9661 or [email protected].



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judge ___________

Please rate the judge’s performance, based on your own personal experience during the previous two years,

using the following scale:

A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable

Please answer Don’t Know/Does Not Apply (“DK/DNA”) 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.

A B C D F DK/DNA


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. □ □ □ □ □ □

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. □ □ □ □ □ □


Maintained control over 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.



Background and Demographic Information

How long have you been a practicing attorney?

o LESS THAN 2 YEARS

o 2-10 YEARS

o 10-20 YEARS

o MORE THAN 20 YEARS

Which of the following areas of law best describe your practice? (select up to 2 items)

o CIVIL TORT -- DEFENSE

o CIVIL TORT -- PLAINTIFF

o CRIMINAL -- DEFENSE ATTORNEY

o CRIMINAL -- PROSECUTION

o COMMERCIAL & GENERAL CIVIL

o DOMESTIC RELATIONS/FAMILY LAW

o GOVERNMENT PRACTICE

o OTHER (please specify) ______________________________

Which of the following best describes your work setting?

o PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

o ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

o PUBLIC DEFENDER/DEPARTMENT OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL

o LEGAL AID

o IN HOUSE CORPORATE COUNSEL

o PRIVATE PRACTICE

o OTHER (please specify) ______________________________

How many attorneys are employed by your firm?

o SOLE PRACTITIONER

o 2-5 ATTORNEYS

o 6-10 ATTORNEYS

o 11-20 ATTORNEYS

o GREATER THAN 20 ATTORNEYS



What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)

o CAUCASIAN/WHITE

o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK

o HISPANIC/LATINO(A)

o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

o NATIVE AMERICAN

o OTHER (please specify) ______________________

What is your gender?

o MALE

o FEMALE

How many times have you appeared in the Judge’s court over the past two years?

o ONCE

o 2-3 TIMES

o 4-10 TIMES

o MORE THAN 10 TIMES

Comments

Please provide any additional comments, clarifications, or details related to either the items raised in this

questionnaire or the judge’s performance on the bench in the space below. You may use the back of this

page or add additional pages if needed.

Thank you very much for your time and effort.



APPENDIX B

DETAILED RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL JUDGES


King County Bar Association Page B-1

APPENDIX B-1

JUDGE SHARON ARMSTRONG

556 Attorney surveys sent out 163 responses Response Rate 29.3%

RATING SCALE

Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1



Judge Armstrong AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average

Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good

Excellent

LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.37 2% 3% 9% 27% 58%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.34 1.7% 4.3% 7.7% 30.8% 55.6%

Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise

4.26 3.4% 5.2% 6.0% 32.8% 52.6%

manner. 4.30 2.5% 5.0% 9.2% 26.1% 57.1%

Was prepared for court. 4.53 2.5% 0 5.1% 26.3% 66.1%

DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.63 <1% 2% 6% 19% 73%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.61 0 2.5% 6.7% 17.6% 73.1%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.66 0 1.7% 6.7% 15.1% 76.5%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.54 .8% 3.4% 5.0% 22.7% 68.1%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.58 0 .8% 10.1% 19.3% 69.7%

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.46 1% 2% 8% 27% 62%

Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.58 0 .9% 7.0% 25.2% 67.0%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 2.6% 3.5% 7.8% 27.8% 58.3%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.37 .9% 3.4% 9.5% 30.2% 56.0%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.49 2.6% .9% 5.1% 28.2% 63.2%

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 2% 3% 9% 19% 66%

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.50 4.2% 1.7% 2.5% 23.5% 68.1%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.34 2.5% 4.2% 11.8% 20.2% 61.3%

Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.28 3.4% 4.3% 12.1% 21.6% 58.6%

Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.54 1.7% 3.4% 6.8% 15.3% 72.9%



RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Appearances Before Judge Armstrong During Previous 2 Years

Once 22 13.7% 2-3 Times 63 39.1% 4-10 Times 48 29.8% More Than 10 Times 28 17.4%

Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 47 29.0%Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 22 13.6%Criminal -- Defense Attorney 38 23.5%Criminal -- Prosecution 19 11.7%Commercial & General Civil 24 14.8%Domestic Relations/Family Law 3 1.9%Government Practice 4 2.5%Other 5 3.1%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 13.0% Attorney General's Office 1 0.6% Public Defender 27 16.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 111 68.5% Other 2 1.2%

Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 25 15.5% 2-5 Attorneys 26 16.1% 6-10 Attorneys 15 9.3% 11-20 Attorneys 19 11.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 76 47.2%



Years as Attorney

Less than 10 years 37 23.1% 10-20 years 54 33.8% More than 20 years 69 43.1%

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 142 91.6% African American/Black 4 2.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 1.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 1.9% Native American 0 0 Other 3 1.9%



Gender

Male 99 63.5% Female 57 36.5%

APPENDIX B-2

JUDGE SUZANNE BARNETT


RATING SCALE




Judge Barnett AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.51 8.9% 11.9% 26.7% 23.8% 28.7%

manner. 3.57 9.4% 11.3% 19.8% 32.1% 27.4%

Was prepared for court. 3.84 4.7% 5.6% 23.4% 33.6% 32.7%

DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.15 4% 5% 13% 27% 51%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.14 7.5% 3.7% 11.2% 22.4% 55.1%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.17 2.8% 5.6% 14.0% 27.1% 50.5%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.14 3.8% 6.7% 11.4% 27.6% 50.5%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.17 .9% 5.6% 15.9% 30.8% 46.7%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.05 2.9% 3.8% 19.0% 34.3% 40.0%


Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.85 2.9% 7.7% 24.0% 32.7% 32.7%

Used the court's time efficiently. 3.87 2.9% 4.9% 26.5% 33.3% 32.4%









Appearances Before Judge Barnett During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 4 3.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 6 5.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 26 23.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 19 17.4% Commercial & General Civil 17 15.6% Domestic Relations/Family Law 31 28.4% Government Practice 3 2.8% Other 3 2.8%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 18.3% Attorney General's Office 3 2.8% Public Defender 22 20.2% Legal Aid 3 2.8% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 60 55.0% Other 1 0.9%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 61 55.0% Female 50 45.0%

APPENDIX B-3

JUDGE GREG CANOVA


RATING SCALE




Judge Canova AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.11 2.4% 6.5% 18.7% 22.0% 50.4%

manner. 4.11 4.0% 7.2% 12.8% 25.6% 50.4%

Was prepared for court. 4..34 1.6% 1.6% 14.5% 25.8% 56.5%



Was attentive to proceedings. 4.30 .8% 3.2% 16.9% 23.4% 55.6%


Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.28 0 3.3 % 19.5% 22.8% 54.5%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.39 .8% 0 16.4% 24.8% 57.9%



Used the court's time efficiently. 4.31 0 3.2% 18.5% 22.6% 55.6%









Appearances Before Judge Canova During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 9 7.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 9 7.1% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 37 29.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 33 26.0% Commercial & General Civil 33 26.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 3.1% Government Practice 2 1.6% Other 0 0

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 33 26.2% Attorney General's Office 2 1.6% Public Defender 24 19.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 67 53.2%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney

Less than 10 years 44 34.7% 10-20 years 31 24.4% More than 20 years 52 40.9 %

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 103 89.6% African American/Black 1 .9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 1.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 4.3% Native American 2 1.7% Other 2 1.7%



Gender

Male 86 71.7% Female 34 28.3%

APPENDIX B-4

JUDGE CHERYL CAREY


RATING SCALE




Judge Carey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.11 0 4.9% 18.0% 37.7% 39.3%

manner. 4.11 3.1% 3.1% 16.9% 33.8% 43.1%




Was attentive to proceedings. 4.72 0 0 6.2% 15.4% 78.5%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.69 0 0 6.2% 18.5% 75.4%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.60 1.5% 1.5% 6.2% 16.9% 73.8%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.47 0 1.6% 6.5% 35.5% 56.5%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 1.6% 0 13.1% 31.1% 54.1%


Used the court's time efficiently. 4.35 1.6% 0 17.5% 23.8% 57.1%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.54 1.5% 0 9.2% 21.5% 67.7%


Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.25 0 6.3% 17.5% 20.6% 55.6%

Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.55 0 0 15.6% 14.1% 70.3%




Appearances Before Judge Carey During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 22 33.3% Attorney General's Office 3 4.5% Public Defender 10 15.2% Legal Aid 2 3.0% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 2 43.9%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 56 88.9% African American/Black 2 3.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 6.3% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.6%



Gender

Male 31 49.2% Female 32 50.8%

APPENDIX B-5 JUDGE JAMES CAYCE


RATING SCALE




Judge Cayce AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.01 2.7% 5.4% 23.0% 25.7% 43.2%

manner. 4.04 3.8% 7.5% 17.5% 23.8% 47.5%




Was attentive to proceedings. 4.53 1.3% 0 10.1% 21.5% 67.1%




Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.39 0 0 14.3% 32.5% 53.2%












Appearances Before Judge Cayce During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 17 21.5% Attorney General's Office 5 6.3% Public Defender 17 21.5% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.3% Private Practice 39 49.4%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 67 93.1% African American/Black 2 2.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 4.2% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0



Gender

Male 46 59.7% Female 31 40.3%

APPENDIX B-6

JUDGE PATRICIA CLARK


RATING SCALE




Judge Clark AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





2.65 12.2% 32.7% 40.8% 6.1% 8.2%

manner. 2.73 11.8% 29.4% 41.2% 9.8% 7.8%





Acted with patience and self-control. 2.06 35.3% 29.4% 29.4% 5.9% 0















Appearances Before Judge Clark During Previous 2 Years

Once 0 0 2-3 Times 5 10.0% 4-10 Times 6 12.0% More Than 10 Times 39 78.0%

Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 34.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 25 51.0% Commercial & General Civil 1 2.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 2.0% Government Practice 3 6.1% Other 2 4.1%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 28 57.1% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 14 28.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 2.0% Private Practice 6 12.2%

Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 4 8.0% 2-5 Attorneys 4 8.0% 6-10 Attorneys 0 0 11-20 Attorneys 3 6.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 39 78.0%



Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 33 70.2% African American/Black 2 4.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 12.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 6.4% Native American 1 2.1% Other 2 4.3%



Gender

Male 19 36.9% Female 29 63.1%

APPENDIX B-7

JUDGE ANDREA DARVAS


RATING SCALE




Judge Darvas AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.00 5.7% 1.4% 22.9% 27.1% 42.9%

manner. 4.15 4.2% 2.8% 16.7% 26.4% 50.0%


DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.55 0 1% 13% 15% 71%




Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.42 0 1.4% 13.7% 26.0% 58.9%














Appearances Before Judge Darvas During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 62 91.2% African American/Black 2 2.9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 5.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 0 0



Gender

Male 46 63.9% Female 26 36.1%

APPENDIX B-8

JUDGE JAMES DOERTY


RATING SCALE




Judge Doerty AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.21 4.8% 1.6% 12.9% 29.0% 51.6%

manner. 4.28 4.7% 3.1% 9.4% 25.0% 57.8%





Acted with patience and self-control. 4.60 0 1.5% 12.3% 10.8% 75.4%









Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.42 3.0% 0 15.2% 15.2% 66.7%






Appearances Before Judge Doerty During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 1.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 9 13.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 0 0 Commercial & General Civil 6 9.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 32 47.8% Government Practice 12 17.9% Other 7 10.4%

Work Setting


Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 18 26.9% 2-5 Attorneys 15 22.4% 6-10 Attorneys 2 3.0% 11-20 Attorneys 2 3.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 30 44.8 %



Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 57 87.7% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 3.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 6.2% Native American 1 1.5% Other 1 1.5%



Gender

Male 25 38.5% Female 40 61.5%

APPENDIX B-9

JUDGE WILLIAM DOWNING

503 Attorney surveys sent out 131 responses Response Rate 26%

RATING SCALE




Judge Downing AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.29 4.2% 1.7% 11.7% 25.8% 56.7%

manner. 4.39 2.4% 1.6% 10.2% 26.0% 59.8%





Acted with patience and self-control. 4.42 .8% 4.7% 12.4% 16.3% 65.9%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.57 0 0 13.2% 16.3% 70.5%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.57 .8 0 9.4% 20.5% 69.3%


Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.55 0 .8% 8.7% 25.2% 65.4%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.54 0 .8% 10.2% 23.4% 65.6%





Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.58 0 3.2% 8.9% 14.5% 73.4%




Appearances Before Judge Downing During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 80 64.5% Female 44 35.5%

APPENDIX B-10

JUDGE THERESA DOYLE


RATING SCALE




Judge Doyle AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.97 2.9% 7.4% 20.6% 27.9% 41.2%

manner. 3.93 4.2% 9.9% 15.5% 29.6% 40.8%

Was prepared for court. 4.16 0 5.8% 17.3% 32.4% 44.6%

DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.49 1% 2% 10 22% 65%



Acted with patience and self-control. 4.53 .7% .7% 10.1% 21.6% 66.9%


ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.29 <1% 2% 16% 33% 48%

Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.31 0 .7 % 16.4% 33.6% 49.3%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.17 .8% 4.5% 16.7% 32.6% 45.5%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.3 0 1.4% 16.7% 32.6% 49.3%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 .7% 2.2% 16.1% 32.8% 48.2%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.39 .7% 4.2% 12.0% 21.1% 62.0%







Appearances Before Judge Doyle During Previous 2 Years

Once 26 18.4% 2-3 Times 50 35.5%

4-10 Times 43 30.5% More Than 10 Times 22 15.6%

Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 13.9% Attorney General's Office 3 2.1% Public Defender 31 21.5% Legal Aid 2 1.4% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .7% Private Practice 84 58.3%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 86 61.4% Female 54 38.6%

APPENDIX B-11

JUDGE JOAN DUBUQUE


RATING SCALE




Judge DuBuque AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.20 3.3% 4.9% 11.4% 29.3% 51.2%

manner. 4.28 3.1% 1.5% 15.3% 24.4% 55.7%

Was prepared for court. 4.43 3.0% .8% 11.4% 19.7% 65.2%







Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.48 .8% .8% 9.9% 26.7% 61.8%


Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.50 1.5% .8% 9.8% 21.8% 66.2%






Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.39 4.1% .8% 9.8% 22.8% 62.6%




Appearances Before Judge DuBuque During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 24 18.2% Attorney General's Office 4 3.0% Public Defender 21 15.9% Legal Aid 3 2.3% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .8% Private Practice 77 58.3%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 110 89.4% African American/Black 2 1.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 8 6.5% Native American 0 0 Other 2 1.6%



Gender

Male 85 65.9% Female 44 34.1%

APPENDIX B-12

JUDGE RICHARD EADIE


RATING SCALE




Judge Eadie AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.88 2.0% 6.0% 22.0% 42.0% 28.0%

manner. 3.94 1.9% 11.3% 15.1% 34.0% 37.7%







ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.22 0 5% 15% 28% 46%


Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.18 0 5.9% 15.7% 33.3% 45.1%




Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.30 0 3.8% 18.9% 20.8% 56.6%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.19 0 11.5% 9.6% 26.9% 51.9%






Appearances Before Judge Eadie During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 37 71.2% Female 15 28.8%

APPENDIX B-13

JUDGE JOHN ERLICK


RATING SCALE




Judge Erlick AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.53 <1% 2% 5% 30% 63%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.48 .8% 3.3% 4.2% 30.0% 61.7%



4.48 0 .9% 7.8% 33.9% 57.4%

manner. 4.48 .8% 1.6% 5.7% 32.8% 59.0%

Was prepared for court. 4.69 0 .8% 2.4% 23.6% 73.2%


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.77 0 .8% 3.2% 14.5% 81.5%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.77 .8% .8% 1.6% 14.5% 82.3%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.73 0 1.6% .8% 20.2% 77.4%






Used the court's time efficiently. 4.54 .8% 0 8.2% 26.2% 64.8%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.67 .8% .8% 5.1% 16.9% 76.3%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.61 .8% 1.6% 2.5% 25.4% 69.7%






Appearances Before Judge Erlick During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 7 5.6% Attorney General's Office 7 5.6% Public Defender 17 13.6% Legal Aid 1 .8% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.6% Private Practice 89 71.2%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 111 91.7% African American/Black 2 1.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 3.3% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.5%



Gender

Male 82 68.3% Female 38 31.7%

APPENDIX B-14

JUDGE DEBORAH FLECK


RATING SCALE




Judge Fleck AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.25

4.23

0 4.8% 13.1% 34.5% 47.6%

manner. 1.1% 5.7% 16.1% 23.0% 54.0%


DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.58 0 <1% 7% 27% 66%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.66 0 0 8.0% 18.2% 73.9%

















Appearances Before Judge Fleck During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 7 8.0% Attorney General's Office 2 2.3% Public Defender 12 13.6 Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.3% Private Practice 65 73.9%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 61 71.8% Female 24 28.2%

4.53

4.66

4.53

4.62

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality

Judge Average Court Average

APPENDIX B-15

JUDGE MICHAEL FOX


RATING SCALE




Judge Fox AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL DECISION MAKING

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues.


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

Was prepared for court.

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

Maintained control over 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

4.53

4.51

4.51

4.53

4.57

4.66

4.77

4.69

4.62

4.57

4.53

4.62

4.47

4.57

4.47

4.62

4.62

4.58

4.56

4.70

1% 2% 5% 26% 66%

1.1% 2.2% 4.5% 29.2% 62.9%

1.1% 2.3% 4.5% 28.4% 63.6%

1.1% 2.3% 5.7% 23.9% 67.0%

2.3% 0 4.6% 24.1% 69.0%

1% 1% 4% 22% 73%

0 0 2.3% 18.4% 79.3%

1.1% 1.1% 3.4% 16.1% 78.2%

0 0 8.0% 21.8% 70.1%

1.1% 1.1% 2.3% 29.9% 65.5%

<1% 1% 7% 27% 64%

0 0 4.7% 29.1% 66.3%

1.2% 1.2% 9.4% 25.9% 62.4%

0 2.3% 4.6% 26.4% 66.7%

0 2.3% 9.1% 28.4% 60.2%

3% 1% 4% 17% 75%

2.3% 2.3% 4.6% 12.6% 78.2%

2.2% 1.1% 7.9% 13.5% 75.3%

3.4% 1.1% 1.1% 25.0% 69.3%

2.3% 0 1.1% 18.4% 78.2%




Appearances Before Judge Fox During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 12 13.5% Attorney General's Office 2 2.2% Public Defender 16 18.0% Legal Aid 1 1.1% In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.2% Private Practice 55 61.8%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 75 91.5% African American/Black 0 0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 4.9% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.2%



Gender

Male 61 70.9% Female 25 29.1%

4.12

4.52

4.29

4.29

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-16

JUDGE BRIAN GAIN


RATING SCALE




Judge Gain AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.09 2.9% 7.2% 13.0% 31.9% 44.9%

manner. 4.16 1.4% 6.8% 13.5% 31.1% 47.3%




Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 0 1% 9.5% 28.4% 60.8%












Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.43 1.4% 0 11.4% 28.6% 58.6%




Appearances Before Judge Gain During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 46 63.9% Female 26 36.1%

4.28

4.53

4.49

4.29

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-17

JUDGE STEVEN GONZALEZ


RATING SCALE




Judge Gonzalez AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.19 1.2% 7.1% 14.3% 26.2% 51.2%

manner. 4.20 2.4% 7.1% 14.3% 20.2% 56.0%

Was prepared for court. 4.50 0 0 16.7% 16.7% 66.7%










Used the court's time efficiently. 4.51 0 0 14.3% 20.2% 65.5%









Appearances Before Judge Gonzalez During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 10.6% Attorney General's Office 4 4.7% Public Defender 4 4.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.2% Private Practice 66 77.6% Other 1 1.2%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 45 55.6% Female 36 44.4%

3.67

3.86

3.86

3.82

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-18

JUDGE GLENNA HALL

231Attorney surveys sent out 79 responses Response Rate 34.2%

RATING SCALE




Judge Hall AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.68 4.1% 10.8% 24.3% 35.1% 25.7%

manner. 3.59 2.6% 15.4% 26.9% 30.8% 75.6%




















Appearances Before Judge Hall During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 13 16.7% Attorney General's Office 6 7.7% Public Defender 3 3.8% Legal Aid 3 3.8% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 51 65.4% Other 2 2.6%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 31 40.3% Female 46 59.7%

3.94

3.98

3.98

4

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-19

JUDGE HELEN HALPERT


RATING SCALE




Judge Halpert AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.90 3.4% 11.4% 13.6% 35.2% 36.4%

manner. 3.89 3.2% 10.8% 18.3% 29.0% 38.7%










Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4..06 2.1% 4.3% 21.3% 29.8% 42.6%










Appearances Before Judge Halpert During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 80 89.9% African American/Black 2 2.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 3.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 4.5% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0



Gender

Male 52 57.8% Female 38 42.2%

APPENDIX B-20

JUDGE MICHAEL HAYDEN


RATING SCALE




Judge Hayden AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.01 3.4% 4.8% 17.2% 35.98% 38.6%

manner. 3.91 3.3% 9.3% 18.7% 30.7% 38.7%








Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.26 1.3% .7% 13.3% 40.0% 44.7%












Appearances Before Judge Hayden During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 13.5% Attorney General's Office 3 1.9% Public Defender 21 13.5% Legal Aid 1 .6% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 104 67.1% Other 3 1.9%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 131 88.5% African American/Black 2 1.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 6 3.8% Native American 1 .7% Other 4 2.7%



Gender

Male 101 67.8% Female 48 32.2%

3.22

3.75

3.67

3.56

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-21

JUDGE MICHAEL HEAVEY


RATING SCALE




Judge Heavey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.10 11.8% 25.5% 27.5% 11.8% 23.5%

manner. 3.18 5.4% 25.0% 35.7% 14.3% 19.6%




















Appearances Before Judge Heavey During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 5 9.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 9 16.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 20 36.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 11 20.0% Commercial & General Civil 8 14.5% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 1.8% Government Practice 0 0 Other 1 1.8%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 11 20.0% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 9 16.1% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 3.6% Private Practice 32 58.2% Other 1 1.8%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 43 87.8% African American/Black 1 2.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.0 % Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 6.1% Native American 0 0 Other 1 2.0%



Gender

Male 36 69.2% Female 16 30.8%

4.17

4.31

4.23

4.23

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-22

JUDGE BRUCE HILYER


RATING SCALE




Judge Hilyer AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.14 2.0% 7.0% 15.0% 27.0% 49.0%

manner. 4.14 .9% 6.6% 17.9% 26.4% 48.1%




















Appearances Before Judge Hilyer During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 12 11.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 14 13.2% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 31 29.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 16 15.1% Commercial & General Civil 22 20.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 .9% Government Practice 5 4.7% Other 2 2.1%

Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 72 69.2% Female 32 30.8%

3.93

4.57

4.32

4.39

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-23

JUDGE PHILIP HUBBARD


RATING SCALE




Judge Hubbard AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.83 0 8.6% 29.3% 32.8% 29.3%

manner. 3.93 1.7% 8.3% 16.7% 41.7% 31.7%







ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.32 0 0 13% 41% 46%


Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.27 0 0 16.9% 39.0% 44.1%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.31 0 0 11.9% 45.8% 42.4%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.32 0 0 13.6% 40.7% 45.8%

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.39 <1% 2% 15% 24% 59%




Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.58 0 0 8.3% 25.0% 66.7%




Appearances Before Judge Hubbard During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 23 38.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 23 38.3% Commercial & General Civil 1 1.7% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 11.7% Government Practice 4 6.7% Other 2 3.3%

Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 47 87.0% African American/Black 2 3.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.6% Native American 1 1.9% Other 0 0



Gender

Male 23 41.8% Female 32 58.2%

4.18

4.47

4.25

4.36

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-24

JUDGE LAURA INVEEN


RATING SCALE




Judge Inveen AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.13 0 4.4% 17.8% 37.8% 40.0%

manner. 4.16 0 2.2% 20.7% 35.9% 41.3%












INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.36 0 5% 12% 25% 58%








Appearances Before Judge Inveen During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney

Less than 10 years 28 29.8 10-20 years 29 30.9 More than 20 years 37 39.4

Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 57 64.8% Female 31 35.2%

APPENDIX B-25

JUDGE RICHARD JONES


RATING SCALE




Judge Jones AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.37 4.6% 4.6% 8.3% 13.9% 68.5%

manner. 4.46 2.7% 4.5% 9.8% 10.7% 72.3%





Acted with patience and self-control. 4.71 0 .9% 8.05 10.7% 80.4%











Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.66 .9% 1.8% 7.3% 10.0% 80.0%




Appearances Before Judge Jones During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 12 11.0% Attorney General's Office 2 1.8% Public Defender 12 11.0% Legal Aid 1 .9% In House Corporate Counsel 78 71.6% Private Practice 4 3.7%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 90 84.9% African American/Black 4 3..8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 2.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 7 6.6% Native American 1 .9% Other 1 .9%



Gender

Male 76 70.4% Female 32 29.6%

APPENDIX B-26

JUDGE PARIS KALLAS


RATING SCALE




Judge Kallas AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.26 2.8% 3.5% 11.3% 29.6% 52.8%

manner. 4.32 2.6% 2.6% 10.6% 27.8% 56.3%






Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.40 2.8% .7% 11.1% 25.0% 60.4%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.37 .7% 1.4% 14.5% 26.9% 56.6%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.31 .7% 4.9% 11.2% 28.7% 54.5%











Appearances Before Judge Kallas During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 102 69.4% Female 45 30.6%

APPENDIX B-27

JUDGE RONALD KESSLER


RATING SCALE




Judge Kessler AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.31 0 4% 13% 28% 54%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.33 0 7.2% 8.7% 27.5% 56.5%



4.34 0 4.3% 11.4% 30.0% 54.3%

manner. 4.15 0 5.6% 21.1% 25.4% 47.9%



Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2.85 16.4 17.8% 38.4% 19.2% 8.2%



Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.03 1.4% 5.6 % 23.6% 27.8% 41.7%




Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.46 0 0 12.7% 28.2% 59.2%










Appearances Before Judge Kessler During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 9 12.3% 2-5 Attorneys 7 9.6% 6-10 Attorneys 0 0 11-20 Attorneys 1 1.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 56 76.7%



Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 38 53.5% Female 33 46.5%

APPENDIX B-28

JUDGE LINDA LAU


RATING SCALE




Judge Lau AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.03 2.7% 6.8% 19.9% 26.6% 44.5%

manner. 4.18 1.3% 9.1% 11.0% 27.3% 51.3%










Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.12 .3.3% 5.2% 17.0% 24.8% 49.7%










Appearances Before Judge Lau During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 19 12.1% Attorney General's Office 4 2.5% Public Defender 23 14.6% Legal Aid 2 1.3% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 105 66.9% Other 2 1.3%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 114 75.5% Female 37 24.5%

APPENDIX B-29

JUDGE DEAN LUM


RATING SCALE




Judge Lum AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.00 3.4% 3.4% 24.1% 27.6% 41.4%

manner. 3.84 3.1% 15.6% 18.8% 18.8% 43.8%


DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.38 3% 0 13% 24% 60%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.5 2.9% 0 8.8% 20.6% 67.6%


Acted with patience and self-control. 4.41 2.9% 0 11.8% 23.5% 61.8%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.24 2.9% 0 17.6% 29.4% 50.0%







Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.35 2.9% 0 11.8% 29.4% 55.9%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.31 2.9% 0 17.1% 22.9% 57.1%


Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.48 3.0% 0 9.1% 21.2% 66.7%




Appearances Before Judge Lum During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 8 22.9% Attorney General's Office 4 11.4% Public Defender 7 20.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 2.9 Private Practice 15 42.9

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 31 93.9% African American/Black 1 3.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 1 3.0%



Gender

Male 25 73.5% Female 9 26.5%

3.85

4.11

4.14

4

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-30

JUDGE NICOLE MACINNES


RATING SCALE




Judge MacInnes AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.86 6.1% 10.5% 17.5% 22.8% 43.0%

manner. 3.80 4.3% 12.0% 22.2% 22.2% 39.3%




















Appearances Before Judge MacInnes During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 26 21.7% Attorney General's Office 3 2.5% Public Defender 17 14.2% Legal Aid 1 .8% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .8% Private Practice 70 58.3% Other 2 1.7%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 101 91.0% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 3.6% Native American 1 .9% Other 2 1.7%



Gender

Male 78 68.4% Female 36 31.6%

4.41

4.28

4.33

4.43

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-31

JUDGE GEORGE MATTSON


RATING SCALE




Judge Mattson AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.41 1% 3% 9% 27% 59%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.40 .9% 3.5% 9.6% 26.3% 59.6%



4.37 .9% 2.7% 10.7% 30.4% 55.4%

manner. 4.30 1.8% 4.4% 9.6% 30.7% 53.5%

Was prepared for court. 4.57 .9% .9% 8.0% 21.2% 69.0%



Was attentive to proceedings. 4.59 .9% 0 4.5% 29.5% 65.2%


Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.43 0 .9% 12.6% 28.8% 57.7%





Used the court's time efficiently. 4.28 2.7% .9% 15.9% 26.5% 54.0%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.49 0 0 15.0% 21.2% 63.7%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.38 .9% 2.6% 14.9% 21.1% 60.5%


Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.48 1.8% .9% 9.8% 22.3% 65.2%




Appearances Before Judge Mattson During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 23 20.0% Attorney General's Office 1 .9% Public Defender 12 10.4% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 79 68.7

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 98 91.6% African American/Black 2 1.9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 4.7% Native American 0 0 Other 1 .9%



Gender

Male 83 74.8% Female 28 25.2%

APPENDIX B-32

JUDGE DOUGLAS MCBROOM


RATING SCALE




Judge McBroom AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 3.62 9% 11% 23% 24% 34%




3.63 10.2% 8.2% 23.5% 24.5% 33.7%

manner. 3.54 11.1% 12.1% 20.2% 25.3% 31.3%




















Appearances Before Judge McBroom During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 66 68.8% Female 30 31.3%

APPENDIX B-33

JUDGE HARRY MCCARTHY


RATING SCALE




Judge McCarthy AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.05 1.1% 7.6% 18.5% 30.4% 42.4%

manner. 4.13 1.0% 6.3% 19.85 25.0% 47.9%



Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.78 0 0 3.1% 15.5% 81.4%






Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.29 0 7.8% 10.0% 27.85 54.4%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.28 0 2.1% 18.85 28.1% 51.0%










Appearances Before Judge McCarthy During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 54 56.3% Female 42 43.8%

APPENDIX B-34

JUDGE LEROY MCCULLOUGH


RATING SCALE




Judge McCullough AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.54 5.1% 15.4% 23.1% 33.3% 23.1%

manner. 3.78 0 17.5% 22.5% 25.0% 35.0%




















Appearances Before Judge McCullough During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 2.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 21 51.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 8 19.5% Commercial & General Civil 5 12.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 9.8% Government Practice 1 2.4% Other 1 2.4%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 22.0% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 13 31.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 19 46.3%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 33 84.6% African American/Black 2 5.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 10.3% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0



Gender

Male 18 45.0% Female 22 55.0%

APPENDIX B-35

JUDGE RICHARD F. MCDERMOTT


RATING SCALE




Judge McDermott AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.29 0 4.4% 16.2% 25.0% 54.4%

manner. 4.36 1.4% 4.3% 13.0% 18.8% 62.3%















Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.32 5.9% 0 13.2% 17.6% 63.2%





Appearances Before Judge McDermott During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 47 71.2% Female 19 28.8%

APPENDIX B-36

JUDGE CHARLES MERTEL


RATING SCALE




Judge Mertel AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.95 4.1% 8.2% 16.3% 31.3% 40.1%

manner. 3.94 4.5% 9.1% 14.9% 31.2% 40.3%

Was prepared for court. 4.19 1.9% 4.5 14.3% 31.2% 48.1%


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.59 0.6% 0% 9.6% 19.7% 70.1%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 0% 1.9% 13.5% 18.6% 66%


Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.38 0 1.9% 16.6% 23.6% 58%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.36 0.7% .7% 16.3% 26.8% 55.6%



Used the court's time efficiently. 4.17 1.3% 4% 18% 30% 46.7%




Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.91 8.3% 9.6% 14.7% 17.3% 50%





Appearances Before Judge Mertel During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 106 70.2% Female 45 29.8%

APPENDIX B-37

JUDGE LAURA GENE MIDDAUGH


RATING SCALE




Judge Middaugh AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.54 1.2% 15.9% 25.6% 42.7% 14.6%

manner. 3.63 3.6% 13.1% 22.6% 38.1% 22.6%




Was attentive to proceedings. 4.01 1.2% 4.8% 25.0% 29% 39.3%

Acted with patience and self-control. 3.52 8.3% 15.5% 21.4% 25% 29.8%






Used the court's time efficiently. 3.85 2.4% 6% 23.8% 40.5% 27.4%









Appearances Before Judge Middaugh During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 11% Attorney General's Office 1 1.2% Public Defender 6 7.3% Legal Aid 3 3.7% In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.2% Private Practice 60 73.2% Other 2 2.4%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 43 54.4% Female 36 45.6%

APPENDIX B-38

JUDGE DOUGLASS NORTH


RATING SCALE




Judge North AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.96 2.2% 6.5% 17.2% 41.9% 32.3%

manner. 4.02 1.0% 9.9% 13.9% 36.6% 38.6%

Was prepared for court. 4.29 0% 1.0% 17.0% 34.0% 48.0%


Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.45 2.0% 0% 12.0% 23.0% 63.0%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.48 0 0% 14.0% 24.0% 62.0%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.43 0% 1.0% 11.1% 31.3% 56.6%



Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.28 0% 0% 15.3% 41.8% 42.9%


Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.25 1.0% 0% 17.2% 36.4% 45.5%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 0% 3.0% 12.0% 41.0% 44.0%









Appearances Before Judge North During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 66 70.2% Female 28 29.8%

APPENDIX B-39

JUDGE JEFFREY RAMSDELL


RATING SCALE




Judge Ramsdell AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.38 0 4% 15% 23% 58%


Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. 4.37 0 3.3% 13.3% 26.7% 56.7%

Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise 3.2% 19.4% 19.4% 58.1% manner. 4.32 0




















Appearances Before Judge Ramsdell During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 10 15.6% Attorney General's Office 1 1.6% Public Defender 13 20.3% Legal Aid 1 1.6% In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.6% Private Practice 38 59.4% Other 0 0

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 51 87.9% African American/Black 2 3.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.2% Native American 1 1.7% Other 1 1.7%



Gender

Male 45 73.8% Female 16 26.2%

3.67

3.82

3.88

3.83

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-40

JUDGE MARY ROBERTS


RATING SCALE




Judge Roberts AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.57 9.6% 14.5% 15.7% 30.1% 30.1%

manner. 3.60 8.3% 17.9% 13.1% 27.4% 33.3%





Acted with patience and self-control. 3.73 9.5% 10.7% 16.75 23.8% 39.3%















Appearances Before Judge Roberts During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 52 61.9% Female 32 38.1%

4.39

4.62

4.46

4.54

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-41

JUDGE PALMER ROBINSON


RATING SCALE




Judge Robinson AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.38 1.9% 3.8% 3.8% 35.8% 54.7%

manner. 4.36 0 5.7% 7.5% 32.1% 54.7%





Acted with patience and self-control. 4.62 1.9% 0 3.8% 23.1% 71.2%







INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.54 <1% 4% 9% 15% 72%








Appearances Before Judge Robinson During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 8 15.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 8 15.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 19 36.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 1 1.9% Commercial & General Civil 9 17.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 7.7% Government Practice 1 1.9% Other 2 3.85

Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 38 71.7% Female 15 28.3%

4.3

4.67

4.39

4.4

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-42

JUDGE JIM ROGERS


RATING SCALE




Judge Rogers AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.24 3.4% 1.7% 14.4% 28.8% 51.7%

manner. 4.23 5.1% 3.4% 9.4% 27.4% 54.7%





Acted with patience and self-control. 4.65 3.3% .8% 3.3% 12.5% 80.0%




Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 2.6% .9% 12.8% 25.6% 58.1%




Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.47 5.0% .8% 6.7% 16.8% 70.6%







Appearances Before Judge Rogers During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 105 89.0% African American/Black 5 4.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 3.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 .8% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.5%



Gender

Male 71 60.7% Female 46 39.3%

APPENDIX B-43

JUDGE WESLEY J. SAINT CLAIR


RATING SCALE




Judge Saint Clair AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.89 2.1% 10.6% 21.3% 27.7% 38.3%

manner. 4.13 1.9% 7.4% 14.8% 27.8% 48.1%






Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.31 0% 3.6% 21.8% 14.5% 60%




Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.30 0% 3.7% 18.5% 22.2% 55.6%



Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.32 3.6% 0% 17.9% 17.9% 60.7%







Appearances Before Judge Saint Clair During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 38 66.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 0 0 Criminal -- Prosecution 15 26.3% Commercial & General Civil 0 0 Domestic Relations/Family Law 0 0 Government Practice 3 5.3% Other 1 1.8%

Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 51 92.7% African American/Black 1 1.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 3.6% Native American 1 1.8% Other 0 0



Gender

Male 31 55.4% Female 25 44.6%

APPENDIX B-44

JUDGE CAROL SCHAPIRA


RATING SCALE




Judge Schapira AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.47 10.2% 11.9% 25.4% 25.4% 27.1%

manner. 3.57 6.6% 13.1% 27.9% 21.3% 31.1%















Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.41 11.5% 13.1% 26.2% 21.3% 27.9





Appearances Before Judge Schapira During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 32.8% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 16 26.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 24 39.3% Other 1 1.6%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 49 86.0% African American/Black 3 5.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.3% Native American 1 1.8% Other 0 0



Gender

Male 29 50.0% Female 29 50.0%

3.83

3.83

3.96

3.67

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-45 JUDGE CATHERINE SHAFFER


RATING SCALE




Judge Shaffer AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent



Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. 3.72 6.3% 12.6% 23.2% 18.9% 38.9%

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

3.78 6.2% 9.3% 23.7% 21.6% 39.2%




















Appearances Before Judge Shaffer During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 21.4% Attorney General's Office 8 8.2% Public Defender 12 12.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1% Private Practice 52 53.0% Other 4 4.1%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 51 53.7% Female 44 46.3%

APPENDIX B-46

JUDGE MICHAEL SPEARMAN


RATING SCALE




Judge Spearman AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.27 2% 1% 11% 40% 46%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.20 2.3% 0 13.6% 43.2% 40.9%



4.14 2.3% 2.3% 11.6% 46.5% 37.2%

manner. 4.32 0 2.3% 11.4% 36.4% 50.0%


DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.66 0 0 16% 26% 70%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.73 0 0 0% 27.3% 72.7%






Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.28 4.7% 2.3% 0% 46.5% 46.5%


Used the court's time efficiently. 4.36 2.2% 0% 8.9% 37.8% 51.1%

INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.51 3% <1% 5% 26% 66%

Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.58 2.3% 0% 2.3% 27.9% 67.4%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.53 2.2% 0% 6.7% 24.4% 66.7%


Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.65 2.3% 0% 4.7% 16.3% 76.7%




Appearances Before Judge Spearman During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 4.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 37.8% Criminal -- Prosecution 7 15.6% Commercial & General Civil 4 8.9% Domestic Relations/Family Law 11 24.4% Government Practice 3 6.7% Other 1 2.2%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 8 17.8% Attorney General's Office 3 6.7% Public Defender 9 20.0% Legal Aid 1 2.2% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 24 53.3%

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 25 56.8% Female 19 43.2%

APPENDIX B-47

JUDGE JULIE SPECTOR


RATING SCALE




Judge Spector AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.86 6.4% 11.9% 16.5% 19.3% 45.9%

manner. 3.84 9.6% 9.6% 14% 20.2% 46.5%




















Appearances Before Judge Spector During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 8 7.6% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 7 6.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 39 37.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 28 26.7% Commercial & General Civil 16 15.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 1.0% Government Practice 0 % Other 6 5.7%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 31 26.5% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 26 22.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 0.9% Private Practice 58 49.6% Other 1 0.9

Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 72 64.9% Female 39 35.1%

4.72

4.87

4.67

4.86

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-48

JUDGE MICHAEL TRICKEY


RATING SCALE




Judge Trickey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent

LEGAL ABILITY 4.72 1% 0 3% 17% 79%

Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.69 0 0 6.9% 17.2% 75.9%



4.69 0 0 6.9% 17.2% 75.9%

manner. 4.66 3.4% 0 0% 20.7% 75.9%

Was prepared for court. 4.86 0 0 0% 13.8% 86.2%

DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.87 0 0 16% 6% 91%

Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.80 0 0% 6.7% 6.7% 86.7%

Was attentive to proceedings. 4.93 0 0% 0% 6.9% 93.1%

Acted with patience and self-control. 4.83 0 0% 6.9% 3.4% 89.7%

Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.93 0 0% 0% 7.1% 92.9%


Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.69 3.4% 0 3.4% 10.3% 82.8%

Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.66 3.4% 0 3.4% 13.8% 79.3%

Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.69 3.4% 0 3.4% 10.3% 82.8%

Used the court's time efficiently. 4.66 3.4% 0 0 20.7% 75.9%


Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.86 0 0 3.6% 7.1% 89.3%

Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.82 0 0 3.6% 10.7% 85.7%

Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.82 0 3.6% 0% 7.1% 89.3%

Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.93 0 0 0% 7.1% 92.9%




Appearances Before Judge Trickey During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area

Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 6.9% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 15 51.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 8 27.6% Commercial & General Civil 3 10.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 0 0 Government Practice 0 0 Other 1 3.4%

Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 6 20.7% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 11 37.9% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 11 37.9% Other 1 3.4%

Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 6 20.0% 2-5 Attorneys 3 10.0% 6-10 Attorneys 2 6.7% 11-20 Attorneys 0 0 More Than 20 Attorneys 18 60.0%



Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 25 86.2% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 6.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 3.4% Native American 1 3.4% Other 0 0



Gender

Male 14 53.8% Female 12 46.2%

3.47

4.29

3.69

3.94

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-49

JUDGE CHRIS WASHINGTON


RATING SCALE




Judge Washington AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.32 10.4% 11.7% 33.8% 23.4% 20.8%

manner. 3.44 6.2% 14.8% 29.6% 27.2% 22.2%




















Appearances Before Judge Washington During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney

Less than 2-10 years 26 30.7% 10-20 years 22 26.8% More than 20 years 34 41.5%

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian/White 67 90.5% African American/Black 2 2.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 4.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.7%



Gender

Male 61 78.2% Female 17 21.8%

4.03

4.43

4.11

4.32

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-50

JUDGE JAY WHITE


RATING SCALE




Judge White AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





3.95 3.5% 3.5% 22.1% 36.0% 34.9%

manner. 3.94 1.1% 11.2% 20.2% 27.0% 40.4%















Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.05 6.8% 5.7% 15.9% 19.35 52.3%





Appearances Before Judge White During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting

Prosecuting Attorney's Office 14 15.7% Attorney General's Office 1 1.1% Public Defender 11 12.4% Legal Aid 1 1.1% In House Corporate Counsel 3 3.4% Private Practice 56 62.9% OTHER 3 3.4%

Size of Firm

Sole Practitioner 25 27..8% 2-5 Attorneys 16 17.8% 6-10 Attorneys 7 7.8% 11-20 Attorneys 12 13.3% More Than 20 Attorneys 30 33.3%



Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 55 65.5% Female 29 34.5%

4.29

4.4

4.39

4.27

4.06

4.32

4.22

4.19

1 2 3 4 5


Demeanor,

Temperament, &

Communication


Integrity and

Impartiality


APPENDIX B-51

JUDGE MARY YU


RATING SCALE




Judge Yu AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)

Item Average

Category Average


Excellent





4.18 2.0% 6.1% 13.6% 27.9% 50.3%

manner. 4.27 1.3% 5.2% 15.7% 20.9% 56.9%

Was prepared for court. 4.49 0 .7% 14.4% 20.3% 64.7%



















Appearances Before Judge Yu During Previous 2 Years


Practice Area


Work Setting


Size of Firm




Years as Attorney


Race/Ethnicity




Gender

Male 91 60.3% Female 60 39.7%

2007 judicial evaluation surve - kcba.org · 2007 judicial evaluation surve. y. ... 600 ibm...

Documents