Fillable JP15REPT Form 2015 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank JP15REPT Form 2015 (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.

JP15REPT Form 2015 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

On average this form takes 183 minutes to complete

The JP15REPT Form 2015 (Hawaii State Judiciary) form is 96 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 20 check-boxes
  • 723 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
2015 REPORT
THE JUDICIARY
STATE OF HAWAI>I
November 24, 2015
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2015 REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Judicial Performance Program 2015 Report summarizes the results of evaluations
involving nine Circuit Court judges, eleven Family Court judges, and six District 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.
JUDGES’ RATINGS
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 judges are
available to the Judicial Selection Commission, upon its request.
Pictographs displaying frequency distributions of the judges’ ratings are included in this
evaluation report. Comparative rankings are provided in each area of assessment.
EVALUATION CYCLES
Appellate 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 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 were conducted in 2015. Evaluation of District Court,
but not of Family Court, judges is scheduled for 2016.
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 judges and consists of nine
members: Robert Alm, Momi Cazimero, Kenneth Hipp, Douglas McNish, Willson Moore Jr.,
Shackley Raffetto, William Santos, 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 judges and help the judges
improve their performance.
2
CIRCUIT COURT RESULTS
Nine Circuit Court judges received the results of their evaluations under cover of
memoranda dated October 12, 2015. A link to the online questionnaire was provided to
attorneys by email on July 21, 2015. The surveys were collected from July 21 until
August 21, 2015.
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 email to active attorneys from Chief Justice Recktenwald and from the President of
the Hawaii State Bar Association is printed in Appendix B. The questionnaire is printed in
Appendix C. Possible ratings range from one for Poor to five for Excellent. Table 1 on
page 4 provides the average scores by section for the nine judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability section was 4.0, with a standard deviation of 0.4.
The standard deviation gives an indication of the variation in the scores of the 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.) Most of the judges scored
between 3.6 and 4.4 in this section.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 4.1, with a standard
deviation of 0.3. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.2, with a standard
deviation of 0.4. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section was
4.0, with a standard deviation of 0.4. The frequencies of the judges' ratings, by category, are
printed on pages 5 to 8.
There were 321 evaluations from attorneys out of 5,085 emails sent out. A reminder
email sent to attorneys is printed in Appendix D.
The responses for the judge who had fewer than eighteen questionnaires were not
counted. Also, some of the 321 attorneys said that they had not appeared before any judges at
all. Other attorneys sent in evaluations with responses regarding more than one judge.
Thus the number of evaluations did not equal the number of questionnaires received.
The number of questionnaires received for the nine judges totaled 433, with between 22 and 75
questionnaires per judge.
3
TABLE 1
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - CIRCUIT COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR NINE JUDGES
JULY 21, 2015 - AUGUST 21, 2015
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 9 4.1 0.5
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 9 4.2 0.5
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 9 4.1 0.5
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 9 4.1 0.5
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 9 4.0 0.4
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 9 4.0 0.4
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 9 4.0 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 9 3.9 0.5
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 4.0 0.4
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 9 4.0 0.4
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 9 4.1 0.5
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 9 4.0 0.4
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 9 4.1 0.3
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 9 4.2 0.3
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 9 4.1 0.4
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 9 4.2 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 9 4.2 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 9 4.1 0.4
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 9 3.9 0.4
8. Industriousness 9 4.2 0.3
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 9 4.1 0.3
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 9 4.4 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 9 4.3 0.5
3. Compassion 9 4.2 0.4
4. Patience 9 4.1 0.5
5. Absence of Arrogance 9 4.1 0.5
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 9 4.3 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 9 4.2 0.4
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 9 4.2 0.4
Average Score for the Comportment Section 9 4.2 0.4
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 9 4.1 0.6
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 9 4.0 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 9 3.9 0.4
4. Impartiality 9 4.1 0.3
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 9 4.2 0.4
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 9 4.0 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 9 4.0 0.4
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 9 3.9 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
4
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
July 21, 2015 – August 21, 2015
Circuit Court
Graph 1. Legal Ability Scale
5
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
July 21, 2015 – August 21, 2015
Circuit Court
Graph 2. Judicial Management Skills Scale
6
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 3. Comportment Scale
July 21, 2015 – August 21, 2015
7
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
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 4. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
July 21, 2015 – August 21, 2015
8
FAMILY COURT RESULTS
Evaluation results were transmitted to eleven Family Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated July 2, 2015. Surveys could be completed over
the Internet from April 21 to May 15, 2015.
Although twelve judges were selected for the evaluation, only eleven 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 E. Table 2 on the next page
provides the averages for the eleven judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability Section was 3.9, and the standard deviation was 0.4.
Most of the judges received scores between 3.5 and 4.3.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 3.9, and the standard
deviation was 0.3. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.0, and the standard
deviation was 0.4. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section
was 3.8, and the standard deviation was 0.4. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 11 to 14.
Of the 4,864 attorneys who were sent emails, 205 returned evaluations. The 205
evaluations were for twelve judges, but the responses for the judge who had fewer than eighteen
questionnaires were not used. Also, some attorneys had not appeared before any judges.
In total, the eleven judges who were evaluated had 309 individual evaluations returned.
The judges received between 21 and 37 questionnaires each. The reason that the 309 individual
judge evaluations is a higher number than the 205 attorney evaluations is that some attorneys
appeared before two or more judges.
9
TABLE 2
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - FAMILY COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR ELEVEN JUDGES
APRIL 21, 2015 - MAY 15, 2015
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 11 3.9 0.4
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 11 4.1 0.4
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 11 4.0 0.4
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 11 3.9 0.4
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 11 3.8 0.4
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 11 3.9 0.4
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 11 3.8 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 11 3.8 0.4
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 11 3.8 0.4
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 11 3.8 0.4
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 0 --- ---
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 11 3.9 0.4
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 11 3.9 0.4
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 11 4.1 0.3
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 11 3.9 0.5
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 11 4.0 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 11 4.0 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 11 3.8 0.4
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 11 3.7 0.4
8. Industriousness 11 4.0 0.3
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 11 3.9 0.3
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 11 4.2 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 11 4.1 0.4
3. Compassion 11 4.0 0.4
4. Patience 11 3.8 0.4
5. Absence of Arrogance 11 3.9 0.6
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 11 4.0 5.0
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 11 3.9 5.0
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 11 3.9 5.0
Average Score for the Comportment Section 11 4.0 0.4
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 11 3.9 0.4
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 11 3.9 0.3
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 11 3.7 0.4
4. Impartiality 11 3.8 0.4
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 11 4.0 0.5
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 11 3.9 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 11 3.8 0.4
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 11 3.8 0.4
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 11 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
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 21, 2015 – May 15, 2015
Graph 5. Legal Ability Scale
11
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 21, 2015 – May 15, 2015
Graph 6. Judicial Management Skills Scale
12
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
Family Court
Graph 7. Comportment Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
April 21, 2015 – May 15, 2015
13
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
Family Court
Graph 8. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
April 21, 2015 – May 15, 2015
14
DISTRICT COURT RESULTS
Evaluation results were transmitted to six District Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated April 27, 2015. Surveys could be completed
from January 21, 2015, to February 20, 2015.
Although thirteen judges were selected for the evaluation, only six judges received at
least the eighteen responses required to be included. The other seven judges did not receive
evaluation reports.
The District Court questionnaire is printed in Appendix F. Table 3 on the next page
provides the averages for the six judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability Section was 4.1, and the standard deviation was 0.3.
Many 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 4.1, and the standard deviation was 0.4. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 17 to 20.
The six judges received between 18 and 32 questionnaires each. There were a total of
146 evaluations returned.
15
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 6 4.2 0.3
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 6 4.3 0.3
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 6 4.2 0.2
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 6 4.2 0.4
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 6 4.1 0.4
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 6 4.1 0.3
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 6 4.1 0.3
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 6 3.9 0.5
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 6 4.1 0.4
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written)
6 4.1 0.3
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 6 4.1 0.3
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 6 4.2 0.2
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 6 4.3 0.2
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 6 4.2 0.4
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 6 4.2 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 6 4.2 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 6 4.2 0.4
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 6 4.1 0.4
8. Industriousness 6 4.2 0.3
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 6 4.2 0.3
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 6 4.4 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 6 4.4 0.4
3. Compassion 6 4.1 0.5
4. Patience 6 4.2 0.4
5. Absence of Arrogance 6 4.3 0.4
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 6 4.4 0.2
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 6 4.3 0.3
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 6 4.3 0.3
Average Score for the Comportment Section 6 4.3 0.3
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 6 4.1 0.4
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 6 4.1 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 6 4.0 0.4
4. Impartiality 6 4.2 0.3
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 6 4.4 0.3
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 6 4.1 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 6 4.1 0.5
8. Facilitation in Development of Options
6 4.0 0.5
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 6 4.1 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
16
0
1
2
3
4
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 21, 2015 – February 20, 2015
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Graph 9. Legal Ability Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
17
0
1
2
3
4
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
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
Graph 10. Judicial Management Skills Scale
January 21, 2015 – February 20, 2015
18
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
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
Graph 11. Comportment Scale
January 21, 2015 – February 20, 2015
19
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 21, 2015 – February 20, 2015
Graph 12. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
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 Wakatsuki
21
APPENDIX B
EMAIL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR
22
To:
From: Michael.A.Oki@courts.hawaii.gov
Sent: July 21, 2015
Subject: Joint Email From Chief Justice Recktenwald and HSBA President Markham Re
Judicial Evaluations
Dear Attorney:
This is a joint email from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and HSBA President
Gregory K. Markham. 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 click on the Begin Evaluation button below 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 button. The judicial evaluations will remain
accessible to you until August 21, 2015.
To ensure security and confidentiality, the evaluation process is conducted by
SurveyMonkey. It is administered by the eHawaii.gov web portal, which is independent of the
Judiciary and the HSBA. Please
reference http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/performance_review/judge_evaluations_faqs.html
for a list of Frequently Asked Questions. To read the judicial evaluation reports, follow the link
to the Judicial Performance Program.
The evaluation is designed to obtain fair assessments from attorneys who actually had any
cases or served in any other capacity with 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 have any cases or serve in any other capacity with a judge, enter that option
after selecting the judge’s name.
23
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Oki
at (808)539-4870.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Recktenwald Gregory K. Markham
Chief Justice President
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i Hawaii State Bar Association
24
APPENDIX C
CIRCUIT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
25
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendoftheevaluation.
1. Did you have any cases or serve in any other capacity with this judge during the
period from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015?
(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
26
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
27
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
28
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
29
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
30
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
31
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
32
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
33
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
34
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - July 2015
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
35
APPENDIX D
REMINDER EMAIL TO ATTORNEYS
36
Bcc:
From: Michael.A.Oki@courts.hawaii.gov
Date: July 27, 2015
Subject: Circuit Court Judicial Evaluation
Dear Attorney,
The Judiciary and the Hawaii State Bar Association recently sent you an email regarding
the evaluation of Circuit Court judges. We are asking you to fill out the form if you had any cases
or served in any other capacity with one or more of the judges identified in the evaluation. If you
are not in a position to evaluate a judge but another attorney in your office is, please forward this
email to that attorney.
The Judicial Performance Program is an important part of our ongoing efforts to improve
the judicial system. Because of the statistical requirements of the process, we cannot evaluate any
judge who does not receive at least eighteen questionnaires during the rating period.
Thank you for your assistance. We appreciate your participation if you have completed
the evaluation.
Michael Oki
The Judiciary – State of Hawai‘i
37
APPENDIX E
FAMILY COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
38
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendoftheevaluation.
1. Did you have any cases or serve in any other capacity with this judge during the
period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015?
(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
39
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
40
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
41
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
42
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
43
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
44
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
45
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
46
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
47
Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015Judicial Family Court Evaluation - April 2015
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
48
APPENDIX F
DISTRICT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
49
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendoftheevaluation.
1. Did you have any cases or serve in any other capacity with this judge during the
period from January 1, 2013 to December 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
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
50
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
51
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
52
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
53
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
54
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
55
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
56
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
57
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
58
Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015Judicial District Court Evaluation - January 2015
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
59
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

JP15REPT Form 2015 (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 15 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document