Fillable JP14REPT 2014 Judicial Performance Review (Hawaii State Judiciary)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank JP14REPT 2014 Judicial Performance Review (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.

JP14REPT 2014 Judicial Performance Review (Hawaii State Judiciary)

On average this form takes 150 minutes to complete

The JP14REPT 2014 Judicial Performance Review (Hawaii State Judiciary) form is 89 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 14 check-boxes
  • 593 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
2014 REPORT
THE JUDICIARY
STATE OF HAWAI>I
October 16, 2014
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2014 REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Judicial Performance Program 2014 Report summarizes the results of evaluations
involving eight Appellate Court justices and judges, twelve Circuit Court judges, and nine
Family Court judges. The attorney evaluations were conducted over the Internet.
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 web portal. 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.
JUSTICES’ AND JUDGES’ RATINGS
Appellate justices and judges are rated on Fairness/Impartiality, 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. About one-half or
approximately ten judges from each group are evaluated per cycle. Evaluation of District
Court, but not of Family Court, judges was conducted in 2013. Evaluation of Family Court, but
not of District Court, judges was conducted in 2014. Evaluations of both full time Family
Court and full time District Court judges are scheduled for 2015.
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 ten members: Robert Alm, Momi Cazimero, Kenneth Hipp, Douglas McNish,
Willson Moore Jr., Shackley Raffetto, William Santos, Betty Vitousek, Corinne Watanabe, and
Ruthann Yamanaka. The Review Panels are organized into groups of three; every effort is
made for each panel to consist of 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
Eight Supreme Court justices and Intermediate Court of Appeals judges received the
results of their evaluations under cover of memoranda dated March 27, 2014. Three other
justices and appellate judges did not have the minimum eighteen responses needed to
be evaluated.
A link to the online questionnaire was provided to attorneys by email on January 2, 2014,
and the surveys were collected from January 2 to January 31, 2014. The 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 eight Appellate Court justices and judges.
The mean score for the Fairness/Impartiality section was 4.5, with a standard deviation of
0.3. The standard deviation gives an indication of the variation in the scores of the 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.) Many of the
Appellate Court justices and judges received marks between 4.2 and 4.8 in the
Fairness/Impartiality section.
For Written Opinions, the justices and appellate judges had a mean score of 4.3. The
standard deviation for this section was 0.1. The mean score for the Oral Argument section was
4.6, with a standard deviation of 0.3. The mean score for the Overall Evaluation section was
4.2, with a standard deviation of 0.3. The frequencies of the Appellate Court justices’ and
judges’ ratings, by category, are printed on pages 5 to 8.
There were 317 responses from 4,483 emails sent out to attorneys who had provided their
email addresses to the Hawaii State Bar Association. Some 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 eight justices and judges with completed evaluations totaled 235,
with between 18 and 41 questionnaires received for each justice or judge.
3
TABLE 1
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - APPELLATE COURTS
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR EIGHT JUSTICES AND JUDGES
JANUARY 2, 2014 - JANUARY 31, 2014
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
FAIRNESS/IMPARTIALITY SECTION
1. Removes him/herself from any action that is, or appears to be, 8 4.8 0.2
a conflict of interest.
2. Treats all parties fairly regardless of race, age, gender, 8 4.6 0.3
economic status, or any other reason.
3. Treats all parties fairly regardless of position (e.g., plaintiff/defendant, 8 4.4 0.4
prosecutor/defense attorney, particular attorneys, etc.).
4. Strives to be impartial on all issues. 8 4.3 0.4
5. Contributes in a meaningful way to administrative committees he 7 4.7 0.3
or she is assigned to.
Average Score for the Fairness/Impartiality Section 8 4.5 0.3
WRITTEN OPINIONS SECTION
1. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates 8 4.4 0.1
knowledge of relevant substantive law at issue.
2. In opinions authored by this justice/judge, he or she demonstrates 8 4.4 0.2
legal reasoning ability.
3. Overall quality of written opinions authored specifically by 8 4.2 0.2
this justice/judge.
Average Score for the Written Opinions Section 8 4.3 0.1
ORAL ARGUMENT SECTION
1. In oral argument, this justice/judge exhibits dignified behavior. 8 4.6 0.4
2. This justice/judge is courteous to counsel at oral argument. 8 4.6 0.4
3. In oral argument, this justice/judge is attentive during proceedings. 8 4.9 0.1
4. In oral argument, this justice/judge shows patience 8 4.5 0.5
during proceedings.
5. I would rate the relevance of questions posed by this justice/judge 8 4.4 0.3
to counsel on issues raised by the parties as
6. I would rate the preparation for oral argument by this
8 4.5 0.2
justice/judge as
Average Score for the Oral Argument Section 8 4.6 0.3
OVERALL EVALUATION SECTION
1. Overall evaluation of judicial performance. 8 4.2 0.3
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
Never or
Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
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
January 2, 2014 – January 31, 2014
Appellate Courts
Graph 1. Fairness/Impartiality Scale
Frequency of Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Justices/Judges
5
Never or
Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
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
January 2, 2014 – January 31, 2014
Appellate Courts
Graph 2. Written Opinions Scale
Frequency of Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Justices/Judges
6
Never or
Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
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
January 2, 2014 – January 31, 2014
Appellate Courts
Graph 3. Oral Argument Scale
Frequency of Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Justices/Judges
7
Never or
Poor
Rarely or
Less Than
Adequate
Sometimes
or Adequate
Usually
or Good
Always or
Excellent
Scale Interval Category
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
January 2, 2014 – January 31, 2014
Appellate Courts
Graph 4. Overall Evaluation Scale
Frequency of Justices’/Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Justices/Judges
8
CIRCUIT COURT RESULTS
Twelve Circuit Court judges received the results of their evaluations under cover of
memoranda dated October 9, 2014. A link to the online questionnaire was provided to
attorneys by email on July 22, 2014. The surveys were collected from July 22 until
August 22, 2014.
The email to active attorneys from Chief Justice 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 twelve judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability section was 3.9, with a standard deviation of 0.4.
Most of the judges scored between 3.5 and 4.4 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 4.0, 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 320 responses from attorneys out of 4,572 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 twelve judges totaled 516, with
between 19 and 91 questionnaires received for each judge.
9
TABLE 2
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - CIRCUIT COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR TWELVE JUDGES
JULY 22, 2014 - AUGUST 22, 2014
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 12 3.9 0.4
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 12 4.0 0.4
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 12 3.9 0.5
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 12 3.9 0.5
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 12 3.8 0.5
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 12 3.9 0.4
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 12 3.8 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 12 3.8 0.4
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 12 3.8 0.4
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 12 3.8 0.4
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 12 3.8 0.4
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 12 3.9 0.4
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 12 3.8 0.4
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 12 4.0 0.4
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 12 4.0 0.4
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 12 3.9 0.4
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 12 4.0 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 12 3.9 0.5
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 12 3.7 0.6
8. Industriousness 12 4.0 0.4
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 12 3.9 0.4
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 12 4.2 0.4
2. Courtesy to Participants 12 4.1 0.5
3. Compassion 12 4.0 0.6
4. Patience 12 4.0 0.6
5. Absence of Arrogance 12 4.0 0.6
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 12 4.1 0.4
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 12 4.0 0.5
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 12 4.0 0.5
Average Score for the Comportment Section 12 4.0 0.5
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 12 3.9 0.5
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 12 3.8 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 12 3.7 0.5
4. Impartiality 12 3.8 0.4
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 12 4.0 0.5
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 12 3.9 0.5
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 12 3.7 0.5
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 12 3.7 0.5
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 12 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
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
July 22, 2014 – August 22, 2014
Circuit Court
Graph 5. Legal Ability Scale
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
11
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Graph 6. Judicial Management Skills Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Circuit Court
July 22, 2014 – August 22, 2014
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
12
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
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
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 7. Comportment Scale
Circuit Court
July 22, 2014 – August 22, 2014
13
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Circuit Court
July 22, 2014 – August 22, 2014
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
Graph 8. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
14
FAMILY COURT RESULTS
Evaluation results were transmitted to nine Family Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated August 6, 2014. Surveys could be completed
over the Internet from April 16 to May 12, 2014.
Although eleven judges were selected for the evaluation, only nine judges received at
least the eighteen responses required to be included. The other two judges did not receive
evaluation reports.
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 4.0, and the standard deviation was 0.3.
All of the judges received scores in the “Good” category, that is, between 3.5 and 4.4.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 4.0, and the standard
deviation was 0.3. 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 4.0, and the standard deviation was 0.4. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 17 to 20.
Of the 4,431 attorneys who were sent emails, 194 returned evaluations. Some of the
194 attorneys said they had not appeared before any judges, and some attorneys appeared before
two or more judges.
The nine evaluated judges received between 19 and 42 evaluations each. The nine
judges had a total of 286 evaluations returned.
15
TABLE 3
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - FAMILY COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR NINE JUDGES
APRIL 16, 2014 - MAY 12, 2014
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 9 4.2 0.4
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 9 4.2 0.4
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 9 4.2 0.3
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 9 4.1 0.3
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 9 4.0 0.4
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 9 4.0 0.3
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 9 4.0 0.3
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 9 3.9 0.4
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 4.0 0.3
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 4.0 0.3
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 0 --- ---
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 9 4.0 0.3
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 9 3.9 0.3
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 9 4.1 0.3
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 9 4.1 0.3
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 9 4.1 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 9 4.1 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 9 3.9 0.4
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 9 3.8 0.4
8. Industriousness 9 4.1 0.4
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 9 4.0 0.3
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 9 4.3 0.4
2. Courtesy to Participants 9 4.2 0.5
3. Compassion 9 4.1 0.4
4. Patience 9 4.0 0.5
5. Absence of Arrogance 9 4.1 0.5
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 9 4.1 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 9 4.0 0.4
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 9 4.1 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 4.1 0.4
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 9 4.0 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 9 3.9 0.4
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 4.0 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 9 3.9 0.3
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 9 3.8 0.4
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 9 4.0 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
16
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 16, 2014 – May 12, 2014
Graph 9. Legal Ability Scale
17
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 10. Judicial Management Skills Scale
April 16, 2014 – May 12, 2014
18
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
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
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 11. Comportment Scale
Family Court
April 16, 2014 – May 12, 2014
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 16, 2014 – May 12, 2014
20
APPENDIX A
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE
Judge Derrick H.M. Chan, Chair
Judge Rhonda I. L. Loo
Judge Clarence A. Pacarro
Claire K. S. Cooper
Rosemary T. Fazio, Esq.
Jeen H. Kwak, Esq.
Rodney A. Maile, Esq., Administrative Director of the Courts
R. Patrick McPherson, Esq.
James C. McWhinnie, Esq.
Stephanie A. Rezents, Esq.
Audrey L. E. Stanley, Esq.
Janice Yee
21
APPENDIX B
APPELLATE COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
22
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
1. Have you had any cases, decided or open, or served on any committee or in any
other capacity with this justice/judge during the period from January 1, 2012 to December
31, 2013?
(Note: By answering yes, you will proceed to fill in the evaluation for this justice/judge.
By answering no, you will bypass the questions for this justice/judge.)
Sample
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
23
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
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,2012toDecember31,2013.
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Applicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
24
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
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Applicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
LessThan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
25
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
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Applicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Always
nmlkj
Usually
nmlkj
Sometimes
nmlkj
Rarely
nmlkj
Never
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
26
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
1. Overall evaluation of judicial performance.
Sample
Overall Evaluation
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
LessThan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
27
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
1. How many times have you appeared before this justice/judge in the last three years?
2. Have you served on a committee with this justice/judge?
3. 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.
Please remember not
to identify yourself.)
Sample
Background Characteristics
Numberoftimes:
5
5
6
6
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
28
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for BBBBBB.
Sample
Evaluation Complete
*
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjustice/judge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljustices/judges.
nmlkj
29
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How many cases have you had on appeal in the last three years?
2. How many years have you practiced law?
3. What percentage of your practice is before appellate courts?
4. What percentage of your practice is devoted to
Sample - General
Background Characteristics
Numberofcases:
Percentage:
Civillaw:
Criminallaw:
Familylaw:
under5years
nmlkj
5to10years
nmlkj
over10years
nmlkj
30
Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014Judicial Appellate Court Evaluation - January 2014
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 evaluation process.
Are you comfortable
with the confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
Sample - Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
31
APPENDIX C
EMAIL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR
32
To:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.hawaii.gov
Sent: July 22, 2014
Subject: Joint Email From Chief Justice Recktenwald and HSBA President Young Re
Judicial Evaluations
Dear Attorney:
This is a joint email from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and HSBA President
Calvin E. Young. 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 22, 2014.
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.
33
Thank you for your consideration.
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 Calvin E. Young
Chief Justice President
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i Hawaii State Bar Association
34
APPENDIX D
CIRCUIT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
35
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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, 2012 to June 30,
2014?
(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.)
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
36
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
37
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
38
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
39
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
40
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
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
41
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
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
42
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
43
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
44
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2014
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
45
APPENDIX E
REMINDER EMAIL TO ATTORNEYS
46
Bcc:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.hawaii.gov
Date: August 4, 2014
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 evaluation 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 evaluation, we greatly appreciate your participation.
Rodney A. Maile
Administrative Director of the Courts
The Judiciary — State of Hawai‘i
47
APPENDIX F
FAMILY COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
48
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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, 2012 to March 31,
2014?
(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.)
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
49
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
50
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
51
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
52
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
53
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
54
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
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
55
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
1. Thank you for completing the questionnaire 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
56
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
57
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2014
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
58
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

JP14REPT 2014 Judicial Performance Review (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 16 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document