Supreme Court Rules Table of Contents
(I)
Administration and Implementation of a Performance Evaluation Program
(A) The supreme court shall be
responsible for the overall administration of a judicial performance evaluation
program. On or before June 30 of each year, it shall prepare an annual report on
the implementation and operation of the judicial performance evaluation program
for public distribution and filing with the governor, the speaker of the house,
the president of the senate and the chairpersons of the house and senate
judiciary committees. The report shall include a summary of the number of
evaluations performed by each court, the number of questionnaires distributed
and returned, and, without identifying individual judges or marital masters who
were evaluated, a summary of the results of the evaluations.
(B) The administrative judges of the
superior, district and probate courts shall be responsible for implementing the
judicial performance evaluation program in those courts. They shall have the
authority and the duty to:
(1) consult
with the supreme court about the design of the questionnaires to be distributed
to a representative selection of attorneys, parties, witnesses, jurors, court
personnel and others who have appeared before the judge or marital master being
evaluated, to assess whether the judge or marital master has met the applicable
judicial performance standards during the evaluation period;
(2) consult
with the supreme court about the adoption of written protocol setting forth the
procedure for distributing the questionnaires described in subsection (1),
including the number of questionnaires to be distributed, the process for
selecting the persons who will be sent the questionnaires, the manner for
distribution and return of the questionnaires and the process for compiling the
results of the questionnaires;
(3) consult
with the supreme court about the design of a self-evaluation form to be
completed by each judge or marital master being evaluated, which attempts to
assess whether the judge or marital master has met the applicable judicial
performance standards during the evaluation period;
(4) consult
with the supreme court about the judicial performance standards applicable to
the judges or marital masters of each court;
(5) consult
with the supreme court about the development or identification of suitable
programs to assist judges or marital masters who have not met the applicable
judicial performance standards to do so; and
(6) consult
with the supreme court about the advisability of other administrative action to
address the performance problems of any judge or marital master that are
identified through the evaluation process or otherwise.
(II)
Evaluation of Trial Court Judges and Marital Masters
(A)
Persons Performing Evaluations; Frequency of Evaluations
The administrative judge of the
superior court, or the administrative judge's designee, shall evaluate each
justice and marital master of the superior court a minimum of once every three
years.
The administrative judge of the
district court, or the administrative judge's designee, shall evaluate each
full-time and part-time district court judge a minimum of once every three
years.
The administrative judge of the
probate court, or the administrative judge's designee, shall evaluate each
full-time and part-time probate court judge a minimum of once every three years.
A panel consisting of the chief
justice of the supreme court and two associate justices of the supreme court
shall evaluate the administrative judges of the superior, district and probate
courts a minimum of once every three years.
(B)
Components of Evaluation
The judicial evaluation process is
intended to evaluate a judge's or marital master's performance in relation to
the applicable judicial performance standards. The person performing the
evaluation shall attempt to obtain balanced information from multiple sources to
accurately assess the judge's or marital master's performance during the
evaluation period. The evaluation process of an individual judge or marital
master shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:
(1) review of
complaints about the judge or marital master that have been docketed by the
supreme court's committee on judicial conduct and that are public records under
Rule 40;
(2) review of
the results of the completed questionnaires sent to a representative sample of
persons who appeared before the judge or marital master during the evaluation
period;
(3) review of
the self-evaluation form completed by the judge or marital master; and
(4) review of
any complaints or inquiries about the judge or marital master received by the
administrative judge or chief justice.
(C)
Results of Evaluation and Meeting with Judge or Marital Master Who Has Been
Evaluated
(1) The
person performing the evaluation shall prepare a summary of the results of the
evaluation, which describes the judge's or marital master's performance in
relation to the judicial performance standards, and which identifies any
judicial performance standard that has not been met and sets forth the steps the
judge or marital master must take to improve his or her performance.
(2) The
person performing the evaluation shall meet with the judge or marital master who
has been evaluated to discuss the results of the evaluation, to advise the judge
or marital master whether the judge has met the applicable judicial performance
standards, and, if not, to identify the steps that the judge or marital master
must take to improve his or her performance.
(3) At the
conclusion of the meeting, the judge or marital master who has been evaluated
shall sign the evaluation summary, indicating that he or she has been informed
of the results of the evaluation and has been given a copy of the evaluation
summary.
(4) Within 30
days of the meeting, the judge or marital master who has been evaluated may
submit a written response to the evaluation. The response shall be kept with the
evaluation summary.
(D)
Failure to Meet Judicial Performance Standards
(1) If the
person performing the evaluation concludes that a judge or marital master has
failed to meet a judicial performance standard, he or she shall prepare a
written summary identifying the performance standard that has not been met and
specifying the steps that the judge or marital master must take to improve his
or her performance and the time in which the steps must be taken.
(2) If a
judge or marital master has been determined not to have met a judicial
performance standard, then the chief justice or the administrative judge of the
court on which the evaluated judge or marital master serves shall, to the extent
possible, assist the judge or marital master to comply with the steps set forth
in the evaluation summary for improving the judge's or marital master's
performance.
(3) If a
judge or marital master has failed to take the steps to improve his or her
performance specified in the evaluation summary, the chief justice or the
administrative judge of the court on which the judge or marital master serves
may take steps to correct the non-compliance, including administrative
discipline, and may take whatever other steps are necessary to ensure compliance
and/or may report the failure to the committee on judicial conduct.
(III)
Evaluation of Supreme Court Justices
The supreme court shall design a questionnaire to be
distributed every three years to a representative selection of attorneys and
parties who appeared before the court to assess the performance of the court
during this period.
The court will adopt relevant objective appellate court
performance standards and regularly evaluate its performance according to such
standards.
Each justice shall complete a self-evaluation form designed
to assess whether the justice has met the applicable judicial performance
standards during the evaluation period.
The justices shall meet annually to evaluate each other's
performance.
(IV)
Confidentiality
(A)
General Rule. Except as otherwise provided in this section, all records
and information obtained and maintained during the judicial performance
evaluation process shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed. The
identity of persons who furnished information concerning judges under the
program shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.
(B)
Exceptions to Confidentiality Requirement.
(1)
Disclosure to Judge or Marital Master Being Evaluated. Information about
the results of the questionnaires or other components of the evaluation process
of an individual judge or marital master may be disclosed to the judge or
marital master for the purpose of improving his or her judicial performance,
except that the identity of persons furnishing information about the judge or
marital master shall not be disclosed.
(2)
Disclosure to Other Judges Assisting in Evaluation Process. The person
performing the evaluation may share the results of the evaluation with other
judges for the purpose of assisting in the evaluation process.
(3)
If A Judge or Marital Master Fails to Meet Judicial Evaluation Standards or
Purposely Fails to Complete Improvement Programs. If a judge or marital
master fails to meet judicial performance standards for two consecutive
performance evaluations, or if a judge or marital master purposely fails to
complete the steps for improving his or her performance specified in the
evaluation summary, the judge or marital master shall be deemed to have waived
any right to confidentiality provided for by this rule, and the results of the
judge's or marital master's evaluations shall become public, with the exception
of the identity of persons furnishing information about the judge or marital
master.
(4)
If A Judge or Marital Master is Being Considered or is Nominated for Another
Judicial Position. If a judge or marital master is being considered
for another judicial position, the judge or marital master may authorize the
release of the results of his or her judicial performance evaluations to the
governor and to any agency or commission authorized to investigate the
qualifications of judicial candidates, provided that they shall be required to
keep the contents of the evaluations in strict confidence. Upon
nomination of a judge or marital master, the results of his or her judicial
performance evaluations shall be made available to the governor and executive
council upon request. The contents of such evaluations shall be kept in
strict confidence by the governor and executive council.
(V)
Retention of Records of Judicial Performance Evaluations
The judicial performance evaluation summaries of a judge or
marital master shall be retained while the judge or marital master remains in
state judicial service.