King County Bar Association
2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
Evaluations of the Judges of the King County Superior Court
Prepared by:
Judicial Evaluation Committee
King County Bar Association
600 IBM Building
1200 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 267-7015
www.kcba.org
With Assistance From:
David C. Brody, JD PhD
Associate Professor and Academic Director
Criminal Justice Program
Washington State University Spokane
PO Box 1495
Spokane, WA 99210-1495
(509) 358-7952 Fax 509 358-7933
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 1
Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Survey Reliability.................................................................................................................................................... 3
Aggregate Description of Respondents................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges............................................................................................................ 7
Summary of Results for Individual Judges .............................................................................................................. 9
Detailed Results for Individual Judges .................................................................................................................. 18
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire ...............................................................................................................A1 - A5
Appendices B1 – B51: Detailed Results for Individual Judges .................................................................... B1 - B205
Table of Tables
Page
Table 1: Response Rate for King County Superior Court Surveys ..................................................................... 3
Table 2: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics .................................................. 4
Table 3: Number of Appearances.................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4: Primary Area of Practice.................................................................................................................... 5
Table 5: Work Setting...................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 6: Number of Years Practicing Law ........................................................................................................ 6
Table 7: Respondent Racial Background.......................................................................................................... 6
Table 8: Respondent Gender........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 9: Aggregate Results.............................................................................................................................. 7
Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings ................................................................................................................ 8
Table 11: !ggregate “Positive” Evaluations, 1991 to 2007................................................................................. 9
Table 12: Results for Individual Judges – Legal Decision Making ................................................................ 10-11
Table 13: Results for Individual Judges – Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication ......................... 12-13
Table 14: Results for Individual Judges – Administrative Skills.................................................................... 14-15
Table 15: Results for Individual Judges – Integrity and Impartiality ............................................................ 16-17
i
Appendix B
Appendix B-1 ........................................................................................................................... Judge Sharon Armstrong
Appendix B-2 .............................................................................................................................. Judge Suzanne Barnett
Appendix B-3 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Greg Canova
Appendix B-4 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Cheryl Carey
Appendix B-5 .................................................................................................................................... Judge James Cayce
Appendix B-6 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Patricia Clark
Appendix B-7 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Andrea Darvas
Appendix B-8 ................................................................................................................................... Judge James Doerty
Appendix B-9 ............................................................................................................................. Judge William Downing
Appendix B-10 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Theresa Doyle
Appendix B-11 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Joan DuBuque
Appendix B-12 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Richard Eadie
Appendix B-13 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge John Erlick
Appendix B-14 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Deborah Fleck
Appendix B-15 ................................................................................................................................... Judge Michael Fox
Appendix B-16 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge Brian Gain
Appendix B-17 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Steven Gonzalez
Appendix B-18 .................................................................................................................................... Judge Glenna Hall
Appendix B-19 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Helen Halpert
Appendix B-20 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Hayden
Appendix B-21 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Heavey
Appendix B-22 ................................................................................................................................... Judge Bruce Hilyer
Appendix B-23 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Philip Hubbard
Appendix B-24 .................................................................................................................................. Judge Laura Inveen
Appendix B-25 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Richard Jones
Appendix B-26 ..................................................................................................................................... Judge Paris Kallas
Appendix B-27 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Ronald Kessler
Appendix B-28 ....................................................................................................................................... Judge Linda Lau
Appendix B-29 ...................................................................................................................................... Judge Dean Lum
Appendix B-30 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Nicole MacInnes
Appendix B-31 ............................................................................................................................ Judge George Mattson
Appendix B-32 ......................................................................................................................... Judge Douglas McBroom
Appendix B-33 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Harry McCarthy
Appendix B-34 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Leroy McCullough
Appendix B-35 ................................................................................................................... Judge Richard F. McDermott
Appendix B-36 ............................................................................................................................... Judge Charles Mertel
Appendix B-37 ................................................................................................................... Judge Laura Gene Middaugh
Appendix B-38 .............................................................................................................................. Judge Douglass North
Appendix B-39 ............................................................................................................................ Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell
Appendix B-40 ................................................................................................................................. Judge Mary Roberts
Appendix B-41 ........................................................................................................................... Judge Palmer Robinson
Appendix B-42 ..................................................................................................................................... Judge Jim Rogers
Appendix B-43 ....................................................................................................................... Judge Wesley J. Saint Clair
Appendix B-44 ................................................................................................................................ Judge Carol Schapira
Appendix B-45 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Catherine Shaffer
Appendix B-46 ......................................................................................................................... Judge Michael Spearman
Appendix B-47 .................................................................................................................................. Judge Julie Spector
Appendix B-48 ............................................................................................................................. Judge Michael Trickey
Appendix B-49 .......................................................................................................................... Judge Chris Washington
Appendix B-50 ....................................................................................................................................... Judge Jay White
Appendix B-51 ......................................................................................................................................... Judge Mary Yu
Introduction
The King County Bar Association (KCBA) has conducted and published surveys of its members’ evaluations of judicial
officers since 1972; The survey results are a summary of practicing attorneys’ subjective assessments of the judges
who hear and decide their cases. The survey provides information to the public for judicial elections by presenting
assessments of each judge so that voters can make informed decisions by taking into account the collective
assessments of those lawyers who practice in front of these judicial officers. It also provides important information
to the public, the Bar, and the Bench on performance of the local judicial branch as a whole.
Survey Methodology
The 2007 survey of evaluations of the judges of the King County Superior Court took place during the months of April
through October 2007. The survey included attorney evaluations of 51 judges1 of the King County Superior Court.2
The survey administration was a departure from the past. With advancements in technology and methodological
capacity, the 2007 survey modified who would be asked to provide input on judicial performance, what information
would be obtained, how surveys would be distributed, and how results from the evaluation would be measured and
presented.
An important component of a judicial evaluation program is to obtain information from individuals who have had an
opportunity to personally observe the judge being evaluated during the relevant time period. (American Bar
Association, 2005; Brody, 2004). Accordingly, rather than attempt to survey all members of the King County Bar
Association or all lawyers practicing in King County, only attorneys who were identified as having appeared before a
particular judge were invited to participate in the evaluation of that judge. Attorneys were identified by two means.
First, a report was obtained from the Washington Administrative Office for the Courts listing attorneys who appeared
at trials, hearings, and other in-court proceedings in King County Superior Court cases that concluded in calendar
years 2005 and 2006. Second, courtroom logs were maintained of all attorney appearances before the various judges
from late March to mid-September 2007. Attorneys identified by either means as having made a court appearance
during those time frames were invited to participate in the survey for the judge before whom they appeared.
Another new development in the survey framework was the method by which participants were provided with the
survey form, and responses received back from them. In the past, surveys were mailed to all King County Bar
Association members, or to all lawyers practicing in King County, with responses also mailed back. In the immediate
prior survey, in 2003, mailing out of surveys was abandoned and the survey instead distributed by e-mail, printed in
the monthly Bar Bulletin, and made available on the KCBA web site. For the 2007 survey, individual attorneys
identified as having appeared before a particular judge were sent an e-mail asking them to participate in the survey.
The e-mail contained a link to a web-based survey questionnaire for the attorney to evaluate that particular judge.
An attorney who has appeared before multiple judges received a separate e-mail providing that attorney with the
survey to evaluate each individual judge. (An attorney who appeared before the same judge more than once only
received one survey e-mail regarding that judge as a result. Moreover, the software was programmed so that an
attorney could complete the survey only one time for any particular judge.) The responses to the survey were
received via this web-based system, for tabulation in the survey results. E-mails were sent on a staggered basis
1 Results were obtained for Judges Michael Spearman and Richard Jones, who are no longer on the superior court bench, and are presented in this
report. Evaluations were not conducted for judges who were appointed to the bench after March 1, 2007 (Judges Susan Craighead, Bruce Heller, and Kimberley Prochnau). 2 Thirteen appointed Commissioners also serve on the Superior Court. In the past, Commissioners were evaluated alongside Judges in the KCBA judicial performance survey. However, due to the different manner in which the survey was conducted in 2007, it was not necessary to do this and it was also decided that it would be more efficient and convenient to separately conduct a survey of the Commissioners (using the same survey framework and questions described herein) in the Spring of 2008.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 1
between mid-April and mid-October 2007, to attorneys who have made appearances before the King County Superior
Court in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Additionally, attorneys for whom e-mail addresses could not be obtained were sent
paper copies of surveys for judges they were eligible to evaluate, through the mail or messenger service.
The judicial evaluation survey was conducted in collaboration with Washington State University. Surveys were
processed through a secure web server, and then delivered directly to WSU researchers for tabulation and analysis of
results. WSU researchers also provided methodological and statistical consultation to the Judicial Evaluation
Committee, including in the preparation of this report.
Another departure from past surveys was the specific criteria upon which judicial performance was measured.
Following the ABA Guidelines for Judicial Performance Evaluation, the 2007 evaluation focused upon behavior-based
measures. To do this, attorneys who appeared before a judge were asked to evaluate judges regarding specific
criteria that are widely acknowledged to be qualities that judges are expected to possess (Institute for the
Advancement of the American Legal System, 2006). Specifically, attorneys were asked to consider four individual
criteria in each of four areas:
Legal Decision Making • Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues.
• Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
• Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in a clear and
concise manner.
• Was prepared for court.
Demeanor, Temperament, • Treated people with courtesy and respect.
and Communication • Was attentive to proceedings.
• Acted with patience and self-control.
• Used clear oral communication while in court.
Administrative Skills • Maintained control the courtroom.
• Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines.
• Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner.
• Used the court’s time efficiently;
Integrity and Impartiality • Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
• Displayed a neutral presence on the bench.
• Based rulings on the facts and the law.
• Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on
race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal
personal characteristic
A copy of the actual survey questionnaire is attached as Appendix A.
Attorneys were asked to rate judges on the above criteria using one of five possible responses (unacceptable, poor,
acceptable, very good, and excellent). Responses to the four questions in each of the four areas were added together
to form a composite index for each of the four areas. This method of evaluation and tabulation of results provides a
more detailed set of information for use by voters, members of the bar, and judges under evaluation than single-
question measures (Schmidt and Kaplan, 1971). Using this method, results are reported for individual questions as
well as for the composite index developed for each of the four areas.
In another departure from past practice, survey participants were not asked to provide an “overall” evaluation of the
performance of an individual judge. Following recommended evaluation research practices (Jacobs, Kafry, & Zedeck,
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 2
1980), such a question was deemed inappropriate in light of its inherent subjectivity, and its inability to differentiate
between the more specific, behavior-based criteria represented by the subject matter of the actual survey questions.
When tabulating survey results, no attempt has been made to mathematically derive an “overall score” for any
particular judge, in favor of reporting the results of the four different areas that were the subject of the survey. The
Judicial Evaluation Committee believes it would be inappropriate, and potentially misleading, to simply calculate a
single mathematical average of the results in these four separate areas. While the four areas all are considered to be
important attributes for a judge, they are not necessarily equal in importance. An averaging method that assumed
each was of equal weight thus would be inappropriate. Furthermore, any attempt by the Committee to provide a
weighted average by itself assigning differing importance to the four different areas of the survey would substitute
the judgment of the Committee for that of the reader, or of the evaluators, regarding the relative important of the
different areas. There also was concern that potentially significant information that might appear amid the different
areas of the survey would be obscured if those results were then averaged into a single overall score. The results
thus are summarized only for the four different areas, which, after all, is the manner in which the survey was
conducted.
Survey Reliability
A goal of every type of evaluation is to ensure the reliability of the results obtained. In examining results obtained in
this judicial performance evaluation, a determination of reliability is not amenable to a single measure, but rather an
amalgamation of four factors. As discussed below, after considering these factors, the committee is confident that
the results obtained in the 2007 judicial performance survey are reliable.
The first item is the number of respondents completing evaluations for individual judges. While there is no minimum
amount for the number of responses required to validate evaluation results, generally a minimum of 25 responses for
each judge is desirable. That being said, if there is a clear, consistent pattern in the answers to survey questions
provided by respondents, and there is no obvious pattern of bias (sampling or self-selection) in whom the
respondents are, an evaluation with as few as 20 respondents is likely to reliably reflect a judge’s performance;
As shown in Table 1, a total of 4821 surveys were completed by attorneys. These surveys were completed by 1504
different individual attorneys. The number of responses per judge ranged from a low of 30 to a high of 163. The
average and median number of responses per judge were 94.50 and 89, respectively. These figures are sufficiently
high so as not to indicate unreliability.
Table 1: Response Rate for King County Superior Court Surveys3
Year Surveys Sent Out Surveys Returned Response Rate
1999 12,466 1,204 9.7%
2003 10,000 627 6.7%
2007 18,927 4,821 25.5%
A second factor which may reflect on the reliability of a survey-based evaluation is the survey’s response rate;
Generally, the higher a response rate the better. While that is also the case in the 2007 evaluation survey, any
correlation between a high response rate and a survey’s reliability is marginal for several reasons; First, response
3 Due to differences in how the 2007 survey was conducted, including in how attorneys were identified as eligible to complete an evaluation, how the
survey questionnaire was distributed, and in the survey questionnaire itself, interyear comparisons between the figures presented in Table 1 are not practicable. The information is presented solely to provide historical context for the 2007 survey.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 3
rates are critical considerations when a survey utilizes some form of sampling (random or non-random) to determine
who will be asked to participate. For the 2007 judicial performance evaluation survey all attorneys who were
identified as appearing before a judge during the evaluation period were asked to evaluate the judge; no sampling
procedure took place. As such, achieving specific response rates is not critical to validating the results. That being
said, a respectable response rate of 25.5% was obtained for the 2007 survey.4
! more important factor in considering a survey’s validity is the composition of respondents in comparison to the
sampling frame. Differences between the relevant demographic and professional characteristics of attorneys who
participated in the evaluation and attorneys who did not may be an indication of non-response bias. To explore this
possibility demographic and professional information obtained from respondents was compared to corresponding
characteristics of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) membership.5 As seen in Table 2 the demographic
makeup of respondents is similar to the makeup of the WSBA membership.
Table 2: Comparison of Respondent and WSBA Membership Characteristics
Percent of Respondents Percent of WSBA Members
Race
White 88.3% 93.4%
African American 2.8% 1.9%
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.1% NA
Native American .5% .8%
Hispanic/Latino(a) 2.2% 1.6%
Other 2.0% .8%
Gender
Male 63.6% 64.5%
Female 36.4% 35.5%
Practice Size
Sole Practitioner 21.2% 33%
2-5 Attorneys 17.8% 23.1%
6-10 Attorneys 8.6% 9.3%
11-20 Attorneys 8.2% 6.5%
More than 20 Attorneys 44.2% 28.1%
Experience
Less than 10 years 30.3% 41.8%
10 to 20 years 29.1% 27.1%
More than 20 years 40.6% 31.1%
In a judicial performance evaluation it is important to take steps to ensure that only individuals with personal,
firsthand experience with a judge participate in the evaluation. Only attorneys who were believed to have appeared
before a judge during the two years prior to the evaluation were asked to participate in the evaluation. Due to the
imprecision of docket records some attorneys who did not actually appear in court before a judge received evaluation
4 The response rate of 25.5% is a very conservative estimate. Response rates are measured as the percent of people who received requests to complete
surveys who returned completed surveys. With Internet-based surveys that are distributed via e-mail, an unknowable number of people who were sent surveys did not receive them, either due to spam blockers, firewalls, outdated e-mail addresses , or other reasons. A true response rate would be calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of people who received but did not complete surveys: individuals who never received the request would be excluded from this calculation. As these individuals are not knowable, they were included in response rate calculations. As such response rates reported are surely lower and more conservative estimates than an omnisciently calculated rate. 5
Demographic data for WSBA membership was utilized because similar data was not available for any smaller group more likely to appear in front of King County Superior Court judges, such as WSBA members residing in King County, or KCBA members.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 4
materials. In the invitation to complete the survey, and in the survey itself, attorneys were asked not to evaluate a
judge if they did not appear before him or her. Additionally, attorneys were asked to indicate the approximate
number of times they had appeared before the judge being evaluated during the prior two years. Surveys in which
the number of appearances was not indicated were not included in the evaluation (N=98).
As can be seen in Table 3, 82% of respondents reported appearing before the judge in court multiple times during the
two years prior to completing the evaluation. In fact, nearly half of all respondents reported that they appeared in
the judge’s court at least four times during this timeframe; However, it should be noted that a single hearing may
provide a suitable basis for completing an evaluation.
Table 3: Number of Appearances
Number Percent
Once 852 18.0%
2-3 times 1688 35.7%
4-10 times 1286 27.2%
More than 10 times 896 19.0%
Aggregate Description of Respondents
The survey asked attorneys to provide information about themselves and their practice. This data was obtained for
future analysis of response patterns. Characteristics of the attorneys providing survey responses for each judge are
included in the individual results reported for those judges that follow. The characteristics, in aggregate, of the
attorneys participating in the survey are listed in Tables 4-8.
Respondents were asked several questions regarding their practice. Respondents were presented with seven
categories of “practice areas” and asked to indicate which best described their practice; Respondents’ primary areas
of practice are well distributed across the categories offered (see Table 4). Attorneys practicing in the criminal justice
arena accounted for 42% of respondents. The highest single category of respondents is Criminal – Defense at 27.3%,
while prosecutors accounted for nearly 15% of respondents. The civil bar is also well represented, with 9.2% of
respondents indentifying their primary practice as either tort plaintiff or defense. Additionally, roughly 20% of
respondents maintained a general commercial or civil practice; For the 177 respondents who checked “Other,”
guardianship, juvenile dependency, land use, real estate, and employment are frequently mentioned.
Table 4: Primary Area of Practice
Number Percent
Civil Tort--- Defense 436 9.2%
Civil Tort--- Plaintiff 434 9.1%
Criminal--- Defense 1296 27.3%
Criminal--- Prosecution 698 14.7%
General Civil 956 20.1%
Domestic Relations 531 11.2%
Government Practice 218 4.6%
Other 177 3.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 5
Relatedly, respondents were asked to describe the type of office in which they worked (see Table 5). A majority of
respondents (60%) practice in the private sector; !nother third of the attorneys work for either a prosecutor’s office
or a public defense agency.
Table 5: Work Setting
Number Percent
Prosecuting Attorney 790 16.6%
Attorney General 140 2.9%
Public Defender 809 17.0%
Legal Aid 35 0.7%
In House Corporate Counsel 56 1.2%
Private Practice 2852 60.0%
Other 74 1.6%
Attorneys were also asked how long they have been practicing law. Attorneys with less than ten years of experience
and attorneys with between ten and twenty years of experience each made up roughly thirty percent of respondents.
The other forty percent of respondents reported that they have practiced law for more than twenty years.
Table 6: Number of Years Practicing Law
Number Percent
Less than 10 years 1449 30.3% 10 to 20 years 1393 29.1% More than 20 years 1942 40.6%
In conducting an evaluation survey it is important to take steps to assure that results generated are not based on
gender or racial bias. While the survey was designed to minimize this risk, the potential for such factors can never be
eliminated. To facilitate the analysis of such factors for consideration in future evaluation surveys, information
regarding the race and gender of each respondent were requested. These figures are presented in Table 7 and Table
8.
Table 7: Respondent Racial Background
Number Percent
Caucasian/White 3944 87.9%African American/Black 127 2.8%Hispanic/Latino(a) 104 2.3%Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 181 4.0%Native American 41 .9%Other 90 2.0%
Table 8: Respondent Gender
Number Percent
Male 2925 63.8%Female 1660 36.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 6
Summary of Results Aggregating All Judges
For the 2007 survey, there were five possible responses to each survey question: unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very
good, and excellent. Overall, most attorneys – over 70% – rated the performance of judges in each of the four
evaluation categories as either “excellent” or “very good” (see Table 9). A similar percentage of the responses to
individual questions within those areas fell into the categories “very good” and “excellent.” Furthermore, the percent
of “positive” responses (acceptable or better) ranged from 95% for judicial demeanor to 90% for integrity and
impartiality. Overall, respondents see the Superior Court to be well above average on each of the evaluative criteria.
Table 9: Aggregate Results
No. of responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Legal Decision Making 18580 3.1% 6.3% 16.1% 27.2% 47.3%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues 4681 3.9% 7.3% 16.1% 27.6% 45.2%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure 4517 3.5% 7.0% 16.9% 28.8% 43.8%
Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and 4698 3.3% 7.8% 15.9% 26.6% 46.4%
concise manner
Was prepared for court 4684 1.8% 3.1% 15.5% 25.7% 53.8%
Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication 18798 2.1% 3.6% 12.8% 22.2% 59.3%
Treated people with courtesy and respect 4713 3.5% 4.3% 11.4% 20.0% 60.8%
Was attentive to proceedings 4707 1.0% 2.7% 12.2% 21.9% 62.2%
Acted with patience and self-control 4694 3.0% 4.4% 13.1% 21.8% 57.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court 4684 .9% 3.1% 14.5% 24.9% 56.6%
Administrative Skills 18456 1.7% 3.4% 15.7% 28.7% 50.5%
Maintained control the courtroom 4628 .6% 2.0% 14.9% 29.6% 52.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines 4491 2.5% 4.6% 15.9% 29.1% 47.9%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner 4676 2.0% 3.4% 16.0% 27.4% 51.2%
Used the court’s time efficiently 4661 1.6% 4.0% 15.8% 28.6% 50.0%
Integrity and Impartiality 18719 3.9% 5.5% 13.1% 20.2% 57.3%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety 4683 3.0% 4.0% 13.2% 20.7% 59.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench 4729 3.8% 6.5% 13.6% 20.5% 55.6%
Based rulings on the facts and the law 4679 5.8% 8.3% 14.8% 20.8% 50.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal 4628 3.0% 3.3% 10.8% 18.9% 64.0% personal characteristic
As noted above, composite indexes were also computed for the four areas of evaluation. The average ratings
received for each item and category are presented in Table 10. While the results are similar to those presented in
Table 9, the average score provides another method for members of the bar and the public to consider a judge’s
performance on the bench.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 7
Table 10: Aggregate Average Ratings
Item Average Category Average
Legal Decision Making
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner
Was prepared for court
4.03
4.02
4.05
4.26
4.06
Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication
Treated people with courtesy and respect
Was attentive to proceedings
Acted with patience and self-control
Used clear oral communication while in court
4.30
4.41
4.26
4.33
4.32
Administrative Skills
Maintained control over the courtroom
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner
Used the court's time efficiently
4.32
4.15
4.22
4.21
4.22
Integrity and Impartiality
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench
Based rulings on the facts and the law
Treated all individuals equally and without bias
4.29
4.18
4.01
4.37
4.19
In looking at the results, one can easily see that members of the bar have a very positive view of the King County
Superior Court bench. This comes as no surprise: attorneys have evaluated the Superior Court well above average
throughout the decade (see Table 11, below). Data available from surveys since 1991 show that this high assessment
of the Superior Court, at least for overall performance, extends back well over a decade.
In examining Table 11 it is obvious that on aggregate judges were rated higher in 2007 than in previous surveys. This
observation should be made with caution. As with Table 1, comparisons between the figures presented in Table 11
for the 2007 survey and for prior years are not practicable. Measures for the categories listed in the table were
obtained using different questions, different survey delivery and return procedures, and different identification of
eligible attorneys.
The higher 2007 ratings may be due to several factors. One possibility, of course, is that the bench on the whole
indeed is measurably better. More plausibly, the higher ratings may be the result of the methodological changes
implemented for the 2007 survey.6
Specifically, having attorneys answer multiple questions for each category may
have led to more reflective, behavior-based assessments than was possible in prior years, when each category was
measured with only one question. Another possibility is that by delivering surveys only to attorneys who appeared
before a judge, evaluations were more likely to be based on actual observations rather than rumor or courthouse
6 It is possible that had the 2007 survey methods been used in prior years, similar, or even higher ratings for the bench would have been present.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 8
scuttlebutt. Also, attorneys were asked to base their evaluations on relatively recent appearances, as compared to
the four-year period covered by prior surveys. That might have eliminated evaluators who some years earlier had a
negative experience before a judge and who since have exercised an affidavit of prejudice. Another change from
prior years is that survey questionnaires dealt with only one judge at a time. This may have provided for more
considered evaluations of each individual judge. More simply, a questionnaire dealing with a single judge, rather
than one listing more than fifty, may have resulted in the evaluator perceiving that, on average, higher ratings were
appropriate. However, these are only observations of possibilities regarding the higher scores seen in 2007; absent
further inquiry, the basis for them will only be speculation.
Table 11: !ggregate “Positive” Evaluations, 1991 to 2007
Year Legal Decision Judicial Efficiency and Integrity and Making Demeanor Administrative Skills Impartiality
1991 82% 88% 88%
1995 81% 86% 87%
1999 85% 87% 89%
2003 84% 87% 88%
2007 91% 95% 94% 90%
Positive evaluations for 1991-2003 are “satisfactory,” “adequate,” or “acceptable,” and above. Positive evaluations for 2007 are “acceptable” and above, i.e., “acceptable,” “very good,” or “excellent.”
Summary of Results for Individual Judges
Tables 12-15, which appear on the following eight pages, present summaries of the results for the 51 judges of the
King County Superior Court who were evaluated. Each table provides results for one of the four areas surveyed (Legal
Decision Making; Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication; Administrative Skills; and Integrity and
Impartiality), including the number of valid evaluations received for each judge and the percentage of responses to
individual questions that gave the judge a rating of “unacceptable,” “poor,” “acceptable,” “very good,” and
“excellent;”
No attempt has been made in this report to present evaluation results in “ranked” numerical order; The ratings for
individual judges are an indication of performance. They are not of such infallible precision as to permit one to
differentiate small differences in ratings. While it is possible to calculate very precise values, this does not mean that
similarly precise distinctions exist between or among judges. An average rating for a particular question or survey
area of 4.2, for example, is numerically higher than an average of 4.1. The difference of 0.1 points, however, does not
justify viewing the performance of the former as significantly better than the latter.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 9
Table 12: Results for Individual Judges – Legal Decision Making
In the area Legal Decision Making, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure
Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise manner
Was prepared for court
Armstrong, Sharon
Barnett, Suzanne
Canova, Greg
Carey, Cheryl
Cayce, James
Clark, Patricia
Darvas, Andrea
Doerty, James
Downing, William
Doyle, Theresa
DuBuque, Joan
Eadie, Richard
Erlick, John
Fleck, Deborah
Fox, Michael
Gain, Brian
Gonzalez, Steven
Hall, Glenna
Halpert, Helen
Hayden, Michael
Heavey, Michael
Hilyer, Bruce
Hubbard, Philip
Responses
163
113
127
66
80
52
74
68
131
148
134
57
126
88
89
78
85
79
96
156
56
109
60
Unacceptable
2%
8%
3%
2%
3%
9%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
1%
<1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
3%
4%
3%
8%
2%
1%
RATING SCALE
Excellent
Very Good
Acceptable
Poor
Unacceptable
Poor
3%
11%
6%
3%
6%
25%
3%
2%
1%
8%
3%
9%
2%
4%
2%
6%
5%
12%
9%
6%
21%
5%
7%
5
4
3
2
1
Acceptable
9%
23%
16%
14%
17%
46%
18%
11%
10%
17%
12%
19%
5%
13%
5%
14%
15%
25%
15%
19%
34%
18%
21%
Very Good
27%
29%
25%
34%
28%
11%
26%
23%
26%
31%
23%
36%
30%
29%
26%
31%
21%
32%
32%
31%
15%
25%
39%
Excellent
58%
29%
51%
47%
46%
9%
48%
60%
60%
41%
58%
35%
63%
53%
66%
46%
57%
28%
40%
41%
22%
51%
32%
Acceptable Average or Above (1-5 scale)
95% 4.37
81% 3.60
91% 4.16
95% 4.21
91% 4.07
66% 2.87
93% 4.11
94% 4.33
96% 4.41
89% 4.01
96% 4.30
90% 3.95
98% 4.53
95% 4.29
97% 4.53
91% 4.12
93% 4.28
85% 3.67
87% 3.94
91% 4.01
71% 3.22
93% 4.17
92% 3.93
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 10
Responses Unacceptable Poor
Inveen, Laura 94 <1% 3%
Jones, Richard 114 3% 6%
Kallas, Paris 152 3% 2%
Kessler, Ronald 73 0% 4%
Lau, Linda 158 2% 7%
Lum, Dean 35 4% 8%
MacInnes, Nicole 121 5% 11%
Mattson, George 117 1% 3%
McBroom, Douglas 100 9% 11%
McCarthy, Harry 98 2% 5%
McCullough, LeRoy 42 4% 11%
McDermott, Richard 69 2% 3%
Mertel, Charles 157 4% 7%
Middaugh, Laura 85 2% 13%
North, Douglass 102 2% 5%
Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 0% 3%
Roberts, Mary 87 8% 13%
Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 3%
Rogers, Jim 123 4% 3%
Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 2% 6%
Schapira, Carol 61 7% 10%
Shaffer, Catherine 100 6% 8%
Spearman, Michael 45 2% <1%
Spector, Julie 118 7% 8%
Trickey, Michael 30 <1% 0%
Washington, Chris 82 7% 13%
White, Jay 90 2% 6%
Yu, Mary 158 1% 5%
Acceptable Very Good Excellent Acceptable
or Above Average
(1-5 scale)
18% 34% 44% 96% 4.18
9% 12% 70% 91% 4.40
11% 28% 56% 95% 4.32
13% 28% 54% 96% 4.31
14% 25% 52% 91% 4.18
24% 22% 43% 89% 3.91
20% 23% 41% 84% 3.85
9% 27% 59% 95% 4.41
23% 24% 34% 80% 3.62
20% 24% 49% 93% 4.14
24% 28% 33% 85% 3.75
14% 24% 57% 95% 4.30
16% 31% 42% 89% 3.99
24% 40% 21% 85% 3.64
17% 36% 40% 93% 4.08
15% 24% 59% 97% 4.38
16% 30% 33% 79% 3.67
8% 32% 56% 96% 4.39
10% 27% 56% 93% 4.30
17% 29% 46% 92% 4.09
29% 23% 30% 83% 3.58
23% 21% 42% 86% 3.83
11% 40% 46% 97% 4.27
15% 22% 48% 85% 3.95
3% 17% 79% 99% 4.72
29% 29% 22% 80% 3.47
21% 29% 42% 92% 4.03
14% 24% 56% 94% 4.29
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 11
Table 13: Results for Individual Judges – Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication
In the area Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the
following four criteria:
Treated people with courtesy and respect
Was attentive to proceedings
Acted with patience and self-control
Used clear oral communication while in court
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5
Very Good 4
Acceptable 3
Poor 2
Unacceptable 1
Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good Excellent
Armstrong, Sharon 163 <1% 2% 6% 19% 73%
Barnett, Suzanne 113 4% 5% 13% 27% 51%
Canova, Greg 127 3% 5% 16% 25% 51%
Carey, Cheryl 66 <1% <1% 5% 18% 77%
Cayce, James 80 2% 3% 9% 25% 61%
Clark, Patricia 52 19% 20% 34% 16% 11%
Darvas, Andrea 74 0% 1% 13% 15% 71%
Doerty, James 68 <1% 2% 8% 15% 74%
Downing, William 131 1% 3% 11% 16% 69%
Doyle, Theresa 148 1% 2% 10% 22% 65%
DuBuque, Joan 134 2% 3% 14% 23% 58%
Eadie, Richard 57 0% 4% 14% 25% 57%
Erlick, John 126 <1% 1% 3% 16% 80%
Fleck, Deborah 88 0% <1% 7% 27% 66%
Fox, Michael 89 1% 1% 4% 22% 73%
Gain, Brian 78 0% <1% 8% 29% 62%
Gonzalez, Steven 85 1% 1% 10% 21% 67%
Hall, Glenna 79 6% 7% 21% 28% 38%
Halpert, Helen 96 4% 6% 19% 31% 40%
Hayden, Michael 156 4% 6% 21% 33% 36%
Heavey, Michael 56 2% 12% 29% 23% 34%
Hilyer, Bruce 109 2% 3% 16% 18% 60%
Hubbard, Philip 60 0% 2% 8% 22% 68%
Acceptable Average or Above (1-5 scale)
98% 4.63
91% 4.15
92% 4.22
99% 4.68
95% 4.40
61% 2.78
99% 4.60
97% 4.51
96% 4.51
97% 4.49
95% 4.30
96% 4.36
99% 4.76
99% 4.58
98% 4.66
99% 4.52
98% 4.53
87% 3.86
90% 3.98
90% 3.92
86% 3.75
95% 4.31
98% 4.57
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 12
Responses Unacceptable Poor
Inveen, Laura 94 0% 1%
Jones, Richard 114 0% 2%
Kallas, Paris 152 2% 2%
Kessler, Ronald 73 8% 11%
Lau, Linda 158 2% 4%
Lum, Dean 35 3% 0%
MacInnes, Nicole 121 3% 6%
Mattson, George 117 <1% 3%
McBroom, Douglas 100 3% 6%
McCarthy, Harry 98 0% 1%
McCullough, LeRoy 42 1% 5%
McDermott, Richard 69 <1% 2%
Mertel, Charles 157 <1% 1%
Middaugh, Laura 85 5% 11%
North, Douglass 102 <1% 1%
Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 0% 1%
Roberts, Mary 87 7% 8%
Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 1%
Rogers, Jim 123 2% 1%
Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 2% 8%
Schapira, Carol 61 5% 7%
Shaffer, Catherine 100 7% 7%
Spearman, Michael 45 0% 0%
Spector, Julie 118 5% 6%
Trickey, Michael 30 0% 0%
Washington, Chris 82 1% 2%
White, Jay 90 1% 2%
Yu, Mary 158 2% 4%
Very Good Excellent Acceptable
or Above Average
(1-5 scale)
11% 28% 59% 99% 4.47
7% 13% 78% 98% 4.66
9% 23% 64% 96% 4.46
32% 24% 25% 81% 3.48
12% 19% 63% 96% 4.39
13% 24% 60% 97% 4.38
17% 25% 49% 91% 4.11
16% 28% 52% 96% 4.28
16% 23% 52% 91% 4.17
6% 18% 75% 99% 4.68
10% 28% 56% 94% 4.34
4% 18% 75% 97% 4.66
13% 21% 64% 98% 4.47
22% 28% 33% 83% 3.76
14% 27% 58% 99% 4.41
8% 24% 67% 99% 4.58
19% 27% 39% 85% 3.82
5% 23% 71% 99% 4.62
4% 14% 79% 97% 4.67
15% 14% 61% 90% 4.24
25% 23% 40% 88% 3.85
21% 24% 41% 86% 3.83
16% 26% 70% 100% 4.66
3% 18% 54% 88% 4.11
16% 6% 91% 100% 4.87
11% 26% 54% 96% 4.29
11% 24% 62% 97% 4.43
4% 18% 65% 94% 4.40
Acceptable
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 13
Table 14: Results for Individual Judges – Administrative Skills
In the area Administrative Skills, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:
Maintained control the courtroom
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner
Used the court’s time efficiently
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5
Very Good 4
Acceptable 3
Poor 2
Unacceptable 1
Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable
Armstrong, Sharon 163 1% 2% 8%
Barnett, Suzanne 113 4% 6% 22%
Canova, Greg 127 1% 2% 17%
Carey, Cheryl 66 1% 1% 13%
Cayce, James 80 1% 2% 15%
Clark, Patricia 52 5% 12% 33%
Darvas, Andrea 74 3% 2% 21%
Doerty, James 68 2% 2% 13%
Downing, William 131 1% 1% 9%
Doyle, Theresa 148 <1% 2% 16%
DuBuque, Joan 134 1% 1% 10%
Eadie, Richard 57 0% 5% 15%
Erlick, John 126 1% 1% 8%
Fleck, Deborah 88 1% 2% 10%
Fox, Michael 89 <1% 1% 7%
Gain, Brian 78 <1% 2% 11%
Gonzalez, Steven 85 0% 2% 12%
Hall, Glenna 79 3% 6% 23%
Halpert, Helen 96 2% 5% 23%
Hayden, Michael 156 2% 3% 15%
Heavey, Michael 56 3% 11% 33%
Hilyer, Bruce 109 1% 3% 19%
Hubbard, Philip 60 0% 0% 13%
Very Good
27%
34%
24%
28%
33%
20%
35%
23%
24%
33%
25%
28%
26%
32%
27%
40%
22%
38%
30%
35%
20%
26%
41%
Excellent
62%
34%
56%
56%
49%
50%
39%
60%
65%
48%
62%
46%
64%
54%
64%
46%
64%
30%
40%
45%
33%
51%
46%
Acceptable Average or Above (1-5 scale)
97% 4.46
90% 3.88
97% 4.31
97% 4.37
97% 4.27
93% 3.58
95% 4.05
96% 4.38
98% 4.53
98% 4.29
97% 4.45
95% 4.22
98% 4.52
97% 4.37
98% 4.53
97% 4.29
98% 4.49
91% 3.86
93% 3.98
95% 4.19
86% 3.67
96% 4.23
100% 4.32
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 14
Responses Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Inveen, Laura 94 <1% 3% 15% 35%
Jones, Richard 114 1% 3% 7% 18%
Kallas, Paris 152 1% 2% 13% 27%
Kessler, Ronald 73 0% 3% 13% 31%
Lau, Linda 158 2% 5% 16% 27%
Lum, Dean 35 4% 5% 10% 30%
MacInnes, Nicole 121 2% 4% 18% 30%
Mattson, George 117 3% 2% 11% 28%
McBroom, Douglas 100 5% 9% 22% 26%
McCarthy, Harry 98 <1% 4% 14% 30%
McCullough, LeRoy 42 3% 6% 29% 21%
McDermott, Richard 69 1% 2% 10% 27%
Mertel, Charles 157 1% 3% 19% 26%
Middaugh, Laura 85 3% 6% 26% 38%
North, Douglass 102 1% 2% 15% 41%
Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 1% 4% 12% 32%
Roberts, Mary 87 5% 5% 22% 32%
Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 2% 9% 28%
Rogers, Jim 123 2% 4% 9% 25%
Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 2% 3% 19% 25%
Schapira, Carol 61 4% 8% 27% 30%
Shaffer, Catherine 100 4% 5% 22% 22%
Spearman, Michael 45 3% 2% 4% 42%
Spector, Julie 118 2% 5% 18% 23%
Trickey, Michael 30 3% 0% 3% 14%
Washington, Chris 82 3% 10% 27% 35%
White, Jay 90 1% 5% 21% 27%
Yu, Mary 158 1% 1% 16% 28%
Excellent
47%
71%
57%
53%
50%
51%
46%
56%
38%
52%
41%
60%
51%
27%
42%
52%
36%
61%
60%
54%
31%
47%
49%
52%
83%
25%
46%
54%
Acceptableor Above
97%
96%
97%
97%
93%
91%
94%
95%
86%
96%
90%
97%
96%
91%
97%
96%
90%
98%
94%
95%
88%
91%
95%
93%
97%
87%
94%
98%
Average (1-5 scale)
4.25
4.55
4.38
4.35
4.18
4.18
4.14
4.33
3.83
4.30
3.92
4.44
4.22
3.81
4.24
4.31
3.88
4.46
4.39
4.23
3.75
3.96
4.32
4.19
4.67
3.69
4.11
4.39
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 15
Table 15: Results for Individual Judges – Integrity and Impartiality
In the area Integrity and Impartiality, survey participants were asked to rate judges using each of the following four criteria:
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench
Based rulings on the facts and the law
Treated individuals equally and without bias based on race, gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal characteristic
Armstrong, Sharon
Barnett, Suzanne
Canova, Greg
Carey, Cheryl
Cayce, James
Clark, Patricia
Darvas, Andrea
Doerty, James
Downing, William
Doyle, Theresa
DuBuque, Joan
Eadie, Richard
Erlick, John
Fleck, Deborah
Fox, Michael
Gain, Brian
Gonzalez, Steven
Hall, Glenna
Halpert, Helen
Hayden, Michael
Heavey, Michael
Hilyer, Bruce
Hubbard, Philip
Responses
163
113
127
66
80
52
74
68
131
148
134
57
126
88
89
78
85
79
96
156
56
109
60
Unacceptable
2%
9%
4%
1%
3%
15%
1%
3%
2%
2%
4%
1%
1%
1%
3%
2%
4%
6%
5%
6%
11%
3%
<1%
RATING SCALE
Excellent
Very Good
Acceptable
Poor
Unacceptable
Poor
3%
10%
8%
2%
4%
23%
3%
2%
4%
4%
3%
7%
2%
4%
1%
2%
7%
10%
8%
8%
9%
6%
2%
5
4
3
2
1
Acceptable
9%
18%
16%
14%
15%
32%
14%
12%
10%
11%
10%
14%
4%
8%
4%
13%
9%
18%
13%
16%
30%
15%
15%
Very Good
19%
17%
18%
20%
22%
13%
24%
16%
17%
22%
21%
23%
21%
20%
17%
29%
15%
29%
30%
28%
13%
16%
24%
Excellent
66%
45%
54%
63%
55%
17%
57%
67%
67%
61%
62%
54%
72%
66%
75%
53%
64%
37%
44%
42%
37%
60%
59%
Acceptable Average or Above (1-5 scale)
95% 4.44
80% 3.79
88% 4.07
97% 4.42
93% 4.21
62% 2.95
96% 4.31
95% 4.44
94% 4.42
94% 4.35
93% 4.33
92% 4.21
97% 4.63
95% 4.44
96% 4.62
96% 4.29
88% 4.29
84% 3.82
87% 4.00
86% 3.91
80% 3.56
91% 4.23
98% 4.39
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 16
Responses Unacceptable Poor
Inveen, Laura 94 0% 5%
Jones, Richard 114 3% 5%
Kallas, Paris 152 2% 4%
Kessler, Ronald 73 3% 6%
Lau, Linda 158 2% 7%
Lum, Dean 35 3% 2%
MacInnes, Nicole 121 6% 10%
Mattson, George 117 2% 2%
McBroom, Douglas 100 6% 6%
McCarthy, Harry 98 2% 3%
McCullough, LeRoy 42 2% 9%
McDermott, Richard 69 4% 2%
Mertel, Charles 157 5% 6%
Middaugh, Laura 85 5% 9%
North, Douglass 102 2% 4%
Ramsdell, Jeffrey 64 0% 4%
Roberts, Mary 87 11% 9%
Robinson, Palmer 53 <1% 4%
Rogers, Jim 123 5% 3%
Saint Clair, J. Wesley 58 5% 4%
Schapira, Carol 61 7% 11%
Shaffer, Catherine 100 10% 12%
Spearman, Michael 45 3% <1%
Spector, Julie 118 8% 8%
Trickey, Michael 30 0% 1%
Washington, Chris 82 6% 7%
White, Jay 90 4% 3%
Yu, Mary 158 3% 7%
Very Good Excellent Acceptable
or Above Average
(1-5 scale)
12% 25% 58% 95% 4.36
6% 9% 77% 92% 4.53
12% 19% 64% 95% 4.39
19% 20% 52% 91% 4.12
13% 20% 58% 91% 4.24
15% 24% 55% 95% 4.27
13% 17% 53% 84% 4.00
12% 21% 63% 96% 4.43
17% 22% 49% 88% 4.01
12% 18% 65% 95% 4.41
20% 14% 56% 91% 4.12
9% 19% 65% 94% 4.41
14% 18% 57% 89% 4.17
23% 25% 38% 86% 3.83
14% 29% 51% 91% 4.22
9% 24% 63% 96% 4.49
13% 20% 47% 80% 3.83
9% 15% 72% 96% 4.54
8% 16% 68% 92% 4.40
14% 19% 57% 91% 4.21
23% 23% 37% 83% 3.73
20% 18% 40% 80% 3.67
5% 26% 66% 97% 4.51
14% 19% 51% 84% 3.96
2% 8% 89% 99% 4.86
18% 25% 44% 87% 3.94
12% 19% 62% 93% 4.32
10% 21% 59% 90% 4.27
Acceptable
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 17
Detailed Results for Individual Judges
Appendices B-1 through B-51 provide detailed survey results for each of the individual judges who were the subject of
the judicial performance survey. The detailed report for each individual judge provides 1) the number of survey
invitations sent out and the number of respondents who participated in the survey; 2) a bar chart summarizing the
survey results for each of the four areas surveyed, expressing the results in a numerical (1-5) scale; 3) a table showing
a) the numerical average on a 1-5 scale of the responses and b) the percentage for each possible response
(unacceptable, poor, acceptable, very good, or excellent), for each individual question in the survey and for the four
survey areas; and 4) characteristics of the attorneys who responded to the survey for that individual judge.
Conclusion
The results of the 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey present a strongly favorable assessment of the judges of the King
County Superior Court. Overall, judges received positive ratings (acceptable and above) more than nearly 90% of the
time. The overall evaluations of the judges are consistent across respondent years of active practice, principal types
of practice, and number of appearances before the Court. Individual judges, for the most part, received positive
ratings.
Bibliography
American Bar Association (2005). Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Brody, D.C. (2004); “The Relationship Between Judicial Performance Evaluations and Judicial Elections,” Judicature, 87: 168-177.
Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (2006). Transparent Courthouse: A Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation. Denver: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
Jacobs, R;, D; Kafry, and S; Zedeck (1980); “Expectations of �ehaviorally !nchored Rating Scales,” Personnel Psychology, 33: 595-637.
Schmidt, F.L. and L;�; Kaplan (1971); “�omposite vs; Multiple �riteria: ! Review and Resolution of the �ontroversy,” Personnel Psychology, 24: 419-434.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page 18
Appendix A: Questionnaire
The following four pages contain a copy of the questionnaire for the 2007 Evaluation Survey.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page A-1
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM
Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judge ___________
In an effort to maintain a high caliber judiciary and provide meaningful information to the citizens
of King County, the King County Bar Association is conducting judicial performance evaluations
of the King County Superior Court bench. The evaluations are designed to educate the public
about the many qualities that make a person a good judge, to assist citizens in casting more well-
informed ballots in judicial elections, and to help judges become better jurists by providing
feedback about their performance from attorneys and jurors who have appeared in their court.
As part of this process, attorneys who appeared before JUDGE ____ during the past several years
are being asked to complete a brief questionnaire. As you have had the opportunity to personally
observe the judge on the bench, you are in a position to provide meaningful, reliable information
by completing the attached questionnaire as completely and forthrightly as possible based solely
on your experience appearing before JUDGE ____ during the past two years. If you have not
appeared before the judge during the last two years please disregard this e-mail.
The survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. Your responses will remain totally
confidential and will be attributed to you in no manner. Neither your name nor any other
identifying information will be asked and should not be provided on the questionnaire. Any
potentially personally identifying information will remain confidential and responses will be
reported only in summary form and aggregated with the other attorneys that complete the survey.
When you have completed the survey please return it in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope or
by fax to (509) 358-7933.
Thank you for your participation and effort in this important endeavor.
Michael E. Ricketts
Chair, Judicial Evaluation Committee
This research has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at WSU. If you have any
questions or concerns about this research project, you can contact Professor David Brody at (509) 358-7952
([email protected]). If you have questions about your rights as a participant please contact the WSU IRB at 509-
335-9661 or [email protected].
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page A-2
Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judge ___________
Please rate the judge’s performance, based on your own personal experience during the previous two years,
using the following scale:
A Excellent B Very Good C Acceptable D Poor F Unacceptable
Please answer Don’t Know/Does Not Apply (“DK/DNA”) for any items in which you lack sufficient
information from your own observation to fairly and accurately rate the judge’s performance or items
which do not apply to your interactions with the judge.
A B C D F DK/DNA
Legal Decision Making
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. □ □ □ □ □ □
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. □ □ □ □ □ □
Articulated rulings and grounds for rulings in a clear and concise
manner. □ □ □ □ □ □
Was prepared for court. □ □ □ □ □ □
Demeanor, Temperament, And Communication
Treated people with courtesy and respect. □ □ □ □ □ □
Was attentive to proceedings. □ □ □ □ □ □
Acted with patience and self-control. □ □ □ □ □ □
Used clear oral communication while in court. □ □ □ □ □ □
Administrative Skills
Maintained control over the courtroom. □ □ □ □ □ □
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. □ □ □ □ □ □
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. □ □ □ □ □ □
Used the court's time efficiently. □ □ □ □ □ □
Integrity and Impartiality
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. □ □ □ □ □ □
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. □ □ □ □ □ □
Based rulings on the facts and the law. □ □ □ □ □ □
Treated all individuals equally and without bias based on race,
gender, economic status, or any other extralegal personal □ □ □ □ □ □ characteristic.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page A-3
Background and Demographic Information
How long have you been a practicing attorney?
o LESS THAN 2 YEARS
o 2-10 YEARS
o 10-20 YEARS
o MORE THAN 20 YEARS
Which of the following areas of law best describe your practice? (select up to 2 items)
o CIVIL TORT -- DEFENSE
o CIVIL TORT -- PLAINTIFF
o CRIMINAL -- DEFENSE ATTORNEY
o CRIMINAL -- PROSECUTION
o COMMERCIAL & GENERAL CIVIL
o DOMESTIC RELATIONS/FAMILY LAW
o GOVERNMENT PRACTICE
o OTHER (please specify) ______________________________
Which of the following best describes your work setting?
o PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
o ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
o PUBLIC DEFENDER/DEPARTMENT OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL
o LEGAL AID
o IN HOUSE CORPORATE COUNSEL
o PRIVATE PRACTICE
o OTHER (please specify) ______________________________
How many attorneys are employed by your firm?
o SOLE PRACTITIONER
o 2-5 ATTORNEYS
o 6-10 ATTORNEYS
o 11-20 ATTORNEYS
o GREATER THAN 20 ATTORNEYS
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page A-4
What best describes your racial background? (Please check all that apply)
o CAUCASIAN/WHITE
o AFRICAN AMERICAN/BLACK
o HISPANIC/LATINO(A)
o ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER
o NATIVE AMERICAN
o OTHER (please specify) ______________________
What is your gender?
o MALE
o FEMALE
How many times have you appeared in the Judge’s court over the past two years?
o ONCE
o 2-3 TIMES
o 4-10 TIMES
o MORE THAN 10 TIMES
Comments
Please provide any additional comments, clarifications, or details related to either the items raised in this
questionnaire or the judge’s performance on the bench in the space below. You may use the back of this
page or add additional pages if needed.
Thank you very much for your time and effort.
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page A-5
APPENDIX B
DETAILED RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL JUDGES
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-1
APPENDIX B-1
JUDGE SHARON ARMSTRONG
556 Attorney surveys sent out 163 responses Response Rate 29.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-2
Judge Armstrong AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.37 2% 3% 9% 27% 58%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.34 1.7% 4.3% 7.7% 30.8% 55.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.26 3.4% 5.2% 6.0% 32.8% 52.6%
manner. 4.30 2.5% 5.0% 9.2% 26.1% 57.1%
Was prepared for court. 4.53 2.5% 0 5.1% 26.3% 66.1%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.63 <1% 2% 6% 19% 73%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.61 0 2.5% 6.7% 17.6% 73.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.66 0 1.7% 6.7% 15.1% 76.5%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.54 .8% 3.4% 5.0% 22.7% 68.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.58 0 .8% 10.1% 19.3% 69.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.46 1% 2% 8% 27% 62%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.58 0 .9% 7.0% 25.2% 67.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 2.6% 3.5% 7.8% 27.8% 58.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.37 .9% 3.4% 9.5% 30.2% 56.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.49 2.6% .9% 5.1% 28.2% 63.2%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 2% 3% 9% 19% 66%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.50 4.2% 1.7% 2.5% 23.5% 68.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.34 2.5% 4.2% 11.8% 20.2% 61.3%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.28 3.4% 4.3% 12.1% 21.6% 58.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.54 1.7% 3.4% 6.8% 15.3% 72.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-3
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Armstrong During Previous 2 Years
Once 22 13.7% 2-3 Times 63 39.1% 4-10 Times 48 29.8% More Than 10 Times 28 17.4%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 47 29.0%Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 22 13.6%Criminal -- Defense Attorney 38 23.5%Criminal -- Prosecution 19 11.7%Commercial & General Civil 24 14.8%Domestic Relations/Family Law 3 1.9%Government Practice 4 2.5%Other 5 3.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 13.0% Attorney General's Office 1 0.6% Public Defender 27 16.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 111 68.5% Other 2 1.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 25 15.5% 2-5 Attorneys 26 16.1% 6-10 Attorneys 15 9.3% 11-20 Attorneys 19 11.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 76 47.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-4
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 37 23.1% 10-20 years 54 33.8% More than 20 years 69 43.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 142 91.6% African American/Black 4 2.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 1.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 1.9% Native American 0 0 Other 3 1.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-5
Gender
Male 99 63.5% Female 57 36.5%
APPENDIX B-2
JUDGE SUZANNE BARNETT
357 Attorney surveys sent out 113 responses Response Rate 31.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-6
Judge Barnett AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.60 8% 11% 23% 29% 29%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.49 10.5% 13.3% 21.9% 25.7% 28.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.51 8.9% 11.9% 26.7% 23.8% 28.7%
manner. 3.57 9.4% 11.3% 19.8% 32.1% 27.4%
Was prepared for court. 3.84 4.7% 5.6% 23.4% 33.6% 32.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.15 4% 5% 13% 27% 51%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.14 7.5% 3.7% 11.2% 22.4% 55.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.17 2.8% 5.6% 14.0% 27.1% 50.5%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.14 3.8% 6.7% 11.4% 27.6% 50.5%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.17 .9% 5.6% 15.9% 30.8% 46.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.88 4% 6% 22% 34% 34%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.05 2.9% 3.8% 19.0% 34.3% 40.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.76 6.8% 7.8% 19.4% 35.0% 31.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.85 2.9% 7.7% 24.0% 32.7% 32.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.87 2.9% 4.9% 26.5% 33.3% 32.4%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.79 9% 10% 18% 17% 45%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.92 5.7% 7.5% 23.6% 15.1% 48.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.79 8.3% 11.1% 19.4% 15.7% 45.4%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.49 13.3% 16.2% 16.2% 17.1% 37.1%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.00 7.7% 6.7% 14.4% 20.2% 51.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-7
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Barnett During Previous 2 Years
Once 18 16.8% 2-3 Times 37 34.6% 4-10 Times 30 28.0% More Than 10 Times 22 20.6%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 4 3.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 6 5.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 26 23.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 19 17.4% Commercial & General Civil 17 15.6% Domestic Relations/Family Law 31 28.4% Government Practice 3 2.8% Other 3 2.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 18.3% Attorney General's Office 3 2.8% Public Defender 22 20.2% Legal Aid 3 2.8% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 60 55.0% Other 1 0.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 27 24.8% 2-5 Attorneys 19 17.4% 6-10 Attorneys 8 7.3% 11-20 Attorneys 5 4.6% More Than 20 Attorneys 50 45.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-8
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 34 34.8% 10-20 years 35 32.1% More than 20 years 36 33.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 91 85.0% African American/Black 4 3.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 5.6% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 2.8% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-9
Gender
Male 61 55.0% Female 50 45.0%
APPENDIX B-3
JUDGE GREG CANOVA
518 Attorney surveys sent out 127 responses Response Rate 24.5%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-10
Judge Canova AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.16 3% 6% 16% 25% 51%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.09 2.4% 7.3% 16.9% 25.8% 47.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.11 2.4% 6.5% 18.7% 22.0% 50.4%
manner. 4.11 4.0% 7.2% 12.8% 25.6% 50.4%
Was prepared for court. 4..34 1.6% 1.6% 14.5% 25.8% 56.5%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.22 3% 5% 16% 25% 51%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.97 8.1% 6.5% 11.3% 29.0% 45.2%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.30 .8% 3.2% 16.9% 23.4% 55.6%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.06 4.8% 6.5% 16.1% 23.4% 49.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.28 0 3.3 % 19.5% 22.8% 54.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.31 1% 2% 17% 24% 56%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.39 .8% 0 16.4% 24.8% 57.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.26 2.6% 2.6% 14.0% 27.2% 53.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.30 1.6% 2.4% 17.6% 21.6% 56.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.31 0 3.2% 18.5% 22.6% 55.6%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.07 4% 8% 16% 18% 54%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.19 3.3% 4.9% 16.4% 20.5% 24.9%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.99 4.1% 10.6% 17.1% 18.7% 49.6%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.96 4.8% 9.6% 20.0% 16.0% 49.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.31 2.5% 7.6% 9.2% 17.6% 63.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-11
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Canova During Previous 2 Years
Once 16 12.9% 2-3 Times 49 39.5% 4-10 Times 40 32.3% More Than 10 Times 19 15.3%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 9 7.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 9 7.1% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 37 29.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 33 26.0% Commercial & General Civil 33 26.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 3.1% Government Practice 2 1.6% Other 0 0
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 33 26.2% Attorney General's Office 2 1.6% Public Defender 24 19.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 67 53.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 25 19.7% 2-5 Attorneys 15 11.8% 6-10 Attorneys 7 5.5% 11-20 Attorneys 9 7.1% More Than 20 Attorneys 71 55.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-12
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 44 34.7% 10-20 years 31 24.4% More than 20 years 52 40.9 %
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 103 89.6% African American/Black 1 .9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 1.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 4.3% Native American 2 1.7% Other 2 1.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-13
Gender
Male 86 71.7% Female 34 28.3%
APPENDIX B-4
JUDGE CHERYL CAREY
66 Attorney surveys sent out 171 responses Response Rate 38.6%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-14
Judge Carey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.21 2% 3% 14% 34% 47%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.24 1.6% 3.2% 14.3% 31.7% 49.2%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.11 0 4.9% 18.0% 37.7% 39.3%
manner. 4.11 3.1% 3.1% 16.9% 33.8% 43.1%
Was prepared for court. 4.42 1.6% 0 9.4% 32.8% 56.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.68 <1% 1% 5% 18% 77%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.71 0 1.5% 1.5% 21.5% 75.4%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.72 0 0 6.2% 15.4% 78.5%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.69 0 0 6.2% 18.5% 75.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.60 1.5% 1.5% 6.2% 16.9% 73.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.37 1% 1% 13% 28% 56%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.47 0 1.6% 6.5% 35.5% 56.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 1.6% 0 13.1% 31.1% 54.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.34 1.6% 1.6% 15.6% 23.4% 57.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.35 1.6% 0 17.5% 23.8% 57.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.42 1% 2% 14% 20% 63%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.54 1.5% 0 9.2% 21.5% 67.7%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.38 1.5% 1.5% 13.8% 23.1% 60.0%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.25 0 6.3% 17.5% 20.6% 55.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.55 0 0 15.6% 14.1% 70.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-15
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Carey During Previous 2 Years
Once 8 12.3% 2-3 Times 28 43.1% 4-10 Times 22 33.8% More Than 10 Times 7 10.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 1 1.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 1.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 15 22.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 14 21.2% Commercial & General Civil 11 16.7% Domestic Relations/Family Law 22 33.3% Government Practice 1 1.5% Other 1 1.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 22 33.3% Attorney General's Office 3 4.5% Public Defender 10 15.2% Legal Aid 2 3.0% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 2 43.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 12 18.2% 2-5 Attorneys 7 10.6% 6-10 Attorneys 3 4.5% 11-20 Attorneys 3 4.5% More Than 20 Attorneys 41 62.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-16
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 24 36.3% 10-20 years 21 31.8% More than 20 years 21 31.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 56 88.9% African American/Black 2 3.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 6.3% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-17
Gender
Male 31 49.2% Female 32 50.8%
APPENDIX B-5 JUDGE JAMES CAYCE
80 Attorney surveys sent out 316 responses Response Rate 25.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-18
Judge Cayce AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.07 3% 6% 17% 28% 46%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.03 3.8% 7.5% 13.8% 32.5% 42.5%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.01 2.7% 5.4% 23.0% 25.7% 43.2%
manner. 4.04 3.8% 7.5% 17.5% 23.8% 47.5%
Was prepared for court. 4.24 1.3% 3.8% 15.2% 29.1% 50.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.40 2% 3% 9% 25% 61%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.38 2.5% 3.8% 8.9% 22.8% 62.0%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.53 1.3% 0 10.1% 21.5% 67.1%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.28 2.6% 5.1% 11.5% 23.1% 57.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.39 1.3% 2.5% 7.6% 32.9% 55.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.27 1% 2% 15% 33% 49%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.39 0 0 14.3% 32.5% 53.2%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.23 1.4% 2.7% 15.1% 32.9% 47.9%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.20 1.3% 3.8% 16.3% 31.3% 47.5%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.27 1.3% 2.6% 13.0% 33.8% 49.4%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.21 3% 4% 15% 22% 55%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.31 2.5% 1.3% 13.8% 27.5% 55.0%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.09 5.0% 5.0% 17.5% 21.3% 51.3%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.97 5.1% 7.6% 19.0% 21.5% 46.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.47 1.3% 3.8% 10.1% 16.5% 68.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-19
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Cayce During Previous 2 Years
Once 14 17.7% 2-3 Times 17 21.5% 4-10 Times 24 30.4% More Than 10 Times 24 30.4%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 4 5.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 6 7.6% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 32 40.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 17 21.5% Commercial & General Civil 10 12.7% Domestic Relations/Family Law 3 3.8% Government Practice 5 6.3% Other 2 2.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 17 21.5% Attorney General's Office 5 6.3% Public Defender 17 21.5% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.3% Private Practice 39 49.4%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 22 28.2% 2-5 Attorneys 12 15.4% 6-10 Attorneys 5 6.4% 11-20 Attorneys 4 5.1% More Than 20 Attorneys 35 44.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-20
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 26 32.9% 10-20 years 25 31.6% More than 20 years 28 35.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 67 93.1% African American/Black 2 2.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 4.2% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-21
Gender
Male 46 59.7% Female 31 40.3%
APPENDIX B-6
JUDGE PATRICIA CLARK
119 Attorney surveys sent out 52 responses Response Rate 43.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-22
Judge Clark AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 2.87 9% 25% 46% 11% 9%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 2.84 6.1% 32.7% 38.8% 16.3% 6.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
2.65 12.2% 32.7% 40.8% 6.1% 8.2%
manner. 2.73 11.8% 29.4% 41.2% 9.8% 7.8%
Was prepared for court. 3.26 4.0% 6.0% 64.0% 12.0% 14.0%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 2.78 19% 20% 34% 16% 11%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2.22 33.3% 31.4% 21.6% 7.8% 5.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 3.49 3.9% 7.8% 39.2% 33.3% 15.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 2.06 35.3% 29.4% 29.4% 5.9% 0
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.35 5.9% 11.8% 45.1% 15.7% 21.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.58 5% 12% 33% 20% 50%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.04 2.0% 3.9% 27.5% 21.6% 45.1%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.16 12.0% 22.0% 26.0% 18.0% 22.0%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.62 2.1% 6.4% 44.7% 21.3% 25.5%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.50 4.0% 14.0% 36.0% 20.0% 26.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 2.95 15% 23% 32% 13% 17%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.08 10.2% 16.3% 44.9% 12.2% 16.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 2.78 15.7% 29.4% 27.5% 15.7% 11.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 2.55 19.6% 31.4% 31.4% 9.8% 7.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.38 14.0% 14.0% 24.0% 16.0% 32.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-23
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Clark During Previous 2 Years
Once 0 0 2-3 Times 5 10.0% 4-10 Times 6 12.0% More Than 10 Times 39 78.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 34.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 25 51.0% Commercial & General Civil 1 2.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 2.0% Government Practice 3 6.1% Other 2 4.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 28 57.1% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 14 28.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 2.0% Private Practice 6 12.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 4 8.0% 2-5 Attorneys 4 8.0% 6-10 Attorneys 0 0 11-20 Attorneys 3 6.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 39 78.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-24
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 35 68.6% 10-20 years 8 15.7% More than 20 years 8 15.7%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 33 70.2% African American/Black 2 4.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 12.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 6.4% Native American 1 2.1% Other 2 4.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-25
Gender
Male 19 36.9% Female 29 63.1%
APPENDIX B-7
JUDGE ANDREA DARVAS
309 Attorney surveys sent out 74 responses Response Rate 23.9%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-26
Judge Darvas AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.11 4% 3% 18% 26% 48%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.99 4.1% 5.5% 20.5% 27.4% 42.5%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.00 5.7% 1.4% 22.9% 27.1% 42.9%
manner. 4.15 4.2% 2.8% 16.7% 26.4% 50.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.31 1.4% 4.2% 13.9% 23.6% 56.9%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.55 0 1% 13% 15% 71%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.66 0 1.4% 11.0% 8.2% 79.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.58 0 1.4% 13.7% 11.0% 74.0%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.59 0 0 13.7% 13.7% 72.6%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.42 0 1.4% 13.7% 26.0% 58.9%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.05 3% 2% 21% 35% 39%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.06 1.4% 1.4% 23.6% 37.5% 36.1%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.91 2.9% 4.3% 27.1% 30.0% 35.7%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.12 4.1% 2.7% 13.7% 35.6% 43.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.1 2.7% 1.4% 19.2% 37.0% 39.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.31 1% 3% 15% 24% 57%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.31 1.4% 2.7% 14.9% 25.7% 55.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.29 1.4% 4.1% 16.4% 20.5% 57.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.14 4.1% 2.7% 16.4% 28.8% 47.9%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.49 1.4% 1.4% 10.8% 20.3% 66.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-27
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Darvas During Previous 2 Years
Once 23 31.1% 2-3 Times 24 32.4% 4-10 Times 17 23.0% More Than 10 Times 10 13.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 4.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 8 10.8% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 26 35.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 13 17.6% Commercial & General Civil 15 20.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 2.7% Government Practice 3 4.1% Other 4 5.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 14 19.2% Attorney General's Office 2 2.7% Public Defender 15 20.5% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 42 57.5%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 18 24.3% 2-5 Attorneys 8 10.8% 6-10 Attorneys 8 10.8% 11-20 Attorneys 4 5.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 36 48.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-28
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 31 41.9% 10-20 years 21 28.4% More than 20 years 22 29.7%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 62 91.2% African American/Black 2 2.9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 5.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-29
Gender
Male 46 63.9% Female 26 36.1%
APPENDIX B-8
JUDGE JAMES DOERTY
174 Attorney surveys sent out 68 responses Response Rate 39.1%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-30
Judge Doerty AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.33 4% 2% 11% 23% 60%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.43 4.8% 1.6% 7.9% 17.5% 68.3%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.21 4.8% 1.6% 12.9% 29.0% 51.6%
manner. 4.28 4.7% 3.1% 9.4% 25.0% 57.8%
Was prepared for court. 4.42 3.1% 0 12.3% 21.5% 63.1%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.60 <1% 2% 8% 15% 74%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.62 0 1.5% 9.2% 15.4% 73.8%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.65 0 3.0% 4.5% 16.7% 75.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.60 0 1.5% 12.3% 10.8% 75.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.53 1.5% 3.0% 7.6% 16.7% 71.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.38 2% 2% 13% 23% 60%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.51 0 1.5% 12.3% 20.0% 66.2%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.19 3.2% 1.6% 17.5% 28.6% 49.2%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.48 1.6% 3.1% 7.8% 20.3% 67.2%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.34 1.6% 1.6% 15.6% 23.4% 57.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 3% 2% 12% 16% 67%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.51 1.5% 1.5% 10.8% 16.9% 69.2%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.42 3.0% 0 15.2% 15.2% 66.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.23 4.7% 3.1% 14.1% 20.3% 57.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.61 1.5% 1.5% 7.6% 13.6% 75.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-31
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Doerty During Previous 2 Years
Once 4 6.0% 2-3 Times 15 22.4% 4-10 Times 22 32.8% More Than 10 Times 26 38.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 1.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 9 13.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 0 0 Commercial & General Civil 6 9.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 32 47.8% Government Practice 12 17.9% Other 7 10.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 2 3.0% Attorney General's Office 10 15.2% Public Defender 13 19.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 34 51.5% Other 7 10.6%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 18 26.9% 2-5 Attorneys 15 22.4% 6-10 Attorneys 2 3.0% 11-20 Attorneys 2 3.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 30 44.8 %
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-32
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 19 28.4% 10-20 years 24 35.8% More than 20 years 24 35.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 57 87.7% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 3.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 6.2% Native American 1 1.5% Other 1 1.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-33
Gender
Male 25 38.5% Female 40 61.5%
APPENDIX B-9
JUDGE WILLIAM DOWNING
503 Attorney surveys sent out 131 responses Response Rate 26%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-34
Judge Downing AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.41 3% 1% 10% 26% 60%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.40 2.4% 1.6% 11.0% 23.6% 61.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.29 4.2% 1.7% 11.7% 25.8% 56.7%
manner. 4.39 2.4% 1.6% 10.2% 26.0% 59.8%
Was prepared for court. 4.54 1.6% 0 5.5% 29.1% 63.8%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.51 1% 3% 11% 16% 69%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.43 3.1% 4.7% 8.5% 14.0% 69.8%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.60 0 1.6% 8.5% 17.8% 72.1%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.42 .8% 4.7% 12.4% 16.3% 65.9%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.57 0 0 13.2% 16.3% 70.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.53 1% 1% 9% 24% 65%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.57 .8 0 9.4% 20.5% 69.3%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.44 1.6% 1.6% 9.8% 25.2% 61.8%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.55 0 .8% 8.7% 25.2% 65.4%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.54 0 .8% 10.2% 23.4% 65.6%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.42 2% 4% 10% 17% 67%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.50 2.3% 3.9% 5.5% 18.0% 70.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.35 1.6% 7.0% 10.9% 16.3% 64.3%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.24 4.7% 3.9% 13.4% 18.1% 59.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.58 0 3.2% 8.9% 14.5% 73.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-35
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Downing During Previous 2 Years
Once 27 21.1% 2-3 Times 61 47.7% 4-10 Times 20 15.6% More Than 10 Times 20 15.6%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 14 10.8% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 16 12.3% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 38 29.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 12 9.2% Commercial & General Civil 40 30.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 1.5% Government Practice 6 4.6% Other 2 1.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 13 10.1% Attorney General's Office 3 2.3% Public Defender 21 16.3% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 3 2.3% Private Practice 88 68.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 23 17.7% 2-5 Attorneys 28 21.5% 6-10 Attorneys 10 7.7% 11-20 Attorneys 9 6.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 60 46.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-36
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 28 21.5% 10-20 years 39 30.0% More than 20 years 63 48.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 110 90.9% African American/Black 3 2.5% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 1.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 3.3% Native American 0 0 Other 2 1.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-37
Gender
Male 80 64.5% Female 44 35.5%
APPENDIX B-10
JUDGE THERESA DOYLE
475 Attorney surveys sent out 148 responses Response Rate 31.2%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-38
Judge Doyle AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.01 3% 8% 17% 31% 41%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.97 3.6% 7.9% 15.1% 34.5% 38.8%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.97 2.9% 7.4% 20.6% 27.9% 41.2%
manner. 3.93 4.2% 9.9% 15.5% 29.6% 40.8%
Was prepared for court. 4.16 0 5.8% 17.3% 32.4% 44.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.49 1% 2% 10 22% 65%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.53 1.4% 2.2% 7.9% 19.4% 69.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 .7% 1.4% 10.8% 22.3% 64.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.53 .7% .7% 10.1% 21.6% 66.9%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.42 0 4.3% 10.9% 23.2% 61.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.29 <1% 2% 16% 33% 48%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.31 0 .7 % 16.4% 33.6% 49.3%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.17 .8% 4.5% 16.7% 32.6% 45.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.3 0 1.4% 16.7% 32.6% 49.3%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 .7% 2.2% 16.1% 32.8% 48.2%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.35 2% 4% 11% 22% 61%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.39 .7% 4.2% 12.0% 21.1% 62.0%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.36 1.4% 2.8% 12.6% 24.5% 58.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.13 4.9% 8.5% 9.9% 22.5% 54.2%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.52 1.4% 1.4% 9.4% 18.8% 68.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-39
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Doyle During Previous 2 Years
Once 26 18.4% 2-3 Times 50 35.5%
4-10 Times 43 30.5% More Than 10 Times 22 15.6%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 5 3.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 10 6.8% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 51 34.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 20 13.7% Commercial & General Civil 19 13.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 35 24.0% Government Practice 3 2.1% Other 3 2.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 13.9% Attorney General's Office 3 2.1% Public Defender 31 21.5% Legal Aid 2 1.4% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .7% Private Practice 84 58.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 36 24.7% 2-5 Attorneys 35 24.0% 6-10 Attorneys 3 2.1% 11-20 Attorneys 13 8.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 59 40.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-40
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 41 28.1% 10-20 years 51 34.9% More than 20 years 54 37.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 118 85.5% African American/Black 7 5.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 2.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 2.9% Native American 2 1.4% Other 3 2.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-41
Gender
Male 86 61.4% Female 54 38.6%
APPENDIX B-11
JUDGE JOAN DUBUQUE
362 Attorney surveys sent out 134 responses Response Rate 37%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-42
Judge DuBuque AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.30 3% 3% 12% 23% 58%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.28 3.1% 5.3% 11.5% 20.6% 59.5%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.20 3.3% 4.9% 11.4% 29.3% 51.2%
manner. 4.28 3.1% 1.5% 15.3% 24.4% 55.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.43 3.0% .8% 11.4% 19.7% 65.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.30 2% 3% 14% 23% 58%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.15 3.8% 5.3% 14.5% 24.4% 51.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.42 2.3% 1.5% 11.5% 21.4% 63.4%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.25 3.1% 2.3% 16.8% 22.1% 55.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.39 .8% 2.3% 12.9% 25.0% 59.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.45 1% 1% 10% 25% 62%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.48 .8% .8% 9.9% 26.7% 61.8%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.39 1.7% 1.7% 11.6% 26.4% 58.7%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.50 1.5% .8% 9.8% 21.8% 66.2%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.43 1.5% 1.5% 9.9% 26.7% 60.3%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.33 4% 3% 10% 21% 62%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.43 2.3% 3.9% 7.0% 22.5% 64.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.29 4.5% 3.8% 9.8% 22.0% 59.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.22 5.5% 3.1% 14.8% 17.2% 59.4%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.39 4.1% .8% 9.8% 22.8% 62.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-43
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge DuBuque During Previous 2 Years
Once 35 26.7% 2-3 Times 54 41.2% 4-10 Times 31 23.7% More Than 10 Times 11 8.4%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 10 7.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 7 5.3% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 31 23.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 20 15.0% Commercial & General Civil 39 29.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 14 10.5% Government Practice 6 4.5% Other 6 4.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 24 18.2% Attorney General's Office 4 3.0% Public Defender 21 15.9% Legal Aid 3 2.3% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .8% Private Practice 77 58.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 17 12.9% 2-5 Attorneys 30 22.7% 6-10 Attorneys 12 9.1% 11-20 Attorneys 6 4.5% More Than 20 Attorneys 67 50.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-44
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 44 33.1% 10-20 years 35 26.3% More than 20 years 54 40.6%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 110 89.4% African American/Black 2 1.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 8 6.5% Native American 0 0 Other 2 1.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-45
Gender
Male 85 65.9% Female 44 34.1%
APPENDIX B-12
JUDGE RICHARD EADIE
267 Attorney surveys sent out 57 responses Response Rate 21.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-46
Judge Eadie AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.95 1% 9% 19% 36% 35%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.87 1.9% 9.4% 17.0% 43.4% 28.3%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.88 2.0% 6.0% 22.0% 42.0% 28.0%
manner. 3.94 1.9% 11.3% 15.1% 34.0% 37.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.10 0 7.7% 21.2% 25.0% 46.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.36 0 4% 14% 25% 57%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.42 0 1.9% 15.4% 21.2% 61.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.33 0 3.8% 15.4% 25.0% 55.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.40 0 3.8% 11.5% 25.0% 59.6%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.29 0 5.8% 13.5% 26.9% 53.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.22 0 5% 15% 28% 46%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.33 0 0 17.6% 31.4% 51.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.18 0 5.9% 15.7% 33.3% 45.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.17 0 9.4% 17.0% 20.8% 52.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.19 0 3.8% 21.2% 26.9% 48.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.21 1% 7% 14% 23% 54%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.30 0 3.8% 18.9% 20.8% 56.6%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.19 0 11.5% 9.6% 26.9% 51.9%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.02 3.8% 7.7% 17.3% 25.0% 46.2%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.33 1.9% 5.8% 11.5% 19.2% 61.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-47
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Eadie During Previous 2 Years
Once 10 19.2% 2-3 Times 24 46.2% 4-10 Times 11 21.2% More Than 10 Times 7 13.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 5.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 3.6% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 26 46.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 7 12.5% Commercial & General Civil 13 23.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 3.6% Government Practice 2 3.6% Other 1 1.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 8 14.0% Attorney General's Office 1 1.8% Public Defender 15 26.3% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 33 57.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 14 24.6% 2-5 Attorneys 7 12.3% 6-10 Attorneys 5 8.8% 11-20 Attorneys 4 7.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 27 47.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-48
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 14 24.6% 10-20 years 12 21.1% More than 20 years 31 54.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 44 86.3% African American/Black 3 5.9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.0% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 2.0% Native American 0 0 Other 2 3.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-49
Gender
Male 37 71.2% Female 15 28.8%
APPENDIX B-13
JUDGE JOHN ERLICK
672 Attorney surveys sent out 126 responses Response Rate 18.8%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-50
Judge Erlick AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.53 <1% 2% 5% 30% 63%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.48 .8% 3.3% 4.2% 30.0% 61.7%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.48 0 .9% 7.8% 33.9% 57.4%
manner. 4.48 .8% 1.6% 5.7% 32.8% 59.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.69 0 .8% 2.4% 23.6% 73.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.76 <1% 1% 3% 16% 80%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.77 0 .8% 3.2% 14.5% 81.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.77 .8% .8% 1.6% 14.5% 82.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.73 0 1.6% .8% 20.2% 77.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.76 0 0 4.9% 14.6% 80.5%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.52 1% 1% 8% 26% 64%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.61 0 .8% 6.6% 23.8% 68.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.47 1.7% 1.7% 6.9% 27.6% 62.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.45 .8% 2.4% 8.9% 26.8% 61.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.54 .8% 0 8.2% 26.2% 64.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.63 1% 2% 4% 21% 72%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.67 .8% .8% 5.1% 16.9% 76.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.61 .8% 1.6% 2.5% 25.4% 69.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.48 1.7% 3.3% 4.2% 27.5% 63.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.74 0 1.7% 2.5% 15.8% 80.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-51
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Erlick During Previous 2 Years
Once 16 13.0% 2-3 Times 49 39.8% 4-10 Times 41 33.3% More Than 10 Times 17 13.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 20 16.0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 14 11.2% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 29 23.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 4 3.2% Commercial & General Civil 38 30.4% Domestic Relations/Family Law 6 4.8% Government Practice 11 8.8% Other 3 2.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 7 5.6% Attorney General's Office 7 5.6% Public Defender 17 13.6% Legal Aid 1 .8% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.6% Private Practice 89 71.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 19 15.1% 2-5 Attorneys 24 19.0% 6-10 Attorneys 9 7.1% 11-20 Attorneys 12 9.5% More Than 20 Attorneys 62 49.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-52
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 38 30.2% 10-20 years 32 25.4% More than 20 years 56 44.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 111 91.7% African American/Black 2 1.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 3.3% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-53
Gender
Male 82 68.3% Female 38 31.7%
APPENDIX B-14
JUDGE DEBORAH FLECK
388 Attorney surveys sent out 88 responses Response Rate 22.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-54
Judge Fleck AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.29 1% 4% 12% 29% 53%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.23 2.3% 5.7% 11.5% 27.6% 52.9%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.25
4.23
0 4.8% 13.1% 34.5% 47.6%
manner. 1.1% 5.7% 16.1% 23.0% 54.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.44 0 1.2% 10.7% 31.0% 57.1%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.58 0 <1% 7% 27% 66%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.66 0 0 8.0% 18.2% 73.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.54 0 0 8.0% 29.9% 62.1%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.60 0 0 4.7% 30.2% 65.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.51 0 1.2% 8.3% 28.6% 61.9%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.37 1% 2% 10% 32% 54%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.48 0 1.2% 9.3% 30.2% 59.3%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.41 0 3.6% 7.2% 33.7% 55.4%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.31 3.5% 1.2% 10.6% 30.6% 54.1%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.28 1.2% 2.3% 12.8% 34.9% 48.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.44 1% 4% 8% 20% 66%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.53 0 4.6% 8.0% 17.2% 70.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.47 1.1% 3.4% 8.0% 21.8% 65.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.22 3.5% 7.0% 10.5% 22.1% 57.0%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.55 1.2% 2.4% 7.1% 18.8% 70.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-55
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Fleck During Previous 2 Years
Once 22 25.3% 2-3 Times 37 41.6% 4-10 Times 21 24.1% More Than 10 Times 8 9.20%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 3.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 18 20.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 19 21.6% Criminal -- Prosecution 4 4.5% Commercial & General Civil 21 23.9% Domestic Relations/Family Law 14 15.9% Government Practice 5 5.7% Other 4 4.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 7 8.0% Attorney General's Office 2 2.3% Public Defender 12 13.6 Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.3% Private Practice 65 73.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 29 33.0% 2-5 Attorneys 23 26.1% 6-10 Attorneys 7 8.0% 11-20 Attorneys 7 8.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 22 25.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-56
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 24 27.2% 10-20 years 21 23.9% More than 20 years 43 48.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 72 84.7% African American/Black 4 4.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.2% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 7 8.2% Native American 1 1.2% Other 3 3.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-57
Gender
Male 61 71.8% Female 24 28.2%
4.53
4.66
4.53
4.62
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-15
JUDGE MICHAEL FOX
511 Attorney surveys sent out 89 responses Response Rate 17.4%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-58
Judge Fox AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues.
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner.
Was prepared for court.
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION
Treated people with courtesy and respect.
Was attentive to proceedings.
Acted with patience and self-control.
Used clear oral communication while in court.
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS
Maintained control over the courtroom.
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines.
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner.
Used the court's time efficiently.
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench.
Based rulings on the facts and the law.
Treated all individuals equally and without bias
4.53
4.51
4.51
4.53
4.57
4.66
4.77
4.69
4.62
4.57
4.53
4.62
4.47
4.57
4.47
4.62
4.62
4.58
4.56
4.70
1% 2% 5% 26% 66%
1.1% 2.2% 4.5% 29.2% 62.9%
1.1% 2.3% 4.5% 28.4% 63.6%
1.1% 2.3% 5.7% 23.9% 67.0%
2.3% 0 4.6% 24.1% 69.0%
1% 1% 4% 22% 73%
0 0 2.3% 18.4% 79.3%
1.1% 1.1% 3.4% 16.1% 78.2%
0 0 8.0% 21.8% 70.1%
1.1% 1.1% 2.3% 29.9% 65.5%
<1% 1% 7% 27% 64%
0 0 4.7% 29.1% 66.3%
1.2% 1.2% 9.4% 25.9% 62.4%
0 2.3% 4.6% 26.4% 66.7%
0 2.3% 9.1% 28.4% 60.2%
3% 1% 4% 17% 75%
2.3% 2.3% 4.6% 12.6% 78.2%
2.2% 1.1% 7.9% 13.5% 75.3%
3.4% 1.1% 1.1% 25.0% 69.3%
2.3% 0 1.1% 18.4% 78.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-59
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Fox During Previous 2 Years
Once 7 8.0% 2-3 Times 34 38.6% 4-10 Times 32 36.4% More Than 10 Times 15 17.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 10 11.2% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 12 13.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 33 37.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 11 12.4% Commercial & General Civil 16 18.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 2.2% Government Practice 2 2.2% Other 3 3.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 12 13.5% Attorney General's Office 2 2.2% Public Defender 16 18.0% Legal Aid 1 1.1% In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.2% Private Practice 55 61.8%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 15 16.9% 2-5 Attorneys 22 24.7% 6-10 Attorneys 8 9.0% 11-20 Attorneys 6 6.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 38 42.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-60
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 18 20.2% 10-20 years 32 36.0% More than 20 years 39 43.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 75 91.5% African American/Black 0 0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 4.9% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-61
Gender
Male 61 70.9% Female 25 29.1%
4.12
4.52
4.29
4.29
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-16
JUDGE BRIAN GAIN
330 Attorney surveys sent out 78 responses Response Rate 23.6%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-62
Judge Gain AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.12 3% 6% 14% 31% 46%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.08 4.2% 6.9% 11.1% 31.9% 45.8%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.09 2.9% 7.2% 13.0% 31.9% 44.9%
manner. 4.16 1.4% 6.8% 13.5% 31.1% 47.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.15 2.7% 2.7% 17.8% 30.1% 46.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.52 0 1% 8% 29% 62%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.57 0 1.4% 5.4% 28.4% 64.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 0 1% 9.5% 28.4% 60.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.57 0 1.4% 6.8% 25.7% 66.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.46 0 0 10.8% 32.4% 56.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.29 <1% 2% 11% 40% 46%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.41 0 1.4% 9.9% 35.2% 53.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.20 1.4% 2.9% 10.1% 44.9% 40.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.30 0 2.7% 8.2% 45.2% 43.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 0 2.7% 16.2% 33.8% 47.3%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.29 2% 2% 13% 29% 53%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.38 1.4% 1.4% 11.0% 30.1% 56.2%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.32 1.4% 1.4% 14.9% 28.4% 54.1%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.04 4.1% 6.8% 14.9% 29.7% 44.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.43 1.4% 0 11.4% 28.6% 58.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-63
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Gain During Previous 2 Years
Once 8 10.8% 2-3 Times 22 29.7% 4-10 Times 26 35.1% More Than 10 Times 18 24.3%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 8 10.8% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 6 8.1% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 34 45.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 10 13.5% Commercial & General Civil 9 12.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 2.7% Government Practice 3 4.1% Other 2 2.7%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 11 15.3% Attorney General's Office 3 4.2% Public Defender 17 23.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 39 54.2% Other 2 2.8%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 15 20.0% 2-5 Attorneys 14 18.7% 6-10 Attorneys 4 5.3% 11-20 Attorneys 5 6.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 37 49.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-64
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 24 31.6% 10-20 years 26 34.2% More than 20 years 26 34.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 60 88.2% African American/Black 1 1.5% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 7.4% Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-65
Gender
Male 46 63.9% Female 26 36.1%
4.28
4.53
4.49
4.29
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-17
JUDGE STEVEN GONZALEZ
404 Attorney surveys sent out 85 responses Response Rate 21%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-66
Judge Gonzalez AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.28 1% 5% 15% 21% 57%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.20 2.4% 5.9% 15.3% 22.4% 54.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.19 1.2% 7.1% 14.3% 26.2% 51.2%
manner. 4.20 2.4% 7.1% 14.3% 20.2% 56.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.50 0 0 16.7% 16.7% 66.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.53 1% 1% 10% 21% 67%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.51 1.2% 1.2% 12.9% 15.3% 69.4%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.57 0 0 13.1% 16.7% 70.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.54 1.2% 1.2% 7.1% 23.5% 67.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.49 0 2.4% 8.2% 27.1% 62.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.49 0 2% 12% 22% 64%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.59 0 0 9.4% 22.4% 68.2%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.35 0 4.8% 15.5% 20.2% 59.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.51 0 3.5% 7.1% 24.7% 64.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.51 0 0 14.3% 20.2% 65.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.29 4% 7% 9% 15% 64%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.46 2.4% 2.4% 10.6% 16.5% 68.2%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.28 3.5% 8.2% 9.4% 14.1% 64.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.05 7.1% 9.4% 10.6% 17.6% 55.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.36 4.8% 6.0% 7.2% 12.0% 69.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-67
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Gonzalez During Previous 2 Years
Once 20 23.8% 2-3 Times 33 39.3% 4-10 Times 25 29.8% More Than 10 Times 6 7.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 14 16.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 4 4.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 6 7.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 5 5.9% Commercial & General Civil 15 17.6% Domestic Relations/Family Law 33 38.8% Government Practice 4 4.7% Other 2 2.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 10.6% Attorney General's Office 4 4.7% Public Defender 4 4.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.2% Private Practice 66 77.6% Other 1 1.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 21 25.0% 2-5 Attorneys 25 29.8% 6-10 Attorneys 9 10.7% 11-20 Attorneys 7 8.3% More Than 20 Attorneys 22 26.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-68
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 26 30.6% 10-20 years 19 22.4% More than 20 years 40 47.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 62 78.5% African American/Black 2 2.5% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.5% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 8 10.1% Native American 2 2.5% Other 3 3.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-69
Gender
Male 45 55.6% Female 36 44.4%
3.67
3.86
3.86
3.82
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-18
JUDGE GLENNA HALL
231Attorney surveys sent out 79 responses Response Rate 34.2%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-70
Judge Hall AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.67 3% 12% 25% 32% 28%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.68 2.6% 14.3% 23.4% 32.5% 27.3%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.68 4.1% 10.8% 24.3% 35.1% 25.7%
manner. 3.59 2.6% 15.4% 26.9% 30.8% 75.6%
Was prepared for court. 3.75 5.3% 9.2% 23.7% 28.9% 32.9%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.86 6% 7% 21% 28% 38%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.72 10.3% 10.3% 15.4% 25.6% 38.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.09 2.6% 5.2% 15.6% 33.8% 42.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.67 10.3% 7.7% 24.4% 20.5% 37.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.96 0 5.2% 28.6% 31.2% 35.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.86 3% 6% 23% 38% 30%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.08 0 1.3% 23.7% 40.8% 34.2%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.81 4.1% 4.1% 23.0% 44.6% 24.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.69 7.7% 6.4% 24.4% 32.1% 29.5%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.86 0 12.8% 20.5% 34.6% 32.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.82 6% 10% 18% 29% 37%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.94 7.6% 15.1% 13.1% 32.9% 40.5%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.84 3.8% 10.1% 20.3% 30.4% 35.4%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.55 6.7% 16.0% 24.0% 22.7% 30.7%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.96 3.9% 9.2% 14.5% 31.6% 40.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-71
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Hall During Previous 2 Years
Once 12 15.2% 2-3 Times 32 40.5% 4-10 Times 28 35.4% More Than 10 Times 7 8.9%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 1 1.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 4 5.1% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 6 7.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 7 9.0% Commercial & General Civil 12 15.4% Domestic Relations/Family Law 37 47.4% Government Practice 9 11.5% Other 2 2.6%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 13 16.7% Attorney General's Office 6 7.7% Public Defender 3 3.8% Legal Aid 3 3.8% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 51 65.4% Other 2 2.6%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 21 26.6% 2-5 Attorneys 21 26.6% 6-10 Attorneys 5 6.3% 11-20 Attorneys 5 6.3% More Than 20 Attorneys 27 34.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-72
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 26 32.9% 10-20 years 21 26.6% More than 20 years 32 40.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 66 86.8% African American/Black 2 2.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 5.3% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 2.6% Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-73
Gender
Male 31 40.3% Female 46 59.7%
3.94
3.98
3.98
4
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-19
JUDGE HELEN HALPERT
411 Attorney surveys sent out 96 responses Response Rate 23.4%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-74
Judge Halpert AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.94 4% 9% 15% 32% 40%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.81 6.5% 9.7% 15.1% 34.4% 34.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.90 3.4% 11.4% 13.6% 35.2% 36.4%
manner. 3.89 3.2% 10.8% 18.3% 29.0% 38.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.17 3.2% 3.2% 14.9% 30.9% 47.9%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.98 4% 6% 19% 31% 40%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.92 6.5% 4.3% 20.4% 28.0% 40.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.14 2.2% 6.5% 14.0% 30.1% 47.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.82 4.3% 9.7% 20.4% 31.2% 34.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.02 2.2% 2.2% 23.9% 34.8% 37.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.98 2% 5% 23% 30% 40%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.04 1.1% 4.3% 22.6% 33.3% 38.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.91 4.4% 5.5% 22.0% 30.8% 37.4%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4..06 2.1% 4.3% 21.3% 29.8% 42.6%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.98 1.1% 6.7% 26.7% 24.4% 41.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.00 5% 8% 13% 30% 44%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.00 6.5% 4.3% 15.2% 30.4% 43.5%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.99 4.3% 9.7% 9.7% 35.5% 40.9%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.83 6.4% 10.6% 16.0% 27.7% 39.4%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.19 3.2% 5.4% 12.9% 25.8% 52.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-75
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Halpert During Previous 2 Years
Once 14 14.9% 2-3 Times 20 21.3% 4-10 Times 24 25.5% More Than 10 Times 36 38.3%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 9 9.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 5 5.2% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 36 37.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 16 16.7% Commercial & General Civil 19 19.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 5 5.2% Government Practice 3 3.1% Other 3 3.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 15 15.6% Attorney General's Office 4 4.2% Public Defender 23 24.0% Legal Aid 1 1.0% In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.1% Private Practice 51 53.1%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 21 22.1% 2-5 Attorneys 13 13.7% 6-10 Attorneys 9 9.5% 11-20 Attorneys 8 8.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 44 46.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-76
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 27 28.1% 10-20 years 37 38.5% More than 20 years 32 33.3%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 80 89.9% African American/Black 2 2.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 3.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 4.5% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-77
Gender
Male 52 57.8% Female 38 42.2%
APPENDIX B-20
JUDGE MICHAEL HAYDEN
579 Attorney surveys sent out 156 responses Response Rate 26.9%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-78
Judge Hayden AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.01 3% 6% 19% 31% 41%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.99 1.4% 7.4% 19.5% 33.8% 37.8%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.01 3.4% 4.8% 17.2% 35.98% 38.6%
manner. 3.91 3.3% 9.3% 18.7% 30.7% 38.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.13 2.0% 4.0% 21.2% 25.2% 47.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.92 4% 6% 21% 33% 36%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.78 6.6% 8.6% 20.4% 28.9% 35.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.11 2.0% 3.9% 17.1% 34.9% 42.1%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.66 6.0% 8.6% 24.5% 33.8% 26.5%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.13 1.3% 2.0% 20.0% 35.3% 41.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.19 2% 3% 15% 35% 45%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.26 1.3% .7% 13.3% 40.0% 44.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.14 1.4% 4.1% 17.2% 33.1% 44.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.22 1.3% 3.3% 15.2% 32.5% 47.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.15 2.0% 4.0% 15.2% 34.4% 44.4%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.91 6% 8% 16% 28% 42%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.92 6.8% 6.8% 16.9% 27.0% 42.6%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.78 5.9% 10.5% 20.4% 26.3% 36.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.91 5.4% 10.8% 12.8% 29.7% 41.2%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.05 6.7% 4.0% 12.8% 30.9% 45.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-79
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Hayden During Previous 2 Years
Once 34 22.5% 2-3 Times 62 41.1% 4-10 Times 35 23.2% More Than 10 Times 20 13.2%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 17 11.0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 24 15.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 33 21.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 22 14.2% Commercial & General Civil 39 25.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 4.5% Government Practice 4 2.6% Other 9 5.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 13.5% Attorney General's Office 3 1.9% Public Defender 21 13.5% Legal Aid 1 .6% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 104 67.1% Other 3 1.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 31 20.1% 2-5 Attorneys 34 22.1% 6-10 Attorneys 11 7.1% 11-20 Attorneys 16 10.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 62 40.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-80
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 41 26.4% 10-20 years 38 24.5% More than 20 years 76 49.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 131 88.5% African American/Black 2 1.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 6 3.8% Native American 1 .7% Other 4 2.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-81
Gender
Male 101 67.8% Female 48 32.2%
3.22
3.75
3.67
3.56
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-21
JUDGE MICHAEL HEAVEY
350 Attorney surveys sent out 56 responses Response Rate 16%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-82
Judge Heavey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.22 8% 21% 34% 15% 22%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.09 10.7% 26.8% 28.6% 10.7% 23.2%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.10 11.8% 25.5% 27.5% 11.8% 23.5%
manner. 3.18 5.4% 25.0% 35.7% 14.3% 19.6%
Was prepared for court. 3.50 5.4% 7.1% 42.9% 21.4% 23.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.75 2% 12% 29% 23% 34%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.86 3.6% 8.9% 25.0% 23.2% 39.3%
Was attentive to proceedings. 3.71 0 16.1% 30.4% 19.6% 33.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.75 3.6% 10.7% 26.8% 25.0% 33.9%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.70 0 12.5% 33.9% 25.0% 28.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.67 3% 11% 33% 20% 33%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.69 1.9% 5.6% 37.0% 24.1% 29.6%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.52 5.8% 15.4% 30.8% 17.3% 30.8%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.75 1.8% 10.9% 34.5% 16.4% 36.4%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.71 3.6% 10.9% 30.9% 20.0% 34.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.56 11% 9% 30% 13% 37%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.68 10.7% 8.9% 23.2% 16.1% 41.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.50 10.7% 8.9% 32.1% 16.1% 32.1%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.16 16.1% 14.3% 35.7% 5.4% 28.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.91 5.5% 3.6% 30.9% 14.5% 45.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-83
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Heavey During Previous 2 Years
Once 10 18.2% 2-3 Times 15 27.3% 4-10 Times 16 29.1% More Than 10 Times 14 25.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 5 9.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 9 16.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 20 36.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 11 20.0% Commercial & General Civil 8 14.5% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 1.8% Government Practice 0 0 Other 1 1.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 11 20.0% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 9 16.1% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 3.6% Private Practice 32 58.2% Other 1 1.8%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 9 16.4% 2-5 Attorneys 9 16.4% 6-10 Attorneys 9 16.4% 11-20 Attorneys 7 12.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 21 38.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-84
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 19 33.9% 10-20 years 17 30.4% More than 20 years 20 35.7%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 43 87.8% African American/Black 1 2.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 2.0 % Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 6.1% Native American 0 0 Other 1 2.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-85
Gender
Male 36 69.2% Female 16 30.8%
4.17
4.31
4.23
4.23
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-22
JUDGE BRUCE HILYER
575 Attorney surveys sent out 109 responses Response Rate 19%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-86
Judge Hilyer AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.17 2% 5% 18% 25% 51%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.14 1.9% 5.7% 17.9% 25.5% 49.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.14 2.0% 7.0% 15.0% 27.0% 49.0%
manner. 4.14 .9% 6.6% 17.9% 26.4% 48.1%
Was prepared for court. 4.27 2.9% 1.0% 19.0% 21.0% 56.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.31 2% 3% 16% 18% 60%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.24 3.8% 5.8% 14.4% 14.4% 61.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.36 1.9% 1.9% 16.3% 18.3% 61.5%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.3 1.0% 3.9% 18.6% 16.7% 59.8%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.35 1.0% 1.9% 16.3% 23.1% 57.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23 1% 3% 19% 26% 51%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.27 0 3.8% 18.3% 25.0% 52.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.16 2.0% 6.1% 16.2% 25.3% 50.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.26 1.0% 1.0% 20.2% 26.9% 51.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.23 1.9% 1.0% 20.0% 26.7% 50.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.23 3% 6% 15% 16% 60%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.28 2.9% 5.8% 12.5% 18.3% 60.6%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.22 3.8% 6.6% 13.2% 17.0% 59.4%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.11 4.8% 5.7% 21.0% 10.5% 58.1%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.29 3.9% 3.9% 13.6% 16.5% 62.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-87
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Hilyer During Previous 2 Years
Once 20 18.9% 2-3 Times 44 41.5% 4-10 Times 30 28.3% More Than 10 Times 12 11.3%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 12 11.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 14 13.2% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 31 29.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 16 15.1% Commercial & General Civil 22 20.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 .9% Government Practice 5 4.7% Other 2 2.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 17 15.9% Attorney General's Office 2 1.9% Public Defender 17 15.9% Legal Aid 2 1.9% In House Corporate Counsel 3 2.8% Private Practice 66 61.7%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 21 19.6% 2-5 Attorneys 16 15.0% 6-10 Attorneys 17 15.9% 11-20 Attorneys 9 8.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 44 41.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-88
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 30 28.0% 10-20 years 34 31.8% More than 20 years 43 40.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 90 89.1% African American/Black 4 4.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.0% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 3.0% Native American 0 0 Other 3 3.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-89
Gender
Male 72 69.2% Female 32 30.8%
3.93
4.57
4.32
4.39
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-23
JUDGE PHILIP HUBBARD
158 Attorney surveys sent out 60 responses Response Rate 38%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-90
Judge Hubbard AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.93 1% 7% 21% 39% 32%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.87 1.7% 6.7% 25.0% 36.7% 30.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.83 0 8.6% 29.3% 32.8% 29.3%
manner. 3.93 1.7% 8.3% 16.7% 41.7% 31.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.10 1.7% 5.1% 11.9% 44.1% 37.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.57 0 2% 8% 22% 68%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.60 0 1.7% 6.7% 21.7% 70.0%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.55 0 3.3% 6.7% 21.7% 68.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.62 0 0 8.3% 21.7% 70.0%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.50 0 1.7% 10.0% 25.0% 63.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.32 0 0 13% 41% 46%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.39 0 0 10.2% 40.7% 49.2%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.27 0 0 16.9% 39.0% 44.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.31 0 0 11.9% 45.8% 42.4%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.32 0 0 13.6% 40.7% 45.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.39 <1% 2% 15% 24% 59%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.52 0 3.3% 10.0% 18.3% 68.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.43 0 3.3% 11.7% 23.3% 61.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.02 1.7% 1.7% 28.3% 30.0% 38.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.58 0 0 8.3% 25.0% 66.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-91
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Hubbard During Previous 2 Years
Once 4 7.0% 2-3 Times 8 14.0% 4-10 Times 8 14.0% More Than 10 Times 37 64.9%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 23 38.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 23 38.3% Commercial & General Civil 1 1.7% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 11.7% Government Practice 4 6.7% Other 2 3.3%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 24 40.7% Attorney General's Office 2 3.4% Public Defender 21 35.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.7% Private Practice 10 16.9% Other 1 1.7%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 7 11.7% 2-5 Attorneys 5 8.3% 6-10 Attorneys 1 1.7% 11-20 Attorneys 3 5.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 44 73.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-92
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 34 56.6% 10-20 years 15 25.0% More than 20 years 11 18.3%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 47 87.0% African American/Black 2 3.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.6% Native American 1 1.9% Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-93
Gender
Male 23 41.8% Female 32 58.2%
4.18
4.47
4.25
4.36
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-24
JUDGE LAURA INVEEN
401 Attorney surveys sent out 94 responses Response Rate 23.4%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-94
Judge Inveen AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.18 <1% 3% 18% 34% 44%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.15 1.1% 3.3% 17.6% 35.2% 42.9%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.13 0 4.4% 17.8% 37.8% 40.0%
manner. 4.16 0 2.2% 20.7% 35.9% 41.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.29 0 3.3% 17.4% 26.1% 53.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.47 0 1% 11% 28% 59%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.42 0 2.2% 13.0% 25.0% 59.8%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.48 0 2.2% 7.6% 30.4% 59.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.48 0 1.1% 11.0% 26.5% 61.5%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.40 0 0 14.1% 31.5% 54.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.25 <1% 3% 15% 35% 47%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.31 0 1.2% 12.8% 39.5% 46.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.15 0 2.3% 19.8% 38.4% 39.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.26 1.1% 5.6% 12.4% 28.1% 52.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 0 3.3% 14.3% 35.2% 47.3%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.36 0 5% 12% 25% 58%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.41 0 4.4% 11.1% 23.3% 61.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.37 0 5.4% 12.0% 22.8% 59.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.15 0 6.6% 18.7% 27.5% 47.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.52 0 3.4% 5.6% 27.0% 64.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-95
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Inveen During Previous 2 Years
Once 19 20.2% 2-3 Times 29 30.9% 4-10 Times 34 36.2% More Than 10 Times 12 12.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 11 11.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 9 9.6% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 37 39.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 15 16.0% Commercial & General Civil 16 17.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 2.1% Government Practice 3 3.2% Other 1 1.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 16 17.0% Attorney General's Office 2 2.1% Public Defender 23 24.5% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 53 56.4%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 21 22.3% 2-5 Attorneys 14 14.9% 6-10 Attorneys 10 10.6% 11-20 Attorneys 11 11.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 38 40.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-96
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 28 29.8 10-20 years 29 30.9 More than 20 years 37 39.4
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 80 90.9% African American/Black 3 3.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.3% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 1.1% Native American 1 1.1% Other 1 1.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-97
Gender
Male 57 64.8% Female 31 35.2%
APPENDIX B-25
JUDGE RICHARD JONES
512 Attorney surveys sent out 114 responses Response Rate 22.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-98
Judge Jones AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.40 3% 6% 8% 12% 70%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.27 4.4% 10.6% 5.3% 13.3% 66.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.37 4.6% 4.6% 8.3% 13.9% 68.5%
manner. 4.46 2.7% 4.5% 9.8% 10.7% 72.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.50 1.8% 4.4% 9.7% 9.7% 74.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.66 0 2% 7% 13% 78%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.71 0 1.8% 5.4% 13.4% 79.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.63 0 3.6% 7.1% 11.6% 77.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.71 0 .9% 8.05 10.7% 80.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.59 0 3.6% 8.0% 14.3% 74.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.55 1% 3% 7% 18% 71%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.70 0 .9% 5.5% 16.4% 77.3%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.56 0 2.8% 7.4% 21.3% 68.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.38 5.4% 3.6% 6.3% 17.0% 67.9%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.55 0 2.7% 9.1% 18.2% 70.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.53 3% 5% 6% 9% 77%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.62 0 4.4% 7.1% 10.6% 77.9%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.54 1.8% 6.2% 7.1% 6.2% 78.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.29 8.9% 8.0% 1.8% 8.0% 73.2%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.66 .9% 1.8% 7.3% 10.0% 80.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-99
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Jones During Previous 2 Years
Once 31 27.7% 2-3 Times 28 25.0% 4-10 Times 39 34.8% More Than 10 Times 14 12.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 12 10.8% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 15 13.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 25 22.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 9 8.1% Commercial & General Civil 38 34.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 2 1.8% Government Practice 8 7.2% Other 2 1.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 12 11.0% Attorney General's Office 2 1.8% Public Defender 12 11.0% Legal Aid 1 .9% In House Corporate Counsel 78 71.6% Private Practice 4 3.7%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 16 14.4% 2-5 Attorneys 22 19.8% 6-10 Attorneys 18 16.2% 11-20 Attorneys 8 7.2% More Than 20 Attorneys 47 42.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-100
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 27 24.1% 10-20 years 34 30.4% More than 20 years 51 45.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 90 84.9% African American/Black 4 3..8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 2.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 7 6.6% Native American 1 .9% Other 1 .9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-101
Gender
Male 76 70.4% Female 32 29.6%
APPENDIX B-26
JUDGE PARIS KALLAS
569 Attorney surveys sent out 152 responses Response Rate 26.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-102
Judge Kallas AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.32 3% 2% 11% 28% 56%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.24 3.4% 2.0% 13.4% 29.5% 51.7%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.26 2.8% 3.5% 11.3% 29.6% 52.8%
manner. 4.32 2.6% 2.6% 10.6% 27.8% 56.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.47 1.3% 1.3% 9.3% 25.3% 62.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.46 2% 2% 9% 23% 64%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.48 1.3% 3.3% 9.3% 18.5% 67.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.50 1.3% 2.0% 6.6% 25.8% 64.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.46 1.3% 2.7% 9.4% 22.1% 64.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.40 2.8% .7% 11.1% 25.0% 60.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.38 1% 2% 13% 27% 57%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.37 .7% 1.4% 14.5% 26.9% 56.6%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.31 .7% 4.9% 11.2% 28.7% 54.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.39 1.3% 2.0% 11.4% 26.8% 58.4%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.38 .7% 2.0% 14.0% 25.3% 58.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.39 2% 4% 12% 19% 64%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.46 1.3% 2.0% 10.1% 22.8% 63.8%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.39 1.3% 4.0% 12.6% 18.5% 63.6%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.20 4.0% 6.7% 14.0% 16.0% 59.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.51 1.3% 2.0% 9.4% 18.8% 68.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-103
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Kallas During Previous 2 Years
Once 39 25.8% 2-3 Times 62 41.1% 4-10 Times 35 25.2% More Than 10 Times 12 7.9%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 13 8.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 16 10.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 38 25.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 23 15.3% Commercial & General Civil 36 24.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 5 3.3% Government Practice 6 4.0% Other 13 8.7%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 22 14.6% Attorney General's Office 4 2.6% Public Defender 22 14.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 99 65.6% Other 2 1.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 30 19.9% 2-5 Attorneys 20 13.2% 6-10 Attorneys 23 15.2% 11-20 Attorneys 18 11.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 60 39.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-104
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 38 25.5% 10-20 years 47 31.5% More than 20 years 64 43.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 131 92.9% African American/Black 2 1.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 1.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 1.4% Native American 0 0 Other 4 2.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-105
Gender
Male 102 69.4% Female 45 30.6%
APPENDIX B-27
JUDGE RONALD KESSLER
218 Attorney surveys sent out 73 responses Response Rate 33.5%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-106
Judge Kessler AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.31 0 4% 13% 28% 54%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.33 0 7.2% 8.7% 27.5% 56.5%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.34 0 4.3% 11.4% 30.0% 54.3%
manner. 4.15 0 5.6% 21.1% 25.4% 47.9%
Was prepared for court. 4.43 0 1.4% 12.5% 27.8% 58.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.48 8% 11% 32% 24% 24%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 2.85 16.4 17.8% 38.4% 19.2% 8.2%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.21 0 1.4% 20.5% 34.2% 43.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 2.84 15.1% 17.8% 43.8% 15.1% 8.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.03 1.4% 5.6 % 23.6% 27.8% 41.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.35 0 3% 13% 31% 53%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.29 0 4.2% 12.5% 33.3% 50.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.27 0 5.6% 11.3% 33.8% 49.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.46 0 0 12.7% 28.2% 59.2%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.38 0 1.4% 14.1% 29.6% 54.9%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 3% 6% 19% 20% 52%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.04 2.8% 7.0% 19.7% 23.9% 46.5%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.93 5.6% 6.9% 22.2% 19.4% 45.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.21 1.4% 4.2% 21.1% 18.3% 54.9%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.28 2.8% 5.6% 13.9% 16.7% 61.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-107
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Kessler During Previous 2 Years
Once 5 6.8% 2-3 Times 8 11.0% 4-10 Times 12 16.4% More Than 10 Times 48 65.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 1 1.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 1.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 39 54.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 16 22.5% Commercial & General Civil 1 1.4% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 5.6% Government Practice 7 9.9% Other 2 2.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 16 21.9% Attorney General's Office 6 8.2% Public Defender 33 45.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 15 20.5% Other 3 4.1%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 9 12.3% 2-5 Attorneys 7 9.6% 6-10 Attorneys 0 0 11-20 Attorneys 1 1.4% More Than 20 Attorneys 56 76.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-108
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 28 38.4% 10-20 years 21 28.8% More than 20 years 24 32.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 55 82.1% African American/Black 2 3.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 4.5% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 6 9.0% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-109
Gender
Male 38 53.5% Female 33 46.5%
APPENDIX B-28
JUDGE LINDA LAU
581 Attorney surveys sent out 158 responses Response Rate 27.2%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-110
Judge Lau AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.18 2% 7% 14% 25% 52%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.08 2.6% 9.9% 12.5% 27.0% 48.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.03 2.7% 6.8% 19.9% 26.6% 44.5%
manner. 4.18 1.3% 9.1% 11.0% 27.3% 51.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.40 1.3% 3.3% 12.6% 19.2% 63.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.39 2% 4% 12% 19% 63%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.38 2.6% 3.3% 9.8% 22.2% 62.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.46 1.3% 2.6% 11.8% 17.6% 66.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.32 2.0% 5.2% 13.1% 18.3% 61.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.39 1.3% 3.9% 12.4% 19.6% 62.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.18 2% 5% 16% 27% 50%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.35 .7% 2.0% 12.8% 30.4% 54.1%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.11 1.4% 4.2% 22.9% 25.0% 46.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.12 .3.3% 5.2% 17.0% 24.8% 49.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.14 2.0% 8.5% 13.1% 26.8% 49.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.24 2% 7% 13% 20% 58%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.32 2.0% 3.9% 15.0% 18.3% 60.8%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.14 2.6% 9.7% 13.5% 19.4% 54.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.05 3.9% 9.9% 14.5% 20.4% 51.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.46 1.3% 3.3% 9.2% 20.3% 66.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-111
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Lau During Previous 2 Years
Once 35 22.9% 2-3 Times 57 37.3% 4-10 Times 46 30.1% More Than 10 Times 15 9.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 26 16.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 14 8.9% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 33 20.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 16 10.1% Commercial & General Civil 50 31.6% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 2.5% Government Practice 7 4.4% Other 8 5.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 19 12.1% Attorney General's Office 4 2.5% Public Defender 23 14.6% Legal Aid 2 1.3% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 105 66.9% Other 2 1.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 23 14.6% 2-5 Attorneys 24 15.3% 6-10 Attorneys 20 12.7% 11-20 Attorneys 19 12.1% More Than 20 Attorneys 71 45.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-112
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 47 29.8% 10-20 years 40 25.3% More than 20 years 71 44.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 132 88.6% African American/Black 4 2.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 3.4% Native American 0 0 Other 4 2.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-113
Gender
Male 114 75.5% Female 37 24.5%
APPENDIX B-29
JUDGE DEAN LUM
101 Attorney surveys sent out 35 responses Response Rate 34.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-114
Judge Lum AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.91 4% 8% 24% 22% 43%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.85 3.0% 6.0% 33.3% 18.2% 39.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.00 3.4% 3.4% 24.1% 27.6% 41.4%
manner. 3.84 3.1% 15.6% 18.8% 18.8% 43.8%
Was prepared for court. 3.97 6.1% 6.1% 18.2% 24.23% 45.5%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.38 3% 0 13% 24% 60%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.5 2.9% 0 8.8% 20.6% 67.6%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.35 2.9% 0 14.7% 23.5% 58.8%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.41 2.9% 0 11.8% 23.5% 61.8%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.24 2.9% 0 17.6% 29.4% 50.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.18 4% 5% 10% 30% 51%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.18 3.0% 3.0% 12.1% 36.4% 45.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.24 3.0% 6.1% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.11 5.7% 5.7% 14.3% 20.0% 54.3%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.17 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% 37.1% 48.6%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.27 3% 2% 15% 24% 55%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.35 2.9% 0 11.8% 29.4% 55.9%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.31 2.9% 0 17.1% 22.9% 57.1%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.94 2.9% 8.6% 22.9% 22.9% 42.9%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.48 3.0% 0 9.1% 21.2% 66.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-115
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Lum During Previous 2 Years
Once 5 14.3% 2-3 Times 11 31.4% 4-10 Times 13 37.1% More Than 10 Times 6 17.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 8.6% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 5.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 11 31.4% Criminal -- Prosecution 8 22.9% Commercial & General Civil 6 17.1% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 2.9% Government Practice 3 8.6% Other 1 2.9%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 8 22.9% Attorney General's Office 4 11.4% Public Defender 7 20.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 2.9 Private Practice 15 42.9
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 3 8.6% 2-5 Attorneys 9 25.7% 6-10 Attorneys 1 2.9% 11-20 Attorneys 2 5.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 20 57.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-116
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 15 42.9% 10-20 years 9 25.7% More than 20 years 11 31.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 31 93.9% African American/Black 1 3.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 1 3.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-117
Gender
Male 25 73.5% Female 9 26.5%
3.85
4.11
4.14
4
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-30
JUDGE NICOLE MACINNES
529 Attorney surveys sent out 121 responses Response Rate 22.9%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-118
Judge MacInnes AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.85 5% 11% 20% 23% 41%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.78 5.1% 13.6% 17.8% 25.4% 38.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.86 6.1% 10.5% 17.5% 22.8% 43.0%
manner. 3.80 4.3% 12.0% 22.2% 22.2% 39.3%
Was prepared for court. 3.99 3.4% 6.8% 22.2% 22.2% 45.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.11 3% 6% 17% 25% 49%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.03 8.5% 5.1% 14.4% 18.6% 53.4%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.19 .8% 5.9% 17.8% 23.7% 51.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.08 1.7% 10.2% 13.6% 28.0% 46.6%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.15 .9% 4.3% 19.7% 29.1% 46.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.14 2% 4% 18% 30% 46%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.20 0 2.6% 20.5% 31.6% 45.3%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.05 5.2% 2.6% 18.3% 29.6% 44.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.14 1.7% 4.2% 20.3% 25.4% 48.3%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.18 .8% 5.1% 15.3% 33.1% 45.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.00 6% 10% 13% 17% 53%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.06 5.3% 7.9% 16.7% 15.8% 54.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.97 8.4% 9.2% 14.3% 13.4% 54.6%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.83 5.9% 17.8% 11.0% 17.8% 47.5%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.17 5.3% 6.1% 10.5% 22.8% 55.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-119
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge MacInnes During Previous 2 Years
Once 16 13.6% 2-3 Times 42 35.6% 4-10 Times 35 29.7% More Than 10 Times 25 21.2%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 17 14.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 15 12.6% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 31 26.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 23 19.3% Commercial & General Civil 22 18.5% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 3.4% Government Practice 4 3.4% Other 3 2.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 26 21.7% Attorney General's Office 3 2.5% Public Defender 17 14.2% Legal Aid 1 .8% In House Corporate Counsel 1 .8% Private Practice 70 58.3% Other 2 1.7%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 23 19.2% 2-5 Attorneys 20 16.7% 6-10 Attorneys 11 9.2% 11-20 Attorneys 10 8.3% More Than 20 Attorneys 56 46.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-120
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 38 31.7% 10-20 years 32 26.7% More than 20 years 50 41.7%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 101 91.0% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 3.6% Native American 1 .9% Other 2 1.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-121
Gender
Male 78 68.4% Female 36 31.6%
4.41
4.28
4.33
4.43
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-31
JUDGE GEORGE MATTSON
422 Attorney surveys sent out 117 responses Response Rate 27.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-122
Judge Mattson AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.41 1% 3% 9% 27% 59%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.40 .9% 3.5% 9.6% 26.3% 59.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.37 .9% 2.7% 10.7% 30.4% 55.4%
manner. 4.30 1.8% 4.4% 9.6% 30.7% 53.5%
Was prepared for court. 4.57 .9% .9% 8.0% 21.2% 69.0%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.28 1% 3% 16% 28% 52%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.08 1.8% 7.1% 16.1% 31.3% 43.8%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.59 .9% 0 4.5% 29.5% 65.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.01 1.8% 3.6% 29.5% 22.3% 42.9%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.43 0 .9% 12.6% 28.8% 57.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.33 3% 2% 11% 28% 56%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.49 .9% 9.6% 28.1% 28.1% 61.4%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.32 2.7% 3.5% 9.7% 27.4% 56.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.24 4.4% 2.6% 9.6% 31.6% 51.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.28 2.7% .9% 15.9% 26.5% 54.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.43 2% 2% 12% 21% 63%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.49 0 0 15.0% 21.2% 63.7%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.38 .9% 2.6% 14.9% 21.1% 60.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.38 3.5% 2.7% 9.7% 20.4% 63.7%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.48 1.8% .9% 9.8% 22.3% 65.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-123
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Mattson During Previous 2 Years
Once 24 20.5% 2-3 Times 38 32.5% 4-10 Times 28 23.9% More Than 10 Times 27 23.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 6 5.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 12 10.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 30 26.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 19 16.5% Commercial & General Civil 31 27.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 3.5% Government Practice 4 3.5% Other 9 7.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 23 20.0% Attorney General's Office 1 .9% Public Defender 12 10.4% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 79 68.7
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 31 26.7% 2-5 Attorneys 18 15.5% 6-10 Attorneys 16 13.8% 11-20 Attorneys 8 6.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 43 37.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-124
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 36 31.0% 10-20 years 38 32.8% More than 20 years 42 36.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 98 91.6% African American/Black 2 1.9% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 .9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 4.7% Native American 0 0 Other 1 .9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-125
Gender
Male 83 74.8% Female 28 25.2%
APPENDIX B-32
JUDGE DOUGLAS MCBROOM
493 Attorney surveys sent out 100 responses Response Rate 20.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-126
Judge McBroom AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 3.62 9% 11% 23% 24% 34%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.52 11.0% 11.0% 23.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.63 10.2% 8.2% 23.5% 24.5% 33.7%
manner. 3.54 11.1% 12.1% 20.2% 25.3% 31.3%
Was prepared for court. 3.79 3.0% 13.0% 25.0% 20.0% 39.0%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.17 3% 6% 16% 23% 52%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.43 2.0% 1.0% 11.0% 24.0% 62.0%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.08 2.0% 6.1% 23.2% 19.2% 49.5%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.22 3.0% 5.0% 12.0% 27.0% 53.0%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.95 4.0% 10.0% 18.0% 23.0% 45.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.83 5% 9% 22% 26% 38%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.89 1.0% 10.2% 24.5% 27.6% 36.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.86 5.2% 9.3% 19.6% 26.8% 39.2%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.88 6.0% 6.0% 21.0% 28.0% 39.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.71 7.1% 11.2% 21.4% 23.5% 36.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.01 6% 6% 17% 22% 49%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.11 4.0% 3.0% 19.2% 25.3% 48.5%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.96 7.0% 5.0% 19.0% 23.0% 46.0%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.71 10.0% 12.0% 15.0% 23.0% 40.0%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.27 4.1% 2.1% 16.5% 17.5% 59.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-127
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge McBroom During Previous 2 Years
Once 16 16.2% 2-3 Times 35 35.4% 4-10 Times 32 32.3% More Than 10 Times 16 16.2%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 10 10.0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 13 13.0% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 24 24.0% Criminal -- Prosecution 9 9.0% Commercial & General Civil 27 27.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 5 5.0% Government Practice 8 8.0% Other 4 4.0%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 9.0% Attorney General's Office 5 5.0% Public Defender 15 15.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.0% Private Practice 69 69.0%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 31 31.0% 2-5 Attorneys 10 10.0% 6-10 Attorneys 14 14.0% 11-20 Attorneys 8 8.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 37 37.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-128
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 29 29.0% 10-20 years 23 23.0% More than 20 years 48 48.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 82 87.2% African American/Black 1 1.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 3.2% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 6 6.4% Native American 1 1.1% Other 1 1.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-129
Gender
Male 66 68.8% Female 30 31.3%
APPENDIX B-33
JUDGE HARRY MCCARTHY
98 Attorney surveys sent out 241 responses Response Rate 40.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-130
Judge McCarthy AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.14 2% 5% 20% 24% 49%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.00 5.2% 4.1% 23.7% 19.6% 47.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.05 1.1% 7.6% 18.5% 30.4% 42.4%
manner. 4.13 1.0% 6.3% 19.85 25.0% 47.9%
Was prepared for court. 4.37 0 2.1% 17.5% 21.6% 58.8%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.68 0 1% 6% 18% 75%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.78 0 0 3.1% 15.5% 81.4%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.67 0 0 7.2% 18.6% 74.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.70 0 1.0% 4.2% 18.8% 76.0%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.55 0 3.1% 8.3% 18.8% 69.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.30 <1% 4% 14% 30% 52%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.37 0 3.2% 10.5% 32.6% 53.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.29 0 7.8% 10.0% 27.85 54.4%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.28 0 2.1% 18.85 28.1% 51.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.25 1.1% 2.1% 16.8% 30.5% 49.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41 2% 3% 12% 18% 65%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.57 0 1.0% 11.3% 17.5% 70.1%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.46 0 4.1% 12.4% 16.5% 67.0%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.03 5.2% 6.3% 17.7% 21.9% 49.0%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.58 1.1% 2.1% 7.4% 16.8% 72.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-131
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge McCarthy During Previous 2 Years
Once 17 17.9% 2-3 Times 25 26.3% 4-10 Times 14 14.7% More Than 10 Times 39 41.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 5 5.2% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 7 7.2% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 29 29.9% Criminal -- Prosecution 29 29.9% Commercial & General Civil 17 17.5% Domestic Relations/Family Law 3 3.1% Government Practice 3 3.1% Other 4 4.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 31 31.6% Attorney General's Office 18 18.4% Public Defender 2 2.0% Legal Aid 1 1.0% In House Corporate Counsel 45 45.9% Private Practice 1 1.0% Other 1 1.0%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 14 14.4% 2-5 Attorneys 19 19.6% 6-10 Attorneys 4 4.1% 11-20 Attorneys 7 7.2% More Than 20 Attorneys 53 54.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-132
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 41 41.9% 10-20 years 33 33.7% More than 20 years 24 24.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 77 83.7% African American/Black 5 5.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.2% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 5.4% Native American 0 0 Other 3 3.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-133
Gender
Male 54 56.3% Female 42 43.8%
APPENDIX B-34
JUDGE LEROY MCCULLOUGH
197 Attorney surveys sent out 42 responses Response Rate 21.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-134
Judge McCullough AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.75 4% 11% 24% 28% 33%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.63 10.0% 7.5% 22.5% 30.0% 33.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.54 5.1% 15.4% 23.1% 33.3% 23.1%
manner. 3.78 0 17.5% 22.5% 25.0% 35.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.05 0 5.0% 27.5% 25.0% 42.5%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.34 1% 5% 10% 28% 56%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.49 0 4.9% 7.3% 22.0% 65.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.22 2.4% 9.8% 2.4% 34.1% 51.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.41 0 2.4% 9.8% 31.7% 56.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.22 0 4.9% 19.5% 24.4% 51.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.92 3% 6% 29% 21% 41%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.20 0 5.0% 22.5% 20.0% 52.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.79 7.9% 5.3% 26.3% 21.1% 39.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.93 0 7.5% 32.5% 20.0% 40.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.76 2.4% 7.3% 34.1% 24.4% 31.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.12 2% 9% 20% 14% 56%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.20 2.5% 7.5% 17.5% 12.5% 60.0%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.17 0 12.2% 17.1% 12.2% 58.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.73 4.9% 12.2% 26.8% 17.1% 39.0%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.40 0 2.5% 20.0% 12.5% 65.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-135
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge McCullough During Previous 2 Years
Once 5 12.2% 2-3 Times 13 31.7% 4-10 Times 13 31.7% More Than 10 Times 10 23.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 1 2.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 21 51.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 8 19.5% Commercial & General Civil 5 12.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 9.8% Government Practice 1 2.4% Other 1 2.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 22.0% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 13 31.7% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 19 46.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 12 29.3% 2-5 Attorneys 3 7.3% 6-10 Attorneys 3 7.3% 11-20 Attorneys 4 9.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 19 46.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-136
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 17 42.5% 10-20 years 10 25.0% More than 20 years 13 32.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 33 84.6% African American/Black 2 5.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 10.3% Native American 0 0 Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-137
Gender
Male 18 45.0% Female 22 55.0%
APPENDIX B-35
JUDGE RICHARD F. MCDERMOTT
280 Attorney surveys sent out 69 responses Response Rate 24.6%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-138
Judge McDermott AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.30 2% 3% 14% 24% 57%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.16 4.3% 2.9% 15.9% 26.1% 50.7%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.29 0 4.4% 16.2% 25.0% 54.4%
manner. 4.36 1.4% 4.3% 13.0% 18.8% 62.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.38 2.9% 1.5% 8.8% 27.9% 58.8%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.66 <1% 2% 4% 18% 75%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.74 0 2.9% 2.9% 11.6% 82.6%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.68 0 1.4% 7.2% 13.0% 78.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.61 1.4% 1.4% 2.9% 23.2% 71.0%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.61 0 2.9% 2.9% 24.6% 69.6%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.44 1% 2% 10% 27% 60%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.59 0 0 5.9% 29.4% 64.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.33 1.5% 3.0% 13.6% 24.2% 57.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.41 1.5% 1.5% 11.8% 25.0% 60.3%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.42 1.4% 1.4% 8.7% 30.4% 58.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.41 4% 2% 9% 19% 65%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.36 1.4% 5.8% 10.1% 20.3% 62.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.39 2.9% 1.4% 10.1% 24.6% 60.9%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.32 5.9% 0 13.2% 17.6% 63.2%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.55 4.3% 1.4% 4.3% 14.5% 75.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-139
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge McDermott During Previous 2 Years
Once 6 8.7% 2-3 Times 19 27.5% 4-10 Times 25 36.2% More Than 10 Times 18 26.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 1 1.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 10 14.5% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 16 23.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 9 13.0% Commercial & General Civil 17 24.6% Domestic Relations/Family Law 11 15.9% Government Practice 4 5.8% Other 1 1.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 10 14.5% Attorney General's Office 2 2.9% Public Defender 12 17.4% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 45 65.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 20 29.4% 2-5 Attorneys 14 20.6% 6-10 Attorneys 4 5.9% 11-20 Attorneys 4 5.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 26 38.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-140
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 17 24.6% 10-20 years 22 31.9% More than 20 years 30 43.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 56 84.8% African American/Black 2 3.0% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.5% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 6.1% Native American 1 1.5% Other 2 3.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-141
Gender
Male 47 71.2% Female 19 28.8%
APPENDIX B-36
JUDGE CHARLES MERTEL
455 Attorney surveys sent out 157 responses Response Rate 34.5%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-142
Judge Mertel AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.99 4% 7% 16% 31% 42%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.89 6.5% 6.5% 16.8% 32.3% 38.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.95 4.1% 8.2% 16.3% 31.3% 40.1%
manner. 3.94 4.5% 9.1% 14.9% 31.2% 40.3%
Was prepared for court. 4.19 1.9% 4.5 14.3% 31.2% 48.1%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.47 <1% 1% 13% 21% 64%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.59 0.6% 0% 9.6% 19.7% 70.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.49 0% 1.9% 13.5% 18.6% 66%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.45 1.9% 0.6% 12.7% 20.4% 64.3%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.38 0 1.9% 16.6% 23.6% 58%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.22 1% 3% 19% 26% 51%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.36 0.7% .7% 16.3% 26.8% 55.6%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.12 2.7% 3.4% 21.1% 25.2% 47.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.22 1.3% 3.2% 20.1% 22.7% 52.6%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.17 1.3% 4% 18% 30% 46.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.17 5% 6% 14% 18% 57%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.24 3.9% 3.9% 15.5% 18.1% 58.7%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.13 3.5% 5.8% 17.3% 16.7% 55.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.91 8.3% 9.6% 14.7% 17.3% 50%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.39 3.2% 3.9% 9.1% 18.2% 65.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-143
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Mertel During Previous 2 Years
Once 24 15.3% 2-3 Times 71 45.2% 4-10 Times 46 29.3% More Than 10 Times 16 10.2%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 19 12.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 21 13.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 29 18.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 13 8.3% Commercial & General Civil 56 35.7% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 0.6% Government Practice 10 6.4% Other 8 5.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 16 10.3% Attorney General's Office 4 2.6% Public Defender 16 10.3% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 112 71.8% Other 6 3.8%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 33 21.3% 2-5 Attorneys 31 20.0% 6-10 Attorneys 17 11.0% 11-20 Attorneys 18 11.6% More Than 20 Attorneys 56 36.1%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-144
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 41 26.1% 10-20 years 44 28.0% More than 20 years 572 45.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 133 91.1% African American/Black 3 2.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 2.7% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 4 2.7% Native American 1 0.7% Other 1 0.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-145
Gender
Male 106 70.2% Female 45 29.8%
APPENDIX B-37
JUDGE LAURA GENE MIDDAUGH
387 Attorney surveys sent out 85 responses Response Rate 22.2%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-146
Judge Middaugh AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.64 2% 13% 24% 40% 21%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.59 3.5% 11.8% 27.1% 37.6% 20.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.54 1.2% 15.9% 25.6% 42.7% 14.6%
manner. 3.63 3.6% 13.1% 22.6% 38.1% 22.6%
Was prepared for court. 3.81 1.2% 9.5% 22.6% 40.5% 26.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.76 5% 11% 22% 28% 33%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.58 8.3% 17.9% 15.5% 23.8% 34.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.01 1.2% 4.8% 25.0% 29% 39.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.52 8.3% 15.5% 21.4% 25% 29.8%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.82 2.4% 6.0% 27.7% 34.9% 28.9%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.81 3% 6% 26% 38% 27%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.82 2.4% 2.4% 30.1% 41.0% 24.1%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.70 3.8% 10.1% 24.1% 36.7% 25.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.87 2.4% 4.9% 26.8% 35.4% 30.5%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.85 2.4% 6% 23.8% 40.5% 27.4%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.83 5% 9% 23% 25% 38%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.89 6.0% 7.2% 20.5% 24.1% 42.2%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.80 4.7% 12.9% 16.5% 29.4% 36.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.67 4.9% 12.3% 28.4% 19.8% 34.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.96 3.6% 3.6% 26.2% 26.2% 40.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-147
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Middaugh During Previous 2 Years
Once 18 21.4% 2-3 Times 30 35.7% 4-10 Times 25 29.8% More Than 10 Times 11 13.1%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 6 7.1% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 4 4.8% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 13 15.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 6 7.1% Commercial & General Civil 12 14.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 39 46.4% Government Practice 3 3.6% Other 1 1.2%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 11% Attorney General's Office 1 1.2% Public Defender 6 7.3% Legal Aid 3 3.7% In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.2% Private Practice 60 73.2% Other 2 2.4%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 31 36.5% 2-5 Attorneys 15 17.6% 6-10 Attorneys 8 9.4% 11-20 Attorneys 7 8.2% More Than 20 Attorneys 24 28.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-148
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 21 24.7% 10-20 years 29 34.1% More than 20 years 35 41.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 71 83.5% African American/Black 1 1.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 3.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 3.8% Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-149
Gender
Male 43 54.4% Female 36 45.6%
APPENDIX B-38
JUDGE DOUGLASS NORTH
612 Attorney surveys sent out 102 responses Response Rate 16.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-150
Judge North AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.08 2% 5% 17% 36% 40%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.04 3.0% 4.0% 19.8% 32.7% 40.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.96 2.2% 6.5% 17.2% 41.9% 32.3%
manner. 4.02 1.0% 9.9% 13.9% 36.6% 38.6%
Was prepared for court. 4.29 0% 1.0% 17.0% 34.0% 48.0%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.41 <1% 1% 14% 27% 58%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.45 2.0% 0% 12.0% 23.0% 63.0%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.48 0 0% 14.0% 24.0% 62.0%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.43 0% 1.0% 11.1% 31.3% 56.6%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.29 0 2.0% 18.0% 29.0% 51.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.24 1% 2% 14% 41% 42%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.28 0% 0% 15.3% 41.8% 42.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.15 1.1% 3.2% 13.8% 43.6% 38.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.25 1.0% 0% 17.2% 36.4% 45.5%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.26 0% 3.0% 12.0% 41.0% 44.0%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.22 2% 4% 14% 29% 51%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.26 1.0% 3.0% 16.0% 29.0% 51.0%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.17 2.0% 5.9% 13.9% 29.7% 48.5%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.02 4.0% 6.9% 15.8% 29.7% 43.6%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.45 1.0% 1.0% 11.2% 25.5% 61.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-151
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge North During Previous 2 Years
Once 32 32.0% 2-3 Times 38 38.0% 4-10 Times 19 19.0% More Than 10 Times 11 11.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 10 10.0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 8 8.0% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 29 29.0% Criminal -- Prosecution 13 13.0% Commercial & General Civil 23 23.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 7.0% Government Practice 3 3.0% Other 7 7.0%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 13 12.9% Attorney General's Office 2 2.0% Public Defender 14 13.9% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.0% Private Practice 69 68.3% Other 2 2.0%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 16 16.0% 2-5 Attorneys 18 18.0% 6-10 Attorneys 9 9.0% 11-20 Attorneys 10 10.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 47 47.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-152
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 21 20.6% 10-20 years 29 28.4% More than 20 years 52 51.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 82 88.2% African American/Black 3 3.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 5 5.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 2.2% Native American 1 1.1% Other 93 2.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-153
Gender
Male 66 70.2% Female 28 29.8%
APPENDIX B-39
JUDGE JEFFREY RAMSDELL
268 Attorney surveys sent out 65 responses Response Rate 27.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-154
Judge Ramsdell AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.38 0 4% 15% 23% 58%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.29 0 6.5% 12.9% 25.8% 54.8%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. 4.37 0 3.3% 13.3% 26.7% 56.7%
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise 3.2% 19.4% 19.4% 58.1% manner. 4.32 0
Was prepared for court. 4.45 0 0 16.1% 22.6% 61.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.58 0 1% 8% 24% 67%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.61 0 1.6% 6.5% 21.0% 71.0%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.65 0 0 8.1% 19.4% 72.6%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.53 0 1.6% 9.7% 22.6% 66.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.40 0 3.2% 8.1% 33.9% 54.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.31 1% 4% 12% 31% 51%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.36 0 1.6% 13.1% 32.8% 52.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.34 0 3.4% 11.9% 32.2% 52.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.26 1.6% 6.5% 11.3% 25.8% 54.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.18 1.6% 4.9% 13.1% 34.4% 45.9%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.49 0 4% 9% 24% 63%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.52 0 1.6% 9.8% 23.0% 65.6%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.39 0 6.5% 9.7% 22.6% 61.3%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.34 0 6.6% 9.8% 26.2% 57.4%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.59 0 1.6% 6.6% 23.0% 68.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-155
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Ramsdell During Previous 2 Years
Once 16 13.4% 2-3 Times 44 37.0% 4-10 Times 39 32.8% More Than 10 Times 16 13.4%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 5 7.8% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 5 7.8% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 20 31.3% Criminal -- Prosecution 11 17.2% Commercial & General Civil 12 18.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 10.9% Government Practice 1 1.6% Other 3 4.7%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 10 15.6% Attorney General's Office 1 1.6% Public Defender 13 20.3% Legal Aid 1 1.6% In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.6% Private Practice 38 59.4% Other 0 0
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 16 25.0% 2-5 Attorneys 11 17.2% 6-10 Attorneys 5 7.8% 11-20 Attorneys 3 4.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 29 45.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-156
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 21 32.8% 10-20 years 16 25.0% More than 20 years 27 42.2%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 51 87.9% African American/Black 2 3.4% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.2% Native American 1 1.7% Other 1 1.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-157
Gender
Male 45 73.8% Female 16 26.2%
3.67
3.82
3.88
3.83
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-40
JUDGE MARY ROBERTS
408 Attorney surveys sent out 87 responses Response Rate 21.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-158
Judge Roberts AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.67 8% 13% 16% 30% 33%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.63 9.6% 12.0% 13.3% 36.1% 28.9%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.57 9.6% 14.5% 15.7% 30.1% 30.1%
manner. 3.60 8.3% 17.9% 13.1% 27.4% 33.3%
Was prepared for court. 3.88 4.8% 7.2% 21.7% 27.7% 38.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.82 7% 8% 19% 27% 39%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.68 9.5% 10.7% 19.0% 23.8% 36.9%
Was attentive to proceedings. 3.94 7.1% 3.6% 20.2% 26.2% 42.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.73 9.5% 10.7% 16.75 23.8% 39.3%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.01 2.4% 6.1% 18.3% 34.1% 39.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.88 5% 5% 22% 32% 36%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.99 0 7.2% 20.5% 38.6% 33.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.74 9.2% 5.3% 23.7% 26.3% 35.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.78 8.4% 3.6% 24.1% 28.9% 34.9%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.01 3.6% 3.6% 20.5% 32.5% 39.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.83 11% 9% 13% 20% 47%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.89 9.6% 6.0% 15.7% 22.9% 45.8%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.81 10.8% 9.6% 13.3% 20.5% 45.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.66 14.6% 14.6% 6.1% 19.5% 45.1%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.98 8.5% 6.1% 17.1% 15.9% 52.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-159
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Roberts During Previous 2 Years
Once 29 34.1% 2-3 Times 39 45.9% 4-10 Times 14 16.5% More Than 10 Times 3 3.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 9 10.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 11 12.6% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 12 13.8% Criminal -- Prosecution 7 8.0% Commercial & General Civil 23 26.4% Domestic Relations/Family Law 20 23.0% Government Practice 2 2.3% Other 3 3.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 9 10.6% Attorney General's Office 2 2.4% Public Defender 9 10.6% Legal Aid 1 1.2% In House Corporate Counsel 2 2.4% Private Practice 61 71.8%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 22 25.3% 2-5 Attorneys 19 21.8% 6-10 Attorneys 9 10.3% 11-20 Attorneys 6 6.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 31 35.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-160
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 25 28.7% 10-20 years 25 28.7% More than 20 years 37 42.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 74 90.2% African American/Black 3 3.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 1.2% Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-161
Gender
Male 52 61.9% Female 32 38.1%
4.39
4.62
4.46
4.54
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-41
JUDGE PALMER ROBINSON
273 Attorney surveys sent out 53 responses Response Rate 19.4%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-162
Judge Robinson AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.39 <1% 3% 8% 32% 56%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.38 0 3.8% 9.4% 32.1% 54.7%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.38 1.9% 3.8% 3.8% 35.8% 54.7%
manner. 4.36 0 5.7% 7.5% 32.1% 54.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.45 0 0 13.2% 28.3% 58.5%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.62 <1% 1% 5% 23% 71%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.65 0 1.9% 3.8% 21.2% 73.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.67 0 1.9% 3.8% 19.2% 75.0%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.62 1.9% 0 3.8% 23.1% 71.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.53 0 0 9.8% 27.5% 62.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.46 <1% 2% 9% 28% 61%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.56 0 0 9.6% 25.0% 65.4%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.38 1.9% 3.8% 5.7% 32.1% 56.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.42 0 1.9% 11.5% 28.8% 57.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.50 0 1.9% 9.6% 25.0% 63.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.54 <1% 4% 9% 15% 72%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.60 0 1.9% 11.3% 11.3% 75.5%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.55 0 3.8% 9.4% 15.1% 71.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.38 0 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 61.5%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.62 2.0% 2.0% 6.0% 12.0% 78.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-163
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Robinson During Previous 2 Years
Once 7 13.2% 2-3 Times 24 45.3% 4-10 Times 12 22.6% More Than 10 Times 10 18.9%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 8 15.4% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 8 15.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 19 36.5% Criminal -- Prosecution 1 1.9% Commercial & General Civil 9 17.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 4 7.7% Government Practice 1 1.9% Other 2 3.85
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 2 3.8% Attorney General's Office 1 1.9% Public Defender 12 22.6% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 2 3.8% Private Practice 35 66.0%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 10 18.9% 2-5 Attorneys 8 15.1% 6-10 Attorneys 7 13.2% 11-20 Attorneys 7 13.2% More Than 20 Attorneys 21 39.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-164
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 12 22.6% 10-20 years 18 34.0% More than 20 years 23 43.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 46 86.8% African American/Black 3 5.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 1.9% Native American 0 0 Other 1 1.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-165
Gender
Male 38 71.7% Female 15 28.3%
4.3
4.67
4.39
4.4
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-42
JUDGE JIM ROGERS
496 Attorney surveys sent out 123 responses Response Rate 24.8%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-166
Judge Rogers AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.30 4% 3% 10% 27% 56%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.18 3.4% 4.2% 13.4% 28.6% 50.4%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.24 3.4% 1.7% 14.4% 28.8% 51.7%
manner. 4.23 5.1% 3.4% 9.4% 27.4% 54.7%
Was prepared for court. 4.55 2.5% 1.7% 2.5% 25.0% 68.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.67 2% 1% 4% 14% 79%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.71 1.7% 0 5.8% 10.8% 81.7%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.71 0 1.7% 5.0% 14.2% 79.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.65 3.3% .8% 3.3% 12.5% 80.0%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.41 1.7% 2.5% 3.4% 17.6% 74.8%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.39 2% 4% 9% 25% 60%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.45 1.7% 3.4% 5.9% 26.1% 63.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.36 2.6% .9% 12.8% 25.6% 58.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.30 2.5% 5.8% 9.2% 24.2% 58.3%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.45 0 4.2% 9.2% 24.4% 62.2%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.40 5% 3% 8% 16% 68%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.47 5.0% .8% 6.7% 16.8% 70.6%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.42 5.9% 1.7% 6.7% 16.0% 69.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.18 5.0% 6.7% 11.8% 17.6% 58.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.54 2.5% 2.5% 7.6% 13.4% 73.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-167
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Rogers During Previous 2 Years
Once 33 27.5% 2-3 Times 48 40.0% 4-10 Times 30 25.0% More Than 10 Times 9 7.5%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 15 13.3% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 14 12.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 10 8.8% Criminal -- Prosecution 3 2.7% Commercial & General Civil 24 21.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 33 29.2% Government Practice 7 6.2% Other 7 6.2%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 10 8.2% Attorney General's Office 4 3.3% Public Defender 6 4.9% Legal Aid 2 1.6% In House Corporate Counsel 6 4.9% Private Practice 91 74.6% Other 3 2.5%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 38 31.4% 2-5 Attorneys 19 15.7% 6-10 Attorneys 15 12.4% 11-20 Attorneys 19 15.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 30 24.8%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-168
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 24 20.7% 10-20 years 33 27.3% More than 20 years 63 52.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 105 89.0% African American/Black 5 4.2% Hispanic/Latino(a) 4 3.4% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 .8% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-169
Gender
Male 71 60.7% Female 46 39.3%
APPENDIX B-43
JUDGE WESLEY J. SAINT CLAIR
207 Attorney surveys sent out 58 responses Response Rate 28%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-170
Judge Saint Clair AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.09 2% 6% 17% 29% 46%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.98 2.0% 5.9% 23.5% 29.4% 39.2%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.89 2.1% 10.6% 21.3% 27.7% 38.3%
manner. 4.13 1.9% 7.4% 14.8% 27.8% 48.1%
Was prepared for court. 4.35 1.9% 1.9% 11.1% 29.6% 55.6%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.24 2% 8% 15% 14% 61%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.09 5.5% 9.1% 14.5% 12.7% 58.2%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.51 0 5.5% 9.1% 14.5% 70.9%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.04 3.6% 12.7% 14.5% 14.5% 54.5%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.31 0% 3.6% 21.8% 14.5% 60%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.23 2% 3% 19% 25% 54%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.41 0 1.8% 17.9% 17.9% 62.5%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.16 1.8% 1.8% 23.6% 23.6% 49.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.30 0% 3.7% 18.5% 22.2% 55.6%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.05 5.4% 3.6% 17.9% 26.8% 46.4%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.21 5% 4% 14% 19% 57%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.32 3.6% 0% 17.9% 17.9% 60.7%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.18 5.4% 7.1% 10.7% 17.9% 58.9%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.00 7.5% 3.8% 15.1% 28.3% 45.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.32 3.6% 3.6% 14.3% 14.3% 64.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-171
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Saint Clair During Previous 2 Years
Once 2 3.6% 2-3 Times 8 14.3% 4-10 Times 17 30.4% More Than 10 Times 29 51.8%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 38 66.7% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 0 0 Criminal -- Defense Attorney 0 0 Criminal -- Prosecution 15 26.3% Commercial & General Civil 0 0 Domestic Relations/Family Law 0 0 Government Practice 3 5.3% Other 1 1.8%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 14 24.1% Attorney General's Office 2 3.4% Public Defender 21 36.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 18 31.0% Other 3 5.2%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 11 19.6% 2-5 Attorneys 10 17.9% 6-10 Attorneys 3 5.4% 11-20 Attorneys 1 1.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 31 55.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-172
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 24 41.4% 10-20 years 14 24.1% More than 20 years 20 34.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 51 92.7% African American/Black 1 1.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 3.6% Native American 1 1.8% Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-173
Gender
Male 31 55.4% Female 25 44.6%
APPENDIX B-44
JUDGE CAROL SCHAPIRA
203 Attorney surveys sent out 61 responses Response Rate 30%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-174
Judge Schapira AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.58 7% 10% 29% 23% 30%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.61 6.6% 9.8% 31.1% 21.3% 31.1%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.47 10.2% 11.9% 25.4% 25.4% 27.1%
manner. 3.57 6.6% 13.1% 27.9% 21.3% 31.1%
Was prepared for court. 3.67 6.6% 6.6% 31.1% 24.6% 31.1%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.85 5% 7% 25% 23% 40%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.00 5.0% 3.3% 25.0% 20.0% 46.7%
Was attentive to proceedings. 3.70 8.2% 13.1% 19.7% 18.0% 41.0%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.82 4.9% 6.6% 26.2% 26.2% 36.1%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.89 1.6% 6.6% 29.5% 26.2% 36.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.75 4% 8% 27% 30% 31%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.87 0 8.2% 28.3% 31.7% 31.7%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.52 6.9% 12.1% 29.3% 25.9% 25.9%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.88 3.3% 6.7% 25.0% 28.3% 36.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.71 6.8% 6.8% 23.7% 33.9% 28.8%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.73 7% 11% 23% 23% 37%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.82 3.3% 11.5% 19.7% 31.1% 34.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.75 3.3% 13.1% 21.3% 29.5% 32.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.41 11.5% 13.1% 26.2% 21.3% 27.9
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.95 8.5% 5.1% 23.7% 8.5% 54.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-175
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Schapira During Previous 2 Years
Once 9 14.8% 2-3 Times 15 24.6% 4-10 Times 3 4.9% More Than 10 Times 34 55.7%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 4.9% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 3.3% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 19 31.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 17 27.9% Commercial & General Civil 9 14.8% Domestic Relations/Family Law 7 11.5% Government Practice 3 4.9% Other 1 1.6%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 32.8% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 16 26.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 24 39.3% Other 1 1.6%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 14 23.0% 2-5 Attorneys 6 9.8% 6-10 Attorneys 1 1.6% 11-20 Attorneys 5 8.2% More Than 20 Attorneys 35 57.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-176
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 28 45.9% 10-20 years 15 24.6% More than 20 years 18 29.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 49 86.0% African American/Black 3 5.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.8% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 5.3% Native American 1 1.8% Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-177
Gender
Male 29 50.0% Female 29 50.0%
3.83
3.83
3.96
3.67
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-45 JUDGE CATHERINE SHAFFER
269 Attorney surveys sent out 100 responses Response Rate 37.1%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-178
Judge Shaffer AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.83 6% 8% 23% 21% 42%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.74 8.2% 9.2% 22.4% 20.4% 39.8%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure. 3.72 6.3% 12.6% 23.2% 18.9% 38.9%
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise manner.
3.78 6.2% 9.3% 23.7% 21.6% 39.2%
Was prepared for court. 4.18 2.0% 1.0% 23.5% 23.5% 50.0%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 3.83 7% 7% 21% 24% 41%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 3.62 11.1% 12.1% 19.2% 19.2% 38.4%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.07 3.0% 2.0% 23.2% 28.3% 43.4%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.68 12.1% 9.1% 17.2% 22.2% 39.4%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 3.94 5.1% 4.0% 24.2% 25.3% 41.4%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.96 4% 5% 22% 22% 47%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.11 1.0% 2.0% 28.6% 21.4% 46.9%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.89 5.3% 9.6% 18.1% 24.5% 42.6%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.04 4.1% 4.1% 21.4% 24.5% 45.9%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.81 6.2% 10.3% 21.6% 19.6% 42.3%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.67 10% 12% 20% 18% 40%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 3.75 9.1% 10.1% 21.2% 16.2% 43.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.49 11.1% 15.2% 21.2% 18.2% 34.3%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.55 9.1% 16.2% 19.2% 22.2% 33.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 3.87 11.2% 5.1% 18.4% 16.3% 49.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-179
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Shaffer During Previous 2 Years
Once 19 19.0% 2-3 Times 34 34.0% 4-10 Times 37 37.0% More Than 10 Times 10 10.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 3 3.0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 6 6.0% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 17.0% Criminal -- Prosecution 17 17.0% Commercial & General Civil 10 10.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 32 32.0% Government Practice 9 9.0% Other 6 6.0%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 21 21.4% Attorney General's Office 8 8.2% Public Defender 12 12.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1% Private Practice 52 53.0% Other 4 4.1%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 26 26.0% 2-5 Attorneys 17 17.0% 6-10 Attorneys 7 7.0% 11-20 Attorneys 6 6.0% More Than 20 Attorneys 44 44.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-180
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 36 36.0% 10-20 years 30 30.0% More than 20 years 34 34.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 81 86.2% African American/Black 2 2.1% Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 5 5.3% Native American 1 1.1% Other 3 3.2%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-181
Gender
Male 51 53.7% Female 44 46.3%
APPENDIX B-46
JUDGE MICHAEL SPEARMAN
276 Attorney surveys sent out 45 responses Response Rate 16%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-182
Judge Spearman AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.27 2% 1% 11% 40% 46%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.20 2.3% 0 13.6% 43.2% 40.9%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.14 2.3% 2.3% 11.6% 46.5% 37.2%
manner. 4.32 0 2.3% 11.4% 36.4% 50.0%
Was prepared for court. 4.42 2.3% 0 7.0% 34.9% 55.8%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.66 0 0 16% 26% 70%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.73 0 0 0% 27.3% 72.7%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.68 0 0 4.5% 22.7% 72.7%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.74 0 0 2.4% 21.4% 76.2%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.50 0 0 9.1% 31.8% 59.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.32 3% 2% 4% 42% 49%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.36 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 43.2% 50.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.28 4.7% 2.3% 0% 46.5% 46.5%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.29 2.2% 2.2% 6.7% 42.2% 46.7%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.36 2.2% 0% 8.9% 37.8% 51.1%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.51 3% <1% 5% 26% 66%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.58 2.3% 0% 2.3% 27.9% 67.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.53 2.2% 0% 6.7% 24.4% 66.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.29 4.4% 2.2% 6.7% 33.3% 53.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.65 2.3% 0% 4.7% 16.3% 76.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-183
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Spearman During Previous 2 Years
Once 9 20.0% 2-3 Times 20 44.4% 4-10 Times 10 22.2% More Than 10 Times 6 13.3%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0 Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 4.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 37.8% Criminal -- Prosecution 7 15.6% Commercial & General Civil 4 8.9% Domestic Relations/Family Law 11 24.4% Government Practice 3 6.7% Other 1 2.2%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 8 17.8% Attorney General's Office 3 6.7% Public Defender 9 20.0% Legal Aid 1 2.2% In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 24 53.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 15 33.3% 2-5 Attorneys 5 11.1% 6-10 Attorneys 2 4.4% 11-20 Attorneys 3 6.7% More Than 20 Attorneys 20 44.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-184
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 12 26.6% 10-20 years 13 28.9% More than 20 years 20 44.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 39 88.6% African American/Black 3 6.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 4.5% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.6%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-185
Gender
Male 25 56.8% Female 19 43.2%
APPENDIX B-47
JUDGE JULIE SPECTOR
381 Attorney surveys sent out 118 responses Response Rate 31%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-186
Judge Spector AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.95 7% 8% 15% 22% 48%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.87 10.3% 8.6% 12.9% 19.8% 48.3%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.86 6.4% 11.9% 16.5% 19.3% 45.9%
manner. 3.84 9.6% 9.6% 14% 20.2% 46.5%
Was prepared for court. 4.23 1.8% 3.5% 15.9% 27.4% 51.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.11 5% 6% 3% 18% 54%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.02 6.1% 7.8% 15.7% 19.1% 51.3%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.28 0.9% 4.3% 19.1% 17.4% 58.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 3.94 9.7% 5.3% 15.0% 21.2% 51.3%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.21 2.7% 7.1% 15.9% 15.0% 59.3%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.19 2% 5% 18% 23% 52%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.30 0.9% 3.6% 15.2% 25.0% 55.4%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.05 1.9% 10.4% 17.9% 20.8% 49.1%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.10 4.4% 2.6% 21.9% 21.1% 50.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.24 0.9% 5.4% 15.2% 25.9% 52.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.96 8% 8% 14% 19% 51%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.09 6.0% 4.3% 17.2% 19.0% 53.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.84 11.2% 8.6% 12.1% 20.7% 47.4%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.80 9.5% 14.7% 9.5% 19.0% 47.4%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.11 7.1% 3.6% 16.1% 17.9% 55.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-187
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Spector During Previous 2 Years
Once 19 16.4% 2-3 Times 36 31.0% 4-10 Times 30 25.9% More Than 10 Times 31 26.7%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 8 7.6% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 7 6.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 39 37.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 28 26.7% Commercial & General Civil 16 15.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 1 1.0% Government Practice 0 % Other 6 5.7%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 31 26.5% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 26 22.2% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 0.9% Private Practice 58 49.6% Other 1 0.9
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 20 17.2% 2-5 Attorneys 22 19.0% 6-10 Attorneys 3 2.6% 11-20 Attorneys 8 6.9% More Than 20 Attorneys 63 54.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-188
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 39 33.7% 10-20 years 40 34.5% More than 20 years 37 31.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 95 89.6% African American/Black 4 3.8% Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0 Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 2 1.9% Native American 0 0 Other 5 4.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-189
Gender
Male 72 64.9% Female 39 35.1%
4.72
4.87
4.67
4.86
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-48
JUDGE MICHAEL TRICKEY
114 Attorney surveys sent out 30 responses Response Rate 26.3%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-190
Judge Trickey AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL ABILITY 4.72 1% 0 3% 17% 79%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.69 0 0 6.9% 17.2% 75.9%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.69 0 0 6.9% 17.2% 75.9%
manner. 4.66 3.4% 0 0% 20.7% 75.9%
Was prepared for court. 4.86 0 0 0% 13.8% 86.2%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.87 0 0 16% 6% 91%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.80 0 0% 6.7% 6.7% 86.7%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.93 0 0% 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.83 0 0% 6.9% 3.4% 89.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.93 0 0% 0% 7.1% 92.9%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.67 3% 0% 3% 14% 80%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.69 3.4% 0 3.4% 10.3% 82.8%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.66 3.4% 0 3.4% 13.8% 79.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.69 3.4% 0 3.4% 10.3% 82.8%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.66 3.4% 0 0 20.7% 75.9%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.86 0 1% 2% 8% 89%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.86 0 0 3.6% 7.1% 89.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.82 0 0 3.6% 10.7% 85.7%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.82 0 3.6% 0% 7.1% 89.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.93 0 0 0% 7.1% 92.9%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-191
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Trickey During Previous 2 Years
Once 3 11.1% 2-3 Times 10 37.0% 4-10 Times 4 14.8% More Than 10 Times 10 37.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 0 0% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 2 6.9% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 15 51.7% Criminal -- Prosecution 8 27.6% Commercial & General Civil 3 10.3% Domestic Relations/Family Law 0 0 Government Practice 0 0 Other 1 3.4%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 6 20.7% Attorney General's Office 0 0 Public Defender 11 37.9% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 0 0 Private Practice 11 37.9% Other 1 3.4%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 6 20.0% 2-5 Attorneys 3 10.0% 6-10 Attorneys 2 6.7% 11-20 Attorneys 0 0 More Than 20 Attorneys 18 60.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-192
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 5 17.2% 10-20 years 6 20.7% More than 20 years 18 62.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 25 86.2% African American/Black 0 0 Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 6.9% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 1 3.4% Native American 1 3.4% Other 0 0
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-193
Gender
Male 14 53.8% Female 12 46.2%
3.47
4.29
3.69
3.94
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-49
JUDGE CHRIS WASHINGTON
390 Attorney surveys sent out 82 responses Response Rate 21%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-194
Judge Washington AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 3.47 7% 13% 29% 29% 22%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.34 8.9% 13.9% 30.4% 27.8% 19.0%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.32 10.4% 11.7% 33.8% 23.4% 20.8%
manner. 3.44 6.2% 14.8% 29.6% 27.2% 22.2%
Was prepared for court. 3.76 2.5% 10.0% 22.5% 38.8% 26.3%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.29 1% 2% 11% 26% 54%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.40 1.2% 2.5% 12.3% 23.5% 60.5%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.33 1.2% 0 17.3% 27.2% 54.3%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.40 1.2% 1.2% 13.6% 24.7% 59.3%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.02 1.2% 6.2% 22.2% 29.6% 40.7%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 3.69 3% 10% 27% 35% 25%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 3.85 2.5% 3.8% 27.8% 38.0% 27.8%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 3.68 2.9% 10.1% 26.1% 37.7% 23.2%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 3.66 3.8% 8.8% 30.0% 32.5% 25.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 3.56 2.5% 16.3% 26.3% 32.5% 22.5%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 3.94 6% 7% 18% 25% 44%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.11 2.5% 5.0% 17.5% 28.8% 46.3%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 3.90 5.0% 7.5% 20.0% 27.5% 40.0%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 3.40 15.0% 11.3% 21.3% 23.8% 28.8%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.34 1.3% 3.8% 13.9% 21.5% 59.5%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-195
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Washington During Previous 2 Years
Once 19 23.2% 2-3 Times 27 32.9% 4-10 Times 26 31.7% More Than 10 Times 9 11.0%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 7 8.8% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 5 6.3% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 27 33.8% Criminal -- Prosecution 18 22.5% Commercial & General Civil 12 15.0% Domestic Relations/Family Law 5 6.3% Government Practice 4 5.0% Other 2 2.5%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 20 25.0% Attorney General's Office 2 2.5% Public Defender 12 15.0% Legal Aid 0 0 In House Corporate Counsel 1 1.3% Private Practice 45 56.3%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 20 25.0% 2-5 Attorneys 14 17.5% 6-10 Attorneys 7 8.8% 11-20 Attorneys 7 8.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 32 40.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-196
Years as Attorney
Less than 2-10 years 26 30.7% 10-20 years 22 26.8% More than 20 years 34 41.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 67 90.5% African American/Black 2 2.7% Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 4.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 2 2.7%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-197
Gender
Male 61 78.2% Female 17 21.8%
4.03
4.43
4.11
4.32
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-50
JUDGE JAY WHITE
367 Attorney surveys sent out 90 responses Response Rate 24.5%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-198
Judge White AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.03 2% 6% 21% 29% 42%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 3.97 3.4% 6.7% 21.3% 27.0% 41.6%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
3.95 3.5% 3.5% 22.1% 36.0% 34.9%
manner. 3.94 1.1% 11.2% 20.2% 27.0% 40.4%
Was prepared for court. 4.26 1.1% 1.1% 20.2% 25.8% 51.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.43 1% 2% 11% 24% 62%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.55 2.3% 0 8.0% 19.5% 70.1%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.40 0 3.4% 13.6% 22.7% 60.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.49 2.3% 1.1% 8.0% 21.8% 66.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.28 1.1% 3.4% 12.5% 31.8% 51.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.11 1% 5% 21% 27% 46%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.24 0 3.4% 19.3% 27.3% 50.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.04 2.4% 4.7% 22.4% 28.2% 42.4%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.11 1.1% 4.5% 22.5% 25.8% 46.1%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.06 1.1% 7.9% 20.2% 25.8% 44.9%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.32 4% 3% 12% 19% 62%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.40 3.4% 2.3% 11.4% 17.0% 65.9%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.37 3.4% 3.4% 10.1% 19.1% 64.0%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.05 6.8% 5.7% 15.9% 19.35 52.3%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.49 2.3% 1.2% 9.3% 19.8% 67.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-199
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge White During Previous 2 Years
Once 10 11.4% 2-3 Times 41 46.6% 4-10 Times 25 28.4% More Than 10 Times 12 13.6%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 12 13.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 11 12.4% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 17 19.1% Criminal -- Prosecution 9 10.1% Commercial & General Civil 18 20.2% Domestic Relations/Family Law 17 19.1% Government Practice 4 4.5% Other 1 1.1%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 14 15.7% Attorney General's Office 1 1.1% Public Defender 11 12.4% Legal Aid 1 1.1% In House Corporate Counsel 3 3.4% Private Practice 56 62.9% OTHER 3 3.4%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 25 27..8% 2-5 Attorneys 16 17.8% 6-10 Attorneys 7 7.8% 11-20 Attorneys 12 13.3% More Than 20 Attorneys 30 33.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-200
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 25 27.8% 10-20 years 29 32.2% More than 20 years 36 40.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 73 88.0% African American/Black 3 3.6% Hispanic/Latino(a) 1 1.1% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 3 3.3% Native American 0 0 Other 3 3.3%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-201
Gender
Male 55 65.5% Female 29 34.5%
4.29
4.4
4.39
4.27
4.06
4.32
4.22
4.19
1 2 3 4 5
Legal Decision Making
Demeanor,
Temperament, &
Communication
Administrative Skills
Integrity and
Impartiality
Judge Average Court Average
APPENDIX B-51
JUDGE MARY YU
571 Attorney surveys sent out 158 responses Response Rate 27.7%
RATING SCALE
Excellent 5 Very Good 4 Acceptable 3 Poor 2 Unacceptable 1
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-202
Judge Yu AVERAGES QUESTION RESPONSES (PERCENTAGES)
Item Average
Category Average
Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Very Good
Excellent
LEGAL DECISION MAKING 4.29 1% 5% 14% 24% 56%
Capably identified and analyzed legal and factual issues. 4.20 1.3% 7.8% 12.4% 26.1% 52.3%
Capably applied rules of evidence and procedure.
Articulated rulings & grounds for rulings in clear & concise
4.18 2.0% 6.1% 13.6% 27.9% 50.3%
manner. 4.27 1.3% 5.2% 15.7% 20.9% 56.9%
Was prepared for court. 4.49 0 .7% 14.4% 20.3% 64.7%
DEMEANOR, TEMPERAMENT, AND COMMUNICATION 4.40 2% 4% 4% 18% 65%
Treated people with courtesy and respect. 4.31 4.5% 4.5% 10.4% 16.9% 63.6%
Was attentive to proceedings. 4.58 0 1.3% 10.5% 17.0% 71.2%
Acted with patience and self-control. 4.30 2.6% 6.5% 11.8% 16.3% 62.7%
Used clear oral communication while in court. 4.43 0 2.6% 13.7% 21.6% 62.1%
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4.39 1% 1% 16% 28% 54%
Maintained control over the courtroom. 4.37 0 .7% 16.0% 29.3% 54.0%
Appropriately enforced court rules and deadlines. 4.20 2.7% 2.7% 16.8% 27.5% 50.3%
Made decisions and rulings in a prompt, timely manner. 4.37 .7% 1.3% 15.2% 25.8% 57.0%
Used the court's time efficiently. 4.32 .7% 3.3% 14.0% 27.3% 54.7%
INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY 4.27 3% 7% 10% 21% 59%
Avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 4.37 1.3% 5.2% 9.8% 22.2% 61.4%
Displayed a neutral presence on the bench. 4.25 2.6% 8.5% 9.2% 20.9% 58.8%
Based rulings on the facts and the law. 4.09 4.6% 8.6% 12.5% 22.4% 52.0%
Treated all individuals equally and without bias 4.38 3.3% 4.6% 9.2% 17.0% 66.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-203
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Appearances Before Judge Yu During Previous 2 Years
Once 21 13.6% 2-3 Times 78 50.6% 4-10 Times 40 26.0% More Than 10 Times 15 9.7%
Practice Area
Civil Tort -- Defense 27 17.5% Civil Tort -- Plaintiff 15 9.7% Criminal -- Defense Attorney 25 16.2% Criminal -- Prosecution 13 8.4% Commercial & General Civil 31 20.1% Domestic Relations/Family Law 32 20.8% Government Practice 7 4.5% Other 4 2.6%
Work Setting
Prosecuting Attorney's Office 17 11.0% Attorney General's Office 4 2.6% Public Defender 18 11.7% Legal Aid 2 1.3% In House Corporate Counsel 2 1.3% Private Practice 108 70.1% Other 3 1.9%
Size of Firm
Sole Practitioner 26 16.9% 2-5 Attorneys 44 28.6% 6-10 Attorneys 16 10.4% 11-20 Attorneys 12 7.8% More Than 20 Attorneys 56 36.4%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-204
Years as Attorney
Less than 10 years 39 25.3% 10-20 years 44 28.6% More than 20 years 71 46.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 128 85.3% African American/Black 5 3.3% Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 4.0% Asian Amer./Pacific Islander 8 5.3% Native American 0 0 Other 3 2.0%
Judicial Evaluation Committee 2007 Judicial Evaluation Survey
King County Bar Association Page B-205
Gender
Male 91 60.3% Female 60 39.7%