2012 Judicial Evaluation Survey

Transcription

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

2 Introduction The King County Bar Association (KCBA) has conducted and published surveys of its members evaluations of judicial officers since The survey results are a summary of practicing attorneys subjective assessments of the judges who hear and decide their cases. The survey provides information to the public for judicial elections by presenting assessments of each judge so that voters can make informed decisions by taking into account the collective assessments of those lawyers who practice in front of these judicial officers. It also provides important information to the public, the Bar, and the Bench on performance of the local judicial branch as a whole. Survey Methodology The 2012 survey of evaluations of the judges of the was conducted during the months of February and March The survey included attorney evaluations of 55 judges 1 of the King County Superior Court. The survey development and administration was similar to the methods used by the KCBA since An important component of a judicial evaluation program is to obtain information from individuals who have had an opportunity to personally observe the judge being evaluated during the relevant time period. (American Bar Association, 2005; Brody, 2008). Accordingly, rather than attempt to survey all members of the King County Bar Association or all lawyers practicing in King County, only attorneys who were identified as having appeared before a particular judge were invited to participate in the evaluation of that judge. Attorneys were identified by two means. First, a report listing attorneys who appeared at trials, hearings, and other in-court proceedings in in 2010 and 2011 was generated by the King County Superior Court Clerk's Office. The names of attorneys appearing before each judge were entered into individual judge databases. Second, KCBA members who did not receive a survey for a particular judge were invited via and the Bar Bulletin to request a survey for a judge before whom they appeared. Upon confirmation of the appearance they too were added to the database and sent a survey. For the 2012 survey, individual attorneys identified as having appeared before a particular judge were sent an asking them to participate in the survey. The 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 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 regarding that judge as a result. Moreover, the software was programmed so that an attorney could complete the survey only one time for any particular judge.) The responses to the survey were received via this web-based system, for tabulation in the survey results. The judicial evaluation survey was administered by Washington State University. Surveys were processed through a secure web server, then delivered directly to WSU researchers for tabulation and analysis of 1 Results were obtained for Judges Paris Kallas, Phillip Hubbard, Michael Fox, George Mattson, and Justice Steven Gonzalez., who are no longer on the superior court bench. Insufficient responses (fewer than 30) were obtained for Judges Fox, Hubbard, and Mattson, and are not presented in this report. Results for Judge Kallas and Justice Gonzalez are presented herein. Evaluations were not conducted for Judges Patrick Oishi, Lori Smith, and Barbara Linde who were appointed to the bench in 2011 or

3 results. WSU researchers also provided methodological and statistical consultation to the Judicial Evaluation Committee, including in the preparation of this report. Following the ABA Guidelines for Judicial Performance Evaluation, the evaluation focused upon behaviorbased measures. To do this, attorneys who appeared before a judge were asked to evaluate judges regarding specific criteria that are widely acknowledged to be qualities that judges are expected to possess (Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 2006). Specifically, attorneys were asked to consider four individual criteria in each of four areas: Legal Decision Making Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner. Was prepared for court. Demeanor, Temperament, Treated people with courtesy and respect. and Communication Was attentive to proceedings. Acted with patience and self-control. Used clear oral communication while in court. Administrative Skills Maintained control the courtroom. Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. Used the court s time efficiently. Integrity and Impartiality Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. Based rulings on the facts and the law. Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic A copy of the actual survey questionnaire is attached as Appendix A. Attorneys were asked to rate judges on the above criteria using one of six possible responses (unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, excellent, and don t know). Responses to the four questions in each of the four areas were added together to form a composite index for each of the four areas. This method of evaluation and tabulation of results provides a more detailed set of information for use by voters, members of the bar, and judges under evaluation than single-question measures (Schmidt and Kaplan, 1971). Using this method, results are reported for individual questions as well as for the composite index developed for each of the four areas. Additionally, survey participants were not asked to provide an overall evaluation of the performance of an individual judge. Following recommended evaluation research practices (Jacobs, Kafry, & Zedeck, 1980), such a question was deemed inappropriate in light of its inherent subjectivity, and its inability to differentiate between the more specific, behavior-based criteria represented by the subject matter of the actual survey questions. 3

4 When tabulating survey results, no attempt has been made to mathematically derive an overall score for any particular judge. Rather, results of the individual criteria as well as the four different categories that were the subject of the survey are presented for each judge. The Judicial Evaluation Committee believes it would be inappropriate, and potentially misleading, to simply calculate a single mathematical average of the results in these four separate areas. While each of the four areas are important attributes for a judge to possess and display, they are not necessarily equal in importance; undoubtedly individuals will have their own opinion on relative importance of each attribute. An averaging method that assumed each was of equal weight thus would be presumptuous, as would be any attempt by the committee itself to apply a weighted average by assigning differing importance to the 4 areas of the survey. Furthermore, any attempt by the Committee to provide a weighted average by assigning differing importance to the four different areas of the survey would substitute the judgment of the Committee itself for that of the reader, or of the evaluators, regarding the relative important of the different areas. There also was concern that potentially significant information that might appear amid the different areas of the survey would be obscured if those results were then averaged into a single overall score. The results thus are summarized only for the four different areas, which, after all, is the manner in which the survey was administered. Survey Reliability A goal of every type of evaluation is to ensure the reliability of the results obtained. In examining results obtained in this judicial performance evaluation, a determination of reliability is not amenable to a single measure, but rather an amalgamation of several factors. As discussed below, after considering these factors, the committee is confident that the results obtained in the 2012 judicial performance survey are reliable. The first item is the number of respondents completing evaluations for individual judges. While there is no minimum amount for the number of responses required to validate evaluation results, generally a minimum of 25 responses for each judge is desirable. That being said, if there is a clear, consistent pattern in the answers to survey questions provided by respondents, and there is no obvious pattern of bias (sampling or self-selection) in whom the respondents are, an evaluation with as few as 20 respondents is likely to reliably reflect a judge s performance. A total of 4,274 surveys were completed by attorneys. The number of responses per judge, omitting those who were excluded due to insufficient responses, ranged from a low of 35 to a high of 141. The average and median number of responses per judge were 77.7 and 78, respectively. These figures are sufficiently high so as not to indicate unreliability. An important factor in considering a survey s validity is the composition of respondents in comparison to the sampling frame. Differences between the relevant demographic and professional characteristics of attorneys who participated in the evaluation and attorneys who did not may be an indication of nonresponse bias. To explore this possibility demographic and professional information obtained from respondents was compared to corresponding characteristics of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) membership. As seen in Table 1 the demographic makeup of respondents is similar to the makeup of the WSBA membership. In a judicial performance evaluation it is important to take steps to ensure that only individuals with personal, firsthand experience with a judge participate in the evaluation. Only attorneys who were believed to have appeared before a judge during the two years prior to the evaluation were asked to participate in the evaluation. Due to the imprecision of docket records some attorneys (and current judges) who did not actually appear in court before a judge received evaluation materials. In the invitation to complete the 4

5 survey, and in the survey itself, attorneys were asked not to evaluate a judge if they did not appear before him or her. Additionally, attorneys were asked to indicate the approximate number of times they had appeared before the judge being evaluated during the prior two years. As can be seen in Table 2, 77.6% of respondents reported appearing before the judge multiple times during 2010 and Table 1: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics Race Gender Practice Size Experience Percent of Respondents Percent of WSBA Members White 92.7% 89.5% African American 2.4% 2.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 3.3% 2.7% Native American.3%.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1.4% 1.8% Male 61.7% 62.1% Female 38.3% 37.9% Sole Practitioner 32.3% 29.1% 2-5 Attorneys 28.9% 19.4% 6-10 Attorneys 9.6% 7.6% Attorneys 9.9% 5.0% More than 20 Attorneys 19.3% 18.7% Less than 10 years 25.5% 36.7% 10 to 20 years 23.2% 25.5% More than 20 years 51.3% 37.8%. Table 2: Number of Appearances Number Percent Once % 2-3 times % 4-10 times % More than 10 times % 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

6 Table 3: Primary Area of Practice Number Percent Criminal Defense % Criminal Prosecution % General Civil % Domestic Relations % Government Practice % Other % Table 4: Work Setting Number Percent Prosecuting Attorney % Governmental Agency % Indigent Defense Agency % Legal Aid % Private Practice % Other % Table 5: Years in Practice Number Percent 1-2 years % 3-5 years % 6-10 years % years % More than 20 years % Table 6: Size of Law Firm (private attorneys) Number Percent Sole Practitioner % 2-5 Attorneys % 6-10 Attorneys % Attorneys % More than 20 Attorneys % Table 7: Respondent Racial Background Number Percent Caucasian/White % African American/Black % Hispanic/Latino(a) % Asian Amer./Pacific Islander % Native American 10.3% Other (biracial) % 6

7 Table 8: Respondent Gender Number Percent Male % Female % Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges Table 9: Aggregate Results Legal Decision Making Responses Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues % 10.3% 12.3% 25.2% 47.8% Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure % 8.3% 15.3% 25.3% 47.1% Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear concise manner % 9.9% 13.8% 24.3% 47.4% Was prepared for court % 5.8% 14.0% 22.2% 56.0% Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Treated people with courtesy and respect % 4.2% 10.8% 18.5% 64.0% Was attentive to proceedings % 2.7% 12.4% 19.6% 64.1% Acted with patience and self-control % 4.4% 13.5% 20.7% 59.1% Used clear oral communication while in court % 7.2% 13.7% 23.8% 52.9% Administrative Skills Maintained control the courtroom % 1.9% 15.2% 25.5% 56.6% Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines % 6.1% 15.0% 27.1% 49.0% Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner % 3.9% 15.4% 24.8% 52.9% Used the court s time efficiently % 3.4% 16.1% 26.7% 51.5% Integrity and Impartiality Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety % 4.8% 11.4% 18.3% 61.8% Displayed a neutral presence on the bench % 7.8% 12.1% 20.5% 55.8% Based rulings on the facts and the law % 10.2% 13.2% 22.9% 47.2% Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic % 4.0% 10.1% 15.7% 66.9% As noted above, composite indexes were also computed for the four areas of evaluation. The average ratings received for each item and category are presented in Table 10. While the results are similar to those presented in Table 9, the average score provides another method for members of the bar and the public to consider a judge s performance on the bench. 7

8 Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings Item Average Category Average Legal Decision Making 4.07 Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4.02 Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4.03 Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner 4.00 Was prepared for court 4.24 Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication 4.32 Treated people with courtesy and respect 4.37 Was attentive to proceedings 4.43 Acted with patience and self-control 4.30 Used clear oral communication while in court 4.17 Administrative Skills 4.23 Maintained control over the courtroom 4.35 Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines 4.14 Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4.21 Used the court's time efficiently 4.22 Integrity and Impartiality 4.20 Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4.30 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4.16 Based rulings on the facts and the law 3.94 Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.39 Summary of Results for Individual Judges Tables 11-14, which appear on the following eight pages, present summaries of the results for the 52 judges of the who were evaluated. Each table provides results for one of the four areas surveyed (Legal Decision Making; Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication; Administrative Skills; and Integrity and Impartiality), including the number of valid evaluations received for each judge and the percentage of responses to individual questions that gave the judge a rating of unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, and excellent. No attempt has been made in this report to present evaluation results in ranked numerical order. The ratings for individual judges are an indication of performance. They are not of such infallible precision as to permit one to differentiate small differences in ratings. While it is possible to calculate very precise values, this does not mean that similarly precise distinctions exist between or among judges. An average rating for a particular question or survey area of 4.2, for example, obviously is numerically higher than an average of 4.1. The difference of 0.1 points, however, does not justify viewing the performance of the former to be significantly better than the latter. 8

9 In addition to the following tables, Appendix B provides detailed survey results for each of the individual judges who were the subject of the judicial performance survey. The detailed report for each individual judge provides results for individual questions as well as categorical averages. The reports also provide information summarizing the characteristics of the attorneys who responded to the survey for that individual judge. Table 11: Results for Individual Judges -- Legal Decision Making In the area Legal Decision Making, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria: Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner Was prepared for court RATING SCALE Responses Average (1-5 scale) Andrus, Beth 66 3% 7% 12% 34% 44% 4.11 Armstrong, Sharon 112 1% 4% 15% 17% 63% 4.39 Barnett, Suzanne 101 3% 10% 17% 34% 36% 3.90 Benton, Monica 104 8% 21% 23% 20% 28% 3.39 Bradshaw, Timothy 84 3% 7% 16% 26% 48% 4.09 Cahan, Regina 84 2% 6% 9% 26% 57% 4.31 Canova, Greg 101 4% 12% 11% 21% 52% 4.08 Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 6% 11% 29% 52% 4.20 Cayce, James 87 8% 9% 11% 19% 52% 3.98 Clark, Patricia 69 7% 11% 16% 37% 30% 3.64 Craighead, Susan 141 5% 7% 12% 17% 59% 4.16 Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 2% 7% 24% 63% 4.40 Doerty, James 125 3% 7% 9% 25% 56% 4.26 Downing, William 114 2% 2% 10% 21% 65% 4.47 Doyle, Theresa 88 7% 14% 17% 19% 43% 3.76 DuBuque, Joan 95 1% 2% 10% 26% 61% 4.47 Eadie, Richard 93 5% 13% 21% 22% 39%

10 Responses Average (1-5 scale) Erlick, John % 8% 18% 70% 4.52 Fleck, Deborah 68 3% 5% 10% 16% 67% 4.38 Gain, Brian % 9% 42% 46% 4.32 Gonzalez, Steven 74 2% 5% 14% 14% 65% 4.33 Halpert, Helen 71 <1% 1% 16% 35% 48% 4.28 Hayden, Michael 83 2% 11% 20% 31% 36% 3.86 Heavey, Michael 84 6% 19% 19% 25% 32% 3.58 Heller, Bruce 65 2% 2% 11% 15% 70% 4.49 Hill, Hollis 75 7% 17% 24% 24% 28% 3.51 Hilyer, Bruce 49 4% 11% 15% 18% 52% 4.04 Inveen, Laura 82 1% 6% 10% 29% 54% 4.29 Kallas, Paris 35 1% 13% 7% 21% 58% 4.23 Kessler, Ronald % 13% 29% 56% 4.41 Lum, Dean 107 3% 9% 18% 27% 43% 3.97 Mack, Barbara 71 2% 17% 17% 22% 42% 3.84 McCarthy, Harry % 18% 25% 40% 3.86 McCullough, LeRoy 59 3% 3% 12% 27% 54% 4.27 McDermott, Richard % 15% 42% 41% 4.23 Middaugh, Laura 81 13% 22% 15% 24% 27% 3.31 North, Douglass 68 7% 9% 12% 20% 52% 4.02 Prochnau, Kimberley 89 2% 8% 11% 26% 52% 4.14 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 <1% 3% 13% 33% 51% 4.30 Rietschel, Jean 70 3% 11% 15% 26% 45% 3.87 Roberts, Mary 65 2% 6% 17% 27% 49% 4.15 Robinson, Palmer 73 2% 7% 10% 21% 60% 4.30 Rogers, Jim 74 2% 4% 13% 21% 60% 4.34 Saint Clair, J. Wesley 73 10% 6% 17% 15% 53% 3.96 Schapira, Carol 107 6% 10% 22% 23% 39% 3.79 Shaffer, Catherine 83 4% 5% 14% 16% 61% 4.27 Spearman, Mariane 71 <1% 8% 22% 38% 32% 3.93 Spector, Julie 81 10% 16% 17% 18% 39% 3.59 Trickey, Michael % 6% 32% 61% 4.53 Washington, Chris 44 22% 30% 17% 13% 18% 2.74 White, Jay 78 6% 10% 16% 25% 43% 3.91 Yu, Mary 107 2% 4% 8% 24% 62%

11 Table 12: Results for Individual Judges Integrity and Impartiality In the area Integrity and Impartiality, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria: Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety Displayed a neutral presence on the bench Based rulings on the facts and the law Treated individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic RATING SCALE Responses Average (1-5 scale) Andrus, Beth 66 5% 6% 7% 36% 46% 4.09 Armstrong, Sharon 112 3% 2% 12% 21% 62% 4.27 Barnett, Suzanne 101 3% 6% 11% 22% 58% 4.28 Benton, Monica 104 9% 13% 21% 19% 39% 3.66 Bradshaw, Timothy 84 4% 8% 9% 18% 62% 4.26 Cahan, Regina 84 2% 7% 8% 17% 66% 4.38 Canova, Greg 101 5% 6% 8% 21% 60% 4.24 Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 4% 12% 19% 63% 4.36 Cayce, James 87 8% 4% 16% 12% 59% 4.11 Clark, Patricia 69 11% 8% 14% 29% 37% 3.73 Craighead, Susan 141 5% 7% 10% 16% 62% 4.22 Darvas, Andrea 84 3% 3% 4% 20% 70% 4.49 Doerty, James 125 3% 5% 8% 19% 65% 4.38 Downing, William 114 1% 3% 9% 17% 70% 4.51 Doyle, Theresa 88 4% 8% 15% 14% 59% 4.16 DuBuque, Joan 95 2% 3% 10% 19% 66% 4.46 Eadie, Richard 93 6% 9% 17% 16% 52% 3.98 Erlick, John % 4% 18% 73% 4.58 Fleck, Deborah 68 3% 5% 8% 18% 66% 4.41 Gain, Brian 64 1% 1% 5% 28% 65% 4.54 Gonzalez, Steven 74 5% 3% 8% 15% 70% 4.42 Halpert, Helen 71 <1% 6% 17% 25% 52% 4.21 Hayden, Michael 83 7% 10% 18% 30% 34%

12 Responses Average (1-5 scale) Heavey, Michael 84 6% 13% 14% 23% 44% 3.85 Heller, Bruce 65 3% 4% 8% 12% 73% 4.47 Hill, Hollis 75 4% 13% 18% 21% 44% 3.90 Hilyer, Bruce 49 11% 6% 9% 15% 60% 4.07 Inveen, Laura 82 1% 4% 8% 20% 67% 4.47 Kallas, Paris % 11% 11% 70% 4.43 Kessler, Ronald 112 4% 6% 14% 21% 55% 4.15 Lum, Dean 107 2% 7% 11% 26% 53% 4.22 Mack, Barbara 71 11% 14% 9% 17% 49% 3.78 McCarthy, Harry 54 1% 12% 15% 11% 60% 4.16 McCullough, LeRoy 59 1% 4% 11% 19% 64% 4.42 McDermott, Richard % 12% 31% 52% 4.30 Middaugh, Laura 81 12% 13% 19% 18% 38% 3.56 North, Douglass 68 7% 6% 10% 24% 53% 4.09 Prochnau, Kimberley 89 4% 6% 12% 20% 58% 4.22 Ramsdell, Jeffrey 92 1% 4% 11% 23% 61% 4.38 Rietschel, Jean 70 1% 7% 15% 16% 61% 4.29 Roberts, Mary 65 4% 6% 16% 25% 48% 4.07 Robinson, Palmer 73 1% 6% 10% 16% 67% 4.42 Rogers, Jim 74 4% 2% 6% 17% 71% 4.48 Saint Clair, J. Wesley 73 3% 4% 14% 16% 63% 4.31 Schapira, Carol 107 3% 7% 18% 22% 49% 4.07 Shaffer, Catherine 83 10% 6% 13% 11% 60% 4.08 Spearman, Mariane 71 <1% 4% 17% 33% 45% 4.15 Spector, Julie 81 15% 9% 14% 11% 51% 3.73 Trickey, Michael 44 2% 4% 12% 18% 65% 4.42 Washington, Chris 44 13% 20% 21% 19% 27% 3.27 White, Jay 78 3% 10% 12% 19% 56% 4.15 Yu, Mary 107 2% 7% 10% 14% 68%

13 Table 13: Results for Individual Judges for Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication In the area Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria: Treated people with courtesy and respect Was attentive to proceedings Acted with patience and self-control Used clear oral communication while in court RATING SCALE Responses Average (1-5 scale) Andrus, Beth 66 3% 3% 7% 32% 55% 4.33 Armstrong, Sharon 112.5% 3% 12% 18% 67% 4.47 Barnett, Suzanne 101 1% 3% 9% 28% 59% 4.42 Benton, Monica 104 6% 12% 24% 20% 39% 3.75 Bradshaw, Timothy 84 2% 4% 9% 23% 62% 4.39 Cahan, Regina 84 1% 1% 8% 17% 73% 4.62 Canova, Greg 101 3% 5% 14% 27% 51% 4.20 Carey, Cheryl 71 2% 2% 6% 19% 71% 4.57 Cayce, James 87 2% 8% 14% 19% 57% 4.20 Clark, Patricia 69 8% 8% 19% 28% 38% 3.81 Craighead, Susan 141 2% 1% 4% 21% 72% 4.43 Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 3% 18% 26% 48% 4.59 Doerty, James 125 1% 4% 9% 17% 70% 4.52 Downing, William 114 1% 2% 7% 14% 76% 4.65 Doyle, Theresa 88 1% 3% 18% 16% 62% 4.37 DuBuque, Joan % 12% 24% 63% 4.48 Eadie, Richard 93 2% 9% 21% 17% 51% 4.06 Erlick, John % 7% 18% 73% 4.62 Fleck, Deborah % 6% 18% 74% 4.64 Gain, Brian 64 <1% <1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58 Gonzalez, Steven 74 1% 3% 10% 18% 68% 4.49 Halpert, Helen % 15% 29% 50% 4.22 Hayden, Michael 83 3% 11% 20% 28% 37% 3.86 Heavey, Michael 84 4% 8% 18% 23% 47%

14 Responses Average (1-5 scale) Heller, Bruce 65 <1% 2% 10% 15% 73% 4.57 Hill, Hollis 75 1% 5% 24% 20% 50% 4.13 Hilyer, Bruce 49 2% 7% 10% 26% 54% 4.24 Inveen, Laura 82 <1% 1% 9% 23% 67% 4.56 Kallas, Paris 35 1% 8% 7% 18% 67% 4.42 Kessler, Ronald 112 8% 7% 23% 25% 37% 3.76 Lum, Dean 107 2% 3% 15% 20% 60% 4.34 Mack, Barbara 71 4% 7% 15% 23% 51% 4.10 McCarthy, Harry 54 1% 7% 19% 15% 57% 4.20 McCullough, LeRoy 59 1% 1% 10% 18% 71% 4.58 McDermott, Richard 56 0% 2% 6% 23% 70% 4.60 Middaugh, Laura 81 11% 10% 22% 21% 36% 3.60 North, Douglass 68 4% 3% 16% 25% 52% 4.18 Prochnau, Kimberley 89 2% 5% 11% 21% 58% 4.26 Ramsdell, Jeffrey % 10% 26% 63% 4.51 Rietschel, Jean % 13% 10% 73% 4.50 Roberts, Mary 65 3% 7% 12% 21% 57% 4.21 Robinson, Palmer 73 1% 3% 9% 17% 70% 4.52 Rogers, Jim 74 1% 2% 3% 19% 75% 4.65 Saint Clair, J. Wesley 73 1% 5% 14% 12% 69% 4.43 Schapira, Carol 107 2% 6% 18% 23% 50% 4.14 Shaffer, Catherine 83 6% 6% 10% 16% 62% 4.22 Spearman, Mariane 71 1% 3% 15% 38% 43% 4.20 Spector, Julie 81 8% 11% 20% 15% 45% 3.79 Trickey, Michael % 6% 17% 75% 4.64 Washington, Chris 44 7% 16% 27% 24% 26% 3.45 White, Jay 78 2% 7% 14% 23% 55% 4.21 Yu, Mary 107 1% 5% 10% 17% 67%

15 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 Responses Average (1-5 scale) Andrus, Beth 66 2% 1% 11% 47% 39% 4.21 Armstrong, Sharon 112 2% 4% 17% 21% 56% 4.24 Barnett, Suzanne 101 2% 5% 16% 32% 45% 4.13 Benton, Monica 104 4% 10% 26% 24% 35% 3.77 Bradshaw, Timothy 84 3% 6% 17% 24% 50% 4.14 Cahan, Regina 84 1% 1% 10% 32% 56% 4.41 Canova, Greg 101 3% 5% 14% 20% 57% 4.21 Carey, Cheryl 71 1% 1% 10% 25% 63% 4.48 Cayce, James 87 3% 5% 17% 22% 53% 4.17 Clark, Patricia 69 9% 25% 46% 11% 9% 4.07 Craighead, Susan 141 2% 2% 9% 25% 62% 4.14 Darvas, Andrea 84 4% 3% 18% 26% 48% 4.45 Doerty, James 125 1% 4% 10% 20% 65% 4.45 Downing, William % 7% 24% 68% 4.59 Doyle, Theresa 88 2% 5% 22% 22% 49% 4.13 DuBuque, Joan 95 1% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54 Eadie, Richard 93 4% 9% 24% 22% 41% 3.85 Erlick, John % 7% 23% 67% 4.54 Fleck, Deborah 68 <1% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 Gain, Brian 64 1% 2% 9% 40% 48% 4.33 Gonzalez, Steven 74 1% 2% 11% 15% 71% 4.53 Halpert, Helen 71 1% 2% 18% 34% 45% 4.22 Hayden, Michael 83 1% 5% 19% 35% 40% 4.09 Heavey, Michael 84 3% 5% 23% 25% 44%

16 Responses Average (1-5 scale) Heller, Bruce 65 1% 2% 10% 17% 70% 4.52 Hill, Hollis 75 5% 6% 32% 18% 39% 3.81 Hilyer, Bruce 49 3% 4% 11% 23% 60% 4.33 Inveen, Laura 82 1% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.38 Kallas, Paris % 16% 23% 59% 4.39 Kessler, Ronald 112 1% 1% 17% 27% 54% 4.30 Lum, Dean 107 2% 6% 16% 30% 45% 4.09 Mack, Barbara 71 4% 6% 19% 22% 48% 4.04 McCarthy, Harry 54 5% 2% 20% 29% 43% 4.04 McCullough, LeRoy 59 1% 2% 18% 29% 50% 4.25 McDermott, Richard 56 <1% 1% 10% 36% 52% 4.37 Middaugh, Laura 81 8% 7% 22% 31% 31% 3.69 North, Douglass 68 2% 1% 19% 33% 45% 4.18 Prochnau, Kimberley 89 1% 5% 16% 28% 50% 4.21 Ramsdell, Jeffrey % 10% 34% 56% 4.45 Rietschel, Jean 70 2% 1% 13% 22% 62% 4.40 Roberts, Mary 65 4% 5% 16% 28% 47% 4.10 Robinson, Palmer 73 <1% 4% 10% 29% 57% 4.39 Rogers, Jim 74 <1% 3% 9% 28% 60% 4.44 Saint Clair, J. Wesley 73 3% 5% 17% 17% 57% 4.20 Schapira, Carol 107 3% 3% 27% 22% 46% 4.06 Shaffer, Catherine 83 2% 3% 14% 18% 63% 4.38 Spearman, Mariane 71 <1% 2% 15% 38% 43% 4.23 Spector, Julie 81 5% 7% 23% 23% 41% 3.87 Trickey, Michael % 10% 29% 60% 4.47 Washington, Chris 44 5% 19% 40% 20% 16% 3.24 White, Jay 78 3% 6% 23% 31% 37% 3.93 Yu, Mary 107 <1% 2% 10% 22% 66%

17 Bibliography American Bar Association (2005). Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Chicago: American Bar Association. Brody, D.C. (2008). The Use of Judicial Performance Evaluation to Enhance Judicial Accountability, Judicial Independence, and Public Trust, Denver University Law Review, 86: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (2006). Transparent Courthouse: A Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation. Denver: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. Jacobs, R., D. Kafry, and S. Zedeck (1980). Expectations of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, Personnel Psychology, 33: Schmidt, F.L and L.B. Kaplan (1971). Composite vs. Multiple Criteria: A Review and Resolution of the Controversy, Personnel Psychology, 24:

18 APPENDIX A 18

19 Please answer the following questions about your personal experience with Judge XXXX YYYYYYYYY of the King County Superior Court. For each item, please indicate the level at which you believe the judge performed. For any items in which you lack sufficient information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge s performance or items which do not apply to your interactions with the judge, select "Don t Know". The first few questions ask you to assess items related to the judge's LEGAL ABILITY. Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner. 19

20 Was prepared for court. Integrity and Impartiality Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Treated all people equally without bias based on race, gender, or any other extralegal personal characteristic. Based rulings on the facts and the law. 20

21 Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication Treated people with courtesy and respect. Was attentive to proceedings. Acted with patience and self control. 21

22 Used clear and logical 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. 22

23 Used the court's time efficiently. Please provide any additional comments or details related to either the items raised in this questionnaire or the judge s performance in the space below. Note, as this information will be provided to the judge, please refrain from providing any information that might identify you as the person providing the evaluation. 5 6 BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION In order to better place the evaluation results in context, we need to ask you some questions about your background. Roughly how many times have you appeared before the judge over the past 2 years? ONCE 2 3 TIMES 4 10 TIMES MORE THAN 10 TIMES 23

24 How long have you been a practicing attorney? 1 2 years 3 5 years 6 10 years years More than 20 years Which of the following areas of law best describe your practice? Criminal Defense Criminal Prosecution General Civil Domestic Relations/Family Law Government Practice Other (please specify) Which of the following best describes your work setting? Prosecuting Attorney's Office Government Agency Indigent Defense Agency Legal Aid Private Law Firm Other (please specify) How many attorneys are employed by your law firm? Sole practitioner 2 5 attorneys 6 10 attorneys attorneys More than 20 attorneys 24

25 What best describes your racial background? Caucasian/white African American/Black Hispanic/Latino(a) Asian/Pacific islander Native American Other (please specify) What is your gender? Male Female Thank you for your participation. Please click the button below to submit your evaluation. 25