Fillable JP12REPT Form 2012 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank JP12REPT Form 2012 (Hawaii State Judiciary) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

JP12REPT Form 2012 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

On average this form takes 210 minutes to complete

The JP12REPT Form 2012 (Hawaii State Judiciary) form is 117 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 20 check-boxes
  • 830 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Hawaii State Judiciary forms online.

BROWSE HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2012 REPORT
THE JUDICIARY
STATE OF HAWAI>I
December 18, 2012
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2012 REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Judicial Performance Program 2012 Report summarizes the results of evaluations
involving nine Circuit Court judges, nine Family Court judges, and ten District Court judges.
Also included are the results of last year’s Courts of Appeal evaluation.
To ensure the security, anonymity, and confidentiality of the evaluation process, it was
administered by Hawai>i Information Consortium. Hawai>i Information Consortium maintains
and manages the eHawaii.gov website. It is a company that is completely independent of
the Judiciary.
The Judicial Performance Program was created by Supreme Court Rule 19 as a method of
promoting judicial competence and excellence. The members of the Judicial Performance
Committee are listed in Appendix A.
Judicial Performance Program reports are issued yearly. Since the evaluation process
has been and is still evolving, comparisons of individual scores should be made only within each
respective report group.
JUSTICES’ AND JUDGES’ RATINGS
Appellate justices and judges are rated on General Evaluation, Written Opinions, Oral
Argument, and Overall Evaluation. Trial court judges are rated on Legal Ability, Judicial
Management Skills, Comportment, and Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability. All yearly
reports on the Judicial Performance Program are available to the public. Scores and comments
received for individual justices and judges are available to the Judicial Selection Commission,
upon its request.
Pictographs displaying frequency distributions of the justices’ and judges’ ratings are
included in this evaluation report. Comparative rankings are provided in each area
of assessment.
EVALUATION CYCLES
Appellate justices and judges and Circuit Court judges are scheduled for evaluation three
times in their ten-year terms. Full time District Family Court judges and District Court judges
are scheduled for evaluation twice in their six-year terms. For purposes of this program, Circuit
Court judges assigned to the Family Court of the First Circuit are considered Family Court
judges but are evaluated three times during their ten-year terms. A portion of the Per Diem
judge pool is scheduled for evaluation every three years.
The full time Family Court and District Court evaluations are phased to result in these
courts being included in the evaluation process two out of every three years; that is, about
one-half or approximately ten judges from each group are evaluated per cycle. Evaluation of
Family Court, but not of District Court, judges was conducted in 2011. Evaluations of both full
time Family Court and full time District Court judges were conducted in 2012. Evaluation of
District Court, but not of Family Court, judges is scheduled for 2013. The next evaluation of
Per Diem judges is scheduled for 2013 as well.
JUDICIAL EVALUATION REVIEW PANEL
The Judicial Evaluation Review Panel assists Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald in the
review and evaluation process. The Review Panel interviews the justices and judges, and
consists of six members: Robert Alm, Momi Cazimero, Douglas McNish, Willson Moore Jr.,
William Santos, and Betty Vitousek. The Review Panel is organized into groups of three, with
each group having one former judge, one nonpracticing attorney, and one member of the public
knowledgeable in the law. Their purpose is to interview and counsel the evaluated justices and
judges and help the justices and judges improve their performance.
2
APPELLATE COURT RESULTS
Three of the Supreme Court justices and Intermediate Court of Appeals judges received
the results of their evaluations under cover of memoranda dated April 14, 2011. Five other
justices and appellate judges did not have the minimum eighteen responses needed to
be included.
A link to the online questionnaire was provided to attorneys by email on January 25,
2011. The surveys were collected from January 25, 2011 until February 11, 2011. The
attorney questionnaire is attached as Appendix B.
Possible ratings based on the multiple-choice format range from one to five. One
indicates a Never or Poor rating. Five stands for Always or Excellent. Table 1 on page 4
provides the averages for the three Appellate Court justices and judges.
The mean score for the Fairness/Impartiality section was 4.5, with a standard deviation of
0.2. The standard deviation gives an indication of the amount of variation in the scores among
the Appellate Court justices and judges. (A small standard deviation means that scores
generally were clustered about the mean; a large standard deviation means that there was less
clustering of the scores.) The Appellate Court justices and judges generally received marks
between 4.3 and 4.7 in the Fairness/Impartiality section.
For Written Opinions, the Appellate Court justices and judges had a mean score of 4.1.
The standard deviation for this section was 0.2. The mean score for the Oral Argument section
was 4.5, with a standard deviation of 0.2. The mean score for the Overall Evaluation section
was 4.0, with a standard deviation of 0.1. The frequencies of the Appellate Court justices’ and
judges’ ratings, by category, are printed on pages 5 to 8.
There were 304 responses out of 3881 emails sent out to attorneys who had provided
their email addresses to the State Bar Association. Many of the responses were not counted
because the attorneys reported that they had not appeared before the justices or judges. The
number of responses did not equal the number of questionnaires received. The number of
questionnaires received for the three justices and judges with completed evaluations totaled 59,
with between 18 and 22 questionnaires received for each justice or judge.
3
TABLE 1
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - APPELLATE COURTS
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR THREE JUSTICES AND JUDGES
JANUARY 25, 2011 - FEBRUARY 11, 2011
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
FAIRNESS/IMPARTIALITY SECTION
1. Removes him/herself from any action that is, or appears to be, 3 4.7 0.3
a conflict of interest.
2. Treats all parties fairly regardless of race, age, gender, 3 4.6 0.1
economic status, or any other reason.
3. Treats all parties fairly regardless of position (e.g., plaintiff/defendant, 3 4.4 0.2
prosecutor/defense attorney, particular attorneys, etc.).
4. Strives to be impartial on all issues. 3 4.2 0.3
5. Contributes in a meaningful way to administrative committees he 2 4.8 0.4
or she is assigned to.
Average Score for the Fairness/Impartiality Section 3 4.5 0.2
WRITTEN OPINIONS SECTION
1. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates 3 4.3 0.3
knowledge of relevant substantive law at issue.
2. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates 3 4.2 0.2
legal reasoning ability.
3. Overall quality of written opinions authored specifically by 3 3.8 0.2
this justice/judge.
Average Score for the Written Opinions Section 3 4.1 0.2
ORAL ARGUMENT SECTION
1. In oral argument, this justice/judge exhibits dignified behavior. 3 4.6 0.3
2. This justice/judge is courteous to counsel at oral argument. 3 4.6 0.3
3. In oral argument, this justice/judge is attentive during proceedings. 3 4.8 0.2
4. In oral argument, this justice/judge shows patience 3 4.4 0.3
during proceedings.
5. I would rate the relevance of questions posed by this justice/judge 3 4.3 0.2
to counsel on issues raised by the parties as
6. I would rate the preparation for oral argument by this
3 4.1 0.2
justice/judge as
Average Score for the Oral Argument Section 3 4.5 0.2
OVERALL EVALUATION SECTION
1. Overall evaluation of judicial performance. 3 4.0 0.1
N = Number of Justices/Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Always or Excellent | 4 = Usually or Good | 3 = Sometimes or Adequate
2 = Rarely or Less Than Adequate | 1 = Never or Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
4
0
1
2
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Appellate Courts
Frequency Of
Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 25, 2011 – February 11, 2011
Graph 1. Fairness/Impartiality Scale
Never
or Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Justices/Judges
5
0
1
2
3
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Appellate Courts
Frequency Of
Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 25, 2011 – February 11, 2011
Graph 2. Written Opinions Scale
Never
or Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Justices/Judges
6
0
1
2
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Appellate Courts
Frequency Of
Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 25, 2011 – February 11, 2011
Graph 3. Oral Argument Scale
Never
or Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Justices/Judges
7
0
1
2
3
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Appellate Courts
Frequency Of
Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 25, 2011 – February 11, 2011
Graph 4. Overall Evaluation Scale
Never
or Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Justices/Judges
8
CIRCUIT COURT RESULTS
Nine Circuit Court judges received the results of their evaluations under cover of
memoranda dated November 28, 2012. A link to the online questionnaire was provided to
attorneys by email on July 24, 2012. The surveys were collected from July 24, 2012 until
August 17, 2012.
The email to active attorneys from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and from the
President of the Hawaii State Bar Association is printed in Appendix C. The questionnaire is
printed in Appendix D. Possible ratings range from one for Poor to five for Excellent.
Table 2 on page 10 provides the average scores by section for the nine judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability section was 3.8, with a standard deviation of 0.4.
Most of the judges scored between 3.4 and 4.2 in this section.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 3.9, with a standard
deviation of 0.4. The mean score for the Comportment section was 3.9, with a standard
deviation of 0.5. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section was
3.8, with a standard deviation of 0.4. The frequencies of the judges' ratings, by category, are
printed on pages 11 to 14.
There were 329 responses from attorneys out of 3871 emails sent out. Some of these
attorneys appeared before more than one judge. A reminder email sent to selected attorneys is
printed in Appendix E. The number of responses did not equal the number of questionnaires
received. The number of questionnaires received for the nine judges totaled 487, with between
21 and 122 questionnaires received per judge.
9
TABLE 2
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - CIRCUIT COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR NINE JUDGES
JULY 24, 2012 - AUGUST 17, 2012
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 9 3.9 0.4
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 9 4.0 0.4
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 9 4.0 0.4
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 9 3.9 0.5
5. Judgement in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 9 3.7 0.5
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 9 3.8 0.4
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 9 3.7 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 9 3.7 0.4
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 3.7 0.4
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 3.7 0.5
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 8 3.9 0.5
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 9 3.8 0.4
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 9 3.9 0.5
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 9 4.0 0.4
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 9 3.9 0.5
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 9 3.9 0.5
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 9 4.0 0.4
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 9 3.8 0.5
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 9 3.5 0.5
8. Industriousness 9 3.9 0.4
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 9 3.9 0.4
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 9 4.1 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 9 4.0 0.7
3. Compassion 9 3.9 0.6
4. Patience 9 3.8 0.7
5. Absence of Arrogance 9 3.8 0.7
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 9 4.1 0.4
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 9 3.9 0.4
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 9 3.9 0.6
Average Score for the Comportment Section 9 3.9 0.5
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 9 3.9 0.5
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 9 3.8 0.5
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 9 3.6 0.5
4. Impartiality 9 3.8 0.3
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 9 4.0 0.5
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 9 3.8 0.5
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 9 3.6 0.5
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 9 3.6 0.5
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 9 3.8 0.4
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate | 2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
10
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Circuit Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 5. Legal Ability Scale
July 24, 2012 – August 17, 2012
11
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Circuit Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 6. Judicial Management Skills Scale
July 24, 2012 – August 17, 2012
12
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Circuit Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 7. Comportment Scale
July 24, 2012 – August 17, 2012
13
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Circuit Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Graph 8. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
Frequency Of
Judges’ Ratings, By Category
July 24, 2012 – August 17, 2012
14
FAMILY COURT RESULTS
Judicial evaluation results were transmitted to nine Family Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated September 12, 2012. Surveys could be
completed over the Internet from April 24, 2012 until May 11, 2012.
Although ten judges were selected for the evaluation, only nine judges received at least
the eighteen responses required to be included. The other judge did not receive an
evaluation report.
The Family Court questionnaire is printed in Appendix F. Table 3 on the next page
provides the averages for the nine judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability Section was 3.9, and the standard deviation was 0.3.
Most of the judges received scores between 3.6 and 4.2.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 3.9, and the standard
deviation was 0.2. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.1, and the standard
deviation was 0.4. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section
was 3.9, and the standard deviation was 0.3. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 17 through 20.
Of the 3882 emails sent out for ten judges, 184 attorney evaluations were returned. One
attorney evaluation could contain more than one individual judge evaluation because the attorney
could have appeared before more than one judge.
The number of attorney evaluations returned did not equal the total number of individual
evaluations. The judges who were evaluated received between 26 and 43 individual
evaluations. In total, the nine judges had 287 individual evaluations returned.
15
TABLE 3
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - FAMILY COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR NINE JUDGES
APRIL 24, 2012 - MAY 11, 2012
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 9 4.0 0.3
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 9 4.0 0.3
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 9 4.1 0.2
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 9 4.0 0.3
5. Judgement in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 9 3.8 0.4
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 9 3.9 0.3
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 9 3.9 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 9 3.8 0.3
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 3.9 0.3
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 3.8 0.3
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 1 4.0 ---
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 9 3.9 0.3
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 9 3.8 0.3
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 9 4.0 0.2
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 9 4.0 0.3
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 9 4.0 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 9 3.9 0.2
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 9 3.8 0.2
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 9 3.7 0.3
8. Industriousness 9 4.1 0.2
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 9 3.9 0.2
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 9 4.2 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 9 4.2 0.4
3. Compassion 9 4.0 0.4
4. Patience 9 4.1 0.4
5. Absence of Arrogance 9 4.1 0.4
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 9 4.2 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 9 4.0 0.3
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 9 4.0 0.4
Average Score for the Comportment Section 9 4.1 0.4
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 9 4.0 0.3
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 9 3.9 0.2
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 9 3.7 0.3
4. Impartiality 9 4.0 0.4
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 9 4.1 0.4
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 9 3.9 0.2
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 9 3.9 0.2
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 9 3.8 0.2
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 9 3.9 0.3
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate | 2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
16
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Family Court
Graph 9. Legal Ability Scale
April 24, 2012 – May 11, 2012
17
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Family Court
April 24, 2012 – May 11, 2012
Graph 10. Judicial Management Skills Scale
18
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 11. Comportment Scale
Family Court
April 24, 2012 – May 11, 2012
19
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 12. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
Family Court
April 24, 2012 – May 11, 2012
20
DISTRICT COURT RESULTS
Evaluation results were transmitted to ten District Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated April 17, 2012. Surveys could be completed
over the Internet from January 18, 2012 to February 10, 2012.
The District Court questionnaire is printed in Appendix G. Table 4 on the next page
provides the averages for the ten judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability Section was 4.1, and the standard deviation was 0.3.
Most of the judges received scores between 3.8 and 4.4.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 4.2, and the standard
deviation was 0.3. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.3, and the standard
deviation was 0.3. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section
was 4.2, and the standard deviation was 0.4. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 23 through 26.
Of the attorneys who were sent emails, 278 returned evaluations. Some of the 278
attorneys said they had not appeared before any judges, and some attorneys appeared before two
or more judges.
The judges received between 19 and 54 evaluations each. The ten judges had a total of
282 evaluations returned.
21
TABLE 4
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - DISTRICT COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR TEN JUDGES
JANUARY 18, 2012 - FEBRUARY 10, 2012
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 10 4.1 0.2
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 10 4.2 0.2
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 10 4.2 0.3
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 10 4.1 0.3
5. Judgement in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 10 4.1 0.3
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 10 4.1 0.3
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 10 4.1 0.3
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 10 4.1 0.3
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 10 4.1 0.3
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written)
10 4.1 0.3
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 10 4.1 0.3
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 10 4.2 0.3
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 10 4.3 0.3
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 10 4.1 0.3
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 10 4.3 0.2
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 10 4.2 0.2
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 10 4.2 0.3
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 10 4.1 0.4
8. Industriousness 10 4.3 0.2
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 10 4.2 0.3
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 10 4.4 0.2
2. Courtesy to Participants 10 4.3 0.4
3. Compassion 10 4.2 0.4
4. Patience 10 4.2 0.4
5. Absence of Arrogance 10 4.3 0.4
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 10 4.4 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 10 4.3 0.3
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 10 4.3 0.3
Average Score for the Comportment Section 10 4.3 0.3
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 10 4.1 0.3
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 10 4.2 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 10 4.2 0.4
4. Impartiality 10 4.2 0.4
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 10 4.3 0.4
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 10 4.2 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 10 4.2 0.4
8. Facilitation in Development of Options
10 4.2 0.4
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 10 4.2 0.4
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate | 2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
22
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
District Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 18, 2012 – February 10, 2012
Graph 13. Legal Ability Scale
23
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
District Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Graph 14. Judicial Management Skills Scale
Frequency Of
Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 18, 2012 – February 10, 2012
24
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 15. Comportment Scale
District Court
January 18, 2012 – February 10, 2012
25
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
No. of Judges
District Court
Frequency Of
Judges’ Ratings, By Category
January 18, 2012 – February 10, 2012
Graph 16. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
26
APPENDIX A
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE
Judge Derrick H.M. Chan, Chair
Judge Rhonda I. L. Loo
Judge Clarence A. Pacarro
Susan L. Arnett, Esq.
Gail Y. Cosgrove, Esq.
Todd W. Eddins, Esq.
Rosemary T. Fazio, Esq.
Dr. Allan K. Izumi*
Joelle Segawa Kane, Esq.
Rodney A. Maile, Esq., Administrative Director of the Courts
James C. McWhinnie, Esq.
Joe C. Rice
*Dr. Allan K. Izumi served on the Judicial Performance Committee until he
passed away on June 21, 2012.
27
APPENDIX B
APPELLATE COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
28
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. Have you had any cases, decided or open, before this justice/judge during the period
from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010?
(Note: By answering yes, you will proceed to fill in the questionnaire for this
justice/judge.
By answering no, you will bypass the questions for this justice/judge.)
6DPSOH
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
29
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
Please select the response that best describes your perception of the justice's/judge's performance in any matters you
have had before the court during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010.
1. Removes himself/herself from any action that is, or appears to be, a conflict of
interest.
2. Treats all parties fairly regardless of race, age, gender, economic status, or any other
reason.
3. Treats all parties fairly regardless of position (e.g., plantiff/defendant,
prosecutor/defense attorney, particular attorneys, etc.)
4. Strives to be impartial on all issues.
5. Contributes in a meaningful way to administrative committees he or she is assigned
to.
Sample - Fairness/Impartiality
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
30
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates knowledge of
relevant substantive law at issue.
2. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates legal reasoning
ability.
3. Overall quality of written opinions authored specifically by this justice/judge.
Sample - Written Opinions
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Less Than
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
31
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. In oral argument, this justice/judge exhibits dignified behavior.
2. This justice/judge is courteous to counsel at oral argument.
3. In oral argument, this justice/judge is attentive during proceedings.
4. In oral argument, this justice/judge shows patience during proceedings.
5. I would rate the relevance of questions posed by this justice/judge to counsel on
issues raised by the parties as:
6. I would rate the preparation for oral argument by this justice/judge as:
Sample - Oral Argument
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Less Than
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Less Than
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
32
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. Overall evaluation of judicial performance.
Sample - Overall Evaluation
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Less Than
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not Observed
nmlkj
33
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. How many times have you appeared before this justice/judge in the last three years?
2. How many cases have you had on appeal in the last three years?
3. Have you served on a committee with this justice/judge?
4. How many years have you practiced law?
5. What percentage of your practice is before appellate courts?
6. What percentage of your practice is devoted to
7. COMMENTS (We understand that anonymity is important. However, the more specific
the input, the more useful it will be for the justice/judge. Constructive comments that
explain why a justice/judge is viewed positively or negatively will assist the justice/judge
more than broad statements that a justice/judge is good or not good.)
Sample - Background Characteristics
Number of times:
Number of cases:
Percentage:
Civil law:
Criminal law:
Family law:
5
5
6
6
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
under 5 years
nmlkj
5 to 10 years
nmlkj
over 10 years
nmlkj
34
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
1. Thank you for completing the questionnaire for _____.
Sample - Survey Complete
*
I would like to fill out a questionnaire for another justice/judge.
nmlkj
I have completed questionnaires for all justices/judges and am ready to submit my questionnaires.
nmlkj
35
Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011Judicial Appellate Court Questionnaire - January 2011
Please confirm that you have completed all questionnaires for justices/judges you have appeared before and you are
ready to submit your responses.
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. Your opinion is very important.
If you have any questions about this questionnaire, please call the Policy and Planning Department at 539
-
4870.
Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online survey process.
Sample - Submit Questionnaires
5
5
6
6
36
APPENDIX C
EMAIL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR
37
To:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.hawaii.gov
Sent: July 24, 2012
Subject: Joint Email From Chief Justice Recktenwald and HSBA President Muranaka Re
Judicial Evaluations
Dear Attorney:
This is a joint email from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and HSBA President
Carol K. Muranaka. The Judiciary is conducting an online evaluation of Circuit Court Judges
_____, _____, _____, _____, _____, _____, _____, _____, and _____.
The Judiciary and the HSBA encourage all members to participate in the evaluation
process. If an insufficient number of evaluations for a particular judge are received, then that
judge will not be evaluated. An independent consultant has determined that at least eighteen
evaluations must be submitted in order for a judge to receive a reliable and accurate
evaluation report.
While this online judicial evaluation differs from the HSBA’s judicial evaluation survey,
both programs are designed to give you the opportunity to provide meaningful input concerning
individual judges. Judges are receptive to receiving your comments, suggestions, and feedback.
Your evaluations serve to enhance judicial performance and improve the judicial skills and
techniques of Hawai‘i’s judges.
Please access [link to questionnaire] to commence your judicial evaluations. The link is
unique to your email address, so please do not forward this email. You may exit and later return
to the evaluations simply by clicking this link. The judicial evaluations will remain accessible to
you until August 17, 2012.
To ensure security and confidentiality, the evaluation process is conducted by
SurveyMonkey. It is administered by eHawaii.gov, which is independent of the Judiciary and the
HSBA. Only composite results are transmitted to the Judiciary.
The evaluation is designed to obtain fair assessments from attorneys who have actually
appeared before the evaluated judge. Please ensure that your evaluation is based solely on your
direct experience and not obtained through hearsay or through other means.
If you did not appear before a judge, enter that option after selecting the judge=s name.
Also, if you do not wish to participate in future judicial evaluations, please select [link to opt out],
and you will be removed from this mailing list.
38
Thank you in advance for your participation.
Click http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/performance_review/judge_evaluations_faqs.html for a
list of Frequently Asked Questions. For other questions, please contact Michael Oki
at (808)539-4870.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Recktenwald Carol K. Muranaka
Chief Justice President
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i Hawaii State Bar Association
39
APPENDIX D
CIRCUIT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
40
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendof
theevaluation.
1. Have you appeared before this judge during the period from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012?
(If you
answer No, please skip questions 2 and 3, and proceed by clicking on Continue).
2. How many times have you appeared before this judge during the referenced period?
3. For what types of matters have you appeared before this Judge during the referenced period ? (Please
select all that apply.)
6$03/(
Basic Evaluation Questions
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
1
2
nmlkj
3
5
nmlkj
6
10
nmlkj
Morethan10
nmlkj
Jurytrial(s)
gfedc
Nonjurytrial(s)
gfedc
Contestedmotion(s)withsignificantlegalissues
gfedc
Settlementorpretrialpleaagreementconference(s)
gfedc
Evidentiaryhearing(s)
gfedc
Sentencing(s)
gfedc
Othersubstantivematter(s)(describe)
gfedc
5
5
6
6
Other
41
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Thissectiondealswithlegalcompetence,learning,andunderstanding.Italsodealswiththejudicial
applicationofknowledgeintheconductofcourtproceedings.
1. Knowledge of relevant substantive law
2. Knowledge of rules of procedure
3. Knowledge of rules of evidence
4. Ability to identify and analyze relevant issues
5. Judgment in application of relevant laws and rules
6. Giving reasons for rulings when needed
7. Clarity of explanation of rulings
8. Adequacy of findings of fact
9. Clarity of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
6$03/(
Legal Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
42
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
11. Judge's charge to the jury/juries
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
applicable
nmlkj
43
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Thissectiondealswithjudicialabilityandskillintheorganization,management,andhandlingofcourt
proceedings.
1. Moving the proceeding(s) in an appropriately expeditious manner
2. Maintaining proper control over the proceeding(s)
3. Doing the necessary homework on the case(s)
4. Rendering rulings and decisions without unnecessary delay
5. Allowing adequate time for presentation of the case(s) or motion(s) in light of existing time constraints
6. Resourcefulness and common sense in resolving problems arising from the proceeding(s)
7. Skills in effecting compromise
8. Industriousness
6$03/(
Judicial Management Skills
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
44
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Thissectiondealswithvariousaspectsofjudicialpersonalityandbehaviourinthecourtproceedings,
suchastemperament,attitude,andmanner.
1. Attentiveness
2. Courtesy to participants
3. Compassion
4. Patience
5. Absence of arrogance
6. Absence of bias and prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, social class, or other factor
7. Evenhanded treatment of litigants
8. Evenhanded treatment of attorneys
6$03/(
Comportment
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
45
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Thissectionassumesyouhaveparticipatedinoneormoresettlement/pleaagreementconferences
withthisjudge.Thissectiondealswiththesettlement/pleaagreementprocessincludingsettlement
conferencespursuanttorule12.1,circuitcourtrules,andpretrialconferencesinvolvingrule11,rules
ofpenalprocedure.
1. Knowing the case(s) and/or the law well enough to address key issues
2. Reasonableness of opinions on how key issues might be resolved at trial
3. Ability to enhance the settlement process by creating consensus or to facilitate the plea agreement
process
4. Impartiality as to how/in whose favor agreement was reached
5. Absence of coercion or threat
6. Effectiveness in narrowing the issues in dispute
7. Appropriateness of judge's settlement/plea initiatives
8. Facilitation in development of options for settlement/plea
6$03/(
Settlement and/or plea agreement ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
46
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Weunderstandthatanonymityisimportant.
However,themorespecifictheinput,themoreusefulit
willbeforthejudge.
Constructivecommentsthatexplainwhyajudgeisviewedpositivelyornegatively
willassistthejudgemorethanbroadstatementsthatajudgeisgoodornotgood.
Pleasebeadvised
thatyourcommentswillbeforwardedtotheChiefJustice.Ifyourcommentsrelatetoacasethatison
appeal,youshouldexercisecautioninyourremarks.
Pleasetypeyourcomments,andremembernot
toidentifyyourself.
1. Legal ability
2. Judicial management skills
3. Comportment
4. Settlement/plea agreement ability
5. Overall/General
6$03/(
Comment Page
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
47
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for JUDGEBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
6$03/(
Evaluation Complete
*
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjudge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljudges.
nmlkj
48
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How long have you practiced law ? (years)
2. Which of the following describes your practice of law ?
6$03/(Background Characteristics
0to3
nmlkj
4to7
nmlkj
8to11
nmlkj
12to15
nmlkj
16to19
nmlkj
20to23
nmlkj
24to27
nmlkj
28ormore
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Solo(includingofficesharing)
nmlkj
Lawfirmwith2
15attorneys
nmlkj
Lawfirmwithmorethan15attorneys
nmlkj
Corporateorhousecounsel
nmlkj
Prose(Representingself)
nmlkj
Government
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Other(pleasespecify)
nmlkj
5
5
6
6
49
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2012
Pleaseconfirmthatyouhavecompletedevaluationsforjudgesyouhaveappearedbeforeandyou
arereadytosubmityourresponses.
Thankyoufortakingthetimetoprovidefeedback.Youropinionisveryimportant.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisevaluation,pleasecallthePolicyandPlanningDepartmentat
539
4870.Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online evaluation process.
Are you comfortable with the
confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
6$03/(Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
50
APPENDIX E
REMINDER EMAIL TO ATTORNEYS
51
Bcc:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.state.hi.us
Sent: July 30, 2012
Subject: Circuit Court Judges’ Evaluation
Dear Attorney:
The Judiciary and the Hawaii State Bar Association recently sent you an email regarding
the evaluation of Circuit Court judges. We would like to ask you for your assistance by
completing the questionnaire if you have appeared before one or more of the judges identified in
the questionnaire. If you are not in a position to evaluate a judge, but another attorney in your
office is, would you please forward this email to that attorney.
The Judicial Performance Program is an important part of the Judiciary=s ongoing efforts to
better serve those who deal with the judicial system. Because of the statistical requirements of
our evaluation process, each judge undergoing evaluation needs to have at least eighteen
completed questionnaires submitted. Consequently, we will not be able to complete the
evaluation of any judge who does not receive at least eighteen completed questionnaires during the
evaluation period.
We thank you very much for your assistance in this process, and if you have already
completed the questionnaire, we greatly appreciate your participation.
Rodney A. Maile
Administrative Director of the Courts
The Judiciary — State of Hawai‘i
52
APPENDIX F
FAMILY COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
53
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendof
theevaluation.
1. Have you appeared before this judge during the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012?
(If you
answer No, please skip questions 2 and 3, and proceed by clicking on Continue).
2. How many times have you appeared before this judge during the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31,
2012?
3. For what types of matters have you appeared before this judge during the referenced period ? (Please
select all that apply.)
Sample
Basic Evaluation Questions
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
1
2
nmlkj
3
5
nmlkj
6
10
nmlkj
Morethan10
nmlkj
Jurytrial(s)
gfedc
Nonjurytrial(s)
gfedc
Contestedmotion(s)withsignificantlegalissues
gfedc
Settlementorpretrialpleaagreementconference(s)
gfedc
Evidentiaryhearing(s)
gfedc
Sentencing(s)
gfedc
Othersubstantivematter(s)(describe)
gfedc
5
5
6
6
Other
54
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Thissectiondealswithlegalcompetence,learning,andunderstanding.Italsodealswiththejudicial
applicationofknowledgeintheconductofcourtproceedings.
1. Knowledge of relevant substantive law
2. Knowledge of rules of procedure
3. Knowledge of rules of evidence
4. Ability to identify and analyze relevant issues
5. Judgment in application of relevant laws and rules
6. Giving reasons for rulings when needed
7. Clarity of explanation of rulings
8. Adequacy of findings of fact
9. Clarity of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Sample
Legal Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
55
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
11. Judge's charge to the jury/juries.
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
56
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Thissectiondealswithjudicialabilityandskillintheorganization,management,andhandlingofcourt
proceedings.
1. Moving the proceeding(s) in an appropriately expeditious manner
2. Maintaining proper control over the proceeding(s)
3. Doing the necessary homework on the case(s)
4. Rendering rulings and decisions without unnecessary delay
5. Allowing adequate time for presentation of the case(s) or motion(s) in light of existing time constraints
6. Resourcefulness and common sense in resolving problems arising from the proceeding(s)
7. Skills in effecting compromise
8. Industriousness
Sample
Judicial Management Skills
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
57
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Thissectiondealswithvariousaspectsofjudicialpersonalityandbehaviourinthecourtproceedings,
suchastemperament,attitude,andmanner.
1. Attentiveness
2. Courtesy to participants
3. Compassion
4. Patience
5. Absence of arrogance
6. Absence of bias and prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, social class, or other factor
7. Evenhanded treatment of litigants
8. Evenhanded treatment of attorneys
Sample
Comportment
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
58
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Thissectionassumesyouhaveparticipatedinoneormoresettlement/pleaagreementconferences
withthisjudge.Thissectiondealswiththesettlement/pleaagreementprocessincludingsettlement
conferencespursuanttorule12.1,circuitcourtrules,orrule16(1),familycourtrules,andpretrial
conferencesinvolvingrule11,rulesofpenalprocedure.
1. Knowing the case(s) and/or the law well enough to address key issues
2. Reasonableness of opinions on how key issues might be resolved at trial
3. Ability to enhance the settlement process by creating consensus or to facilitate the plea agreement
process
4. Impartiality as to how/in whose favor agreement was reached
5. Absence of coercion or threat
6. Effectiveness in narrowing the issues in dispute
7. Appropriateness of judge's settlement/plea initiatives
8. Facilitation in development of options for settlement/plea
Sample
Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
59
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Weunderstandthatanonymityisimportant.
However,themorespecifictheinput,themoreusefulit
willbeforthejudge.
Constructivecommentsthatexplainwhyajudgeisviewedpositivelyornegatively
willassistthejudgemorethanbroadstatementsthatajudgeisgoodornotgood.
Pleasebeadvised
thatyourcommentswillbeforwardedtotheChiefJustice.Ifyourcommentsrelatetoacasethatison
appeal,youshouldexercisecautioninyourremarks.
Pleasetypeyourcomments,andremembernot
toidentifyyourself.
1. Legal ability
2. Judicial management skills
3. Comportment
4. Settlement/plea agreement ability
5. Overall/General
Sample
Comment Page
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
60
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for Judge _____.
Sample
-
Evaluation Complete
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjudge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljudges.
nmlkj
61
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How long have you practiced law ? (years)
2. Which of the following describes your practice of law ?
Sample -Background Characteristics
0to3
nmlkj
4to7
nmlkj
8to11
nmlkj
12to15
nmlkj
16to19
nmlkj
20to23
nmlkj
24to27
nmlkj
28ormore
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Solo(includingofficesharing)
nmlkj
Lawfirmwith2
15attorneys
nmlkj
Lawfirmwithmorethan15attorneys
nmlkj
Corporateorhousecounsel
nmlkj
Prose(Representingself)
nmlkj
Government
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Other(pleasespecify)
nmlkj
5
5
6
6
62
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2012
Pleaseconfirmthatyouhavecompletedevaluationsforjudgesyouhaveappearedbeforeandyou
arereadytosubmityourresponses.
Thankyoufortakingthetimetoprovidefeedback.Youropinionisveryimportant.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisevaluation,pleasecallthePolicyandPlanningDepartmentat
539
4870.Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online evaluation process.
Are
you comfortable with the
confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
Sample - Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
63
APPENDIX G
DISTRICT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
64
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendoftheevaluation.
1. Have you appeared before this judge during the period from January 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2011?
(If you answer No, please skip questions 2 and 3, and proceed by
clicking on Continue).
2. How many times have you appeared before this judge during the period from January 1,
2010 to December 31, 2011?
3. For what types of matters have you appeared before this Judge during the referenced
period ? (Please select all that apply.)
Sample
Basic Evaluation Questions
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
1
2
nmlkj
3
5
nmlkj
6
10
nmlkj
Morethan10
nmlkj
Nonjurytrial(s)
gfedc
Contestedmotion(s)withsignificantlegalissues
gfedc
Settlementorpretrialpleaagreementconference(s)
gfedc
Evidentiaryhearing(s)
gfedc
Sentencing(s)
gfedc
Othersubstantivematter(s)(describe)
gfedc
5
5
6
6
Other
65
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Thissectiondealswithlegalcompetence,learning,andunderstanding.Italsodealswiththejudicialapplicationof
knowledgeintheconductofcourtproceedings.
1. Knowledge of relevant substantive law
2. Knowledge of rules of procedure
3. Knowledge of rules of evidence
4. Ability to identify and analyze relevant issues
5. Judgment in application of relevant laws and rules
6. Giving reasons for rulings when needed
7. Clarity of explanation of rulings
8. Adequacy of findings of fact
9. Clarity of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Sample
Legal Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
66
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
67
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Thissectiondealswithjudicialabilityandskillintheorganization,management,andhandlingofcourtproceedings.
1. Moving the proceeding(s) in an appropriately expeditious manner
2. Maintaining proper control over the proceeding(s)
3. Doing the necessary homework on the case(s)
4. Rendering rulings and decisions without unnecessary delay
5. Allowing adequate time for presentation of the case(s) or motion(s) in light of existing
time constraints
6. Resourcefulness and common sense in resolving problems arising from the proceeding
(s)
7. Skills in effecting compromise
8. Industriousness
Sample
Judicial Management Skills
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
68
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Thissectiondealswithvariousaspectsofjudicialpersonalityandbehaviourinthecourtproceedings,suchas
temperament,attitude,andmanner.
1. Attentiveness
2. Courtesy to participants
3. Compassion
4. Patience
5. Absence of arrogance
6. Absence of bias and prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, social class, or
other factor
7. Evenhanded treatment of litigants
8. Evenhanded treatment of attorneys
Sample
Comportment
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
69
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Thissectionassumesyouhaveparticipatedinoneormoresettlement/pleaagreementconferenceswiththisjudge.This
sectiondealswiththesettlement/pleaagreementprocessincludingsettlementconferencespursuanttorule12.1,district
courtrules,andpretrialconferencesinvolvingrule11,rulesofpenalprocedure.
1. Knowing the case(s) and/or the law well enough to address key issues
2. Reasonableness of opinions on how key issues might be resolved at trial
3. Ability to enhance the settlement process by creating consensus or to facilitate the plea
agreement process
4. Impartiality as to how/in whose favor agreement was reached
5. Absence of coercion or threat
6. Effectiveness in narrowing the issues in dispute
7. Appropriateness of judge's settlement/plea initiatives
8. Facilitation in development of options for settlement/plea
Sample
Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
70
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Weunderstandthatanonymityisimportant.However,themorespecifictheinput,themoreusefulitwillbeforthejudge.
Constructivecommentsthatexplainwhyajudgeisviewedpositivelyornegativelywillassistthejudgemorethanbroad
statementsthatajudgeisgoodornotgood.PleasebeadvisedthatyourcommentswillbeforwardedtotheChief
Justice.Ifyourcommentsrelatetoacasethatisonappeal,youshouldexercisecautioninyourremarks.Pleasetype
yourcomments,andremembernottoidentifyyourself.
1. Legal ability
2. Judicial management skills
3. Comportment
4. Settlement/plea agreement ability
5. Overall/General
Sample
Comment Page
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
71
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for Judge _____.
Sample
Evaluation Complete
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjudge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljudges.
nmlkj
72
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How long have you practiced law ? (years)
2. Which of the following describes your practice of law ?
Sample -Background Characteristics
0to3
nmlkj
4to7
nmlkj
8to11
nmlkj
12to15
nmlkj
16to19
nmlkj
20to23
nmlkj
24to27
nmlkj
28ormore
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Solo(includingofficesharing)
nmlkj
Lawfirmwith2
15attorneys
nmlkj
Lawfirmwithmorethan15attorneys
nmlkj
Corporateorhousecounsel
nmlkj
Prose(Representingself)
nmlkj
Government
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Other(pleasespecify)
nmlkj
5
5
6
6
73
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2012
Pleaseconfirmthatyouhavecompletedevaluationsforjudgesyouhaveappearedbeforeandyouarereadytosubmit
yourresponses.
Thankyoufortakingthetimetoprovidefeedback.Youropinionisveryimportant.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisevaluation,pleasecallthePolicyandPlanningDepartmentat539
4870.Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online evaluation process.
Are
you comfortable
with the confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
Sample - Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
74
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

JP12REPT Form 2012 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 18 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document