THE CHIEF JUSTICE of the Superior Court and the administrative judges of the probate and district courts have been engaged for years in evaluating individual judges. The evaluation process has consisted of attorneys and others who frequently appear in the courts presided over by those judges being evaluated filling out questionnaires, offering commentary on the judges’ performances. The Supreme Court formally recognized the ongoing process on March 27, 2001, by adopting Rule 56 on a temporary basis. RSA 490:32 (2000 Laws, Chapter 53:2, effective April 17, 2000) set forth the program and detailed its implementation (see below).

Each of the administrative judges has now completed evaluations of at least one-third of the judges in his court. The process begins with the judge being evaluated filling out a self-evaluation form in which he or she rates himself/herself with respect to seven categories: 1.) Performance, 2.) Temperament and demeanor, 3.) Judicial management skills, 4.) Legal knowledge, 5.) Attentiveness, 6.) Bias and objectivity, and 7.) Degree of preparedness. Each of the categories has several sub-sections, presenting a total of 36 items to be answered on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 representing excellent and 5, unsatisfactory.

A similar questionnaire is distributed by the Office of the Clerk, (in the case of probate judges, by the register) to a cross-section of Bar members frequently appearing before the judge, as well as to parties, witnesses, jurors and court staff involved with the judge within the past year. The questionnaire solicits background information from attorneys on their experience with the judge and provides a section for comments. To obviate respondents misusing the questionnaire by submitting more than one, the scanning process used by the Administrative Office of the Courts will not scan duplicated questionnaires, only originals.

Upon the return of a sufficient number of responses (no less than 35 in the case of the Superior Court), the original questionnaires are forwarded to the Administrative Office of the Courts, where they are scanned and the results summarized. The summary presents an average of all judges evaluated, against which each judge’s average scores can be compared. The summary of the results is forwarded to the administrative judge, together with the original questionnaires.

The administrative judge then discusses the overall evaluation with the judge, including comparing the judge’s self-evaluation with those of others and discussing, without detail, the comments solicited from attorneys and others. The profile of an attorney-respondent is not disclosed to the judge, and the attorney comments are edited so that the judge will not be able to discern the identity of the author.

At the end of the process, each judge evaluated will receive a written summary of the evaluation, together with recommendations from the administrative judge as to any appropriate corrective action necessitated.

In the course of this year’s evaluations, members of the Bar raised concerns that they were unaware of the judicial evaluation process because the court failed to adequately publicize it. They said that as a result, attorneys and others had not been able to provide sufficient input on the judges’ evaluations. Those unfamiliar with the evaluation process should refer to Rule 56 and the statute, RSA 490:32. For those attorneys who are reluctant to fill out the questionnaires due to their concern that the identity of the respondents will be disclosed to the evaluated judge, there is little we can do but reassure them that the information is strictly confidential by the rule, by the statute and in practice.

We all recognize that the evaluation process is a work in progress. We welcome suggestions, comments and questions to make certain that our judges are responsive to the legitimate concerns of those who appear before them, and that the purpose of this program – to improve the performance of individual judges – is not simply a hope, but a reality.

I. The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior, district and probate courts, shall design and implement by court rule, a program for performance evaluation of judges. The sole purpose of this program shall be the improvement of the performance of individual judges and of the judiciary as a whole.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all information compiled through this program shall be confidential, except as otherwise provided in this section.

II. The program for performance evaluation shall include, but shall not be limited to, review of records of the supreme court’s committee on judicial conduct which are public records under supreme court Rule 40; a questionnaire, to be designed by the supreme court; and a self-evaluation form to be completed by the judge. The supreme court shall strive to achieve uniformity among court evaluation questionnaires, recognizing that the questionnaires for each court may differ due to the jurisdiction of the courts. Questionnaires shall be distributed to a representative sample of attorneys, parties, witnesses, jurors, court personnel and others who have appeared before a judge during the evaluation period, for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the judge. The questionnaire shall include, but shall not be limited to, questions relative to the judge’s performance, temperament and demeanor, judicial management skills, legal knowledge, attentiveness, bias and objectivity, and degree of preparedness. Completed forms shall be returned to the administrative judge, unsigned, within 30 days of issuance. All responses shall remain confidential.

III. The program for performance evaluation shall ensure that each judge is evaluated a minimum of once every three years.

IV. The chief justice of the supreme court shall evaluate the administrative judges of the superior, district and probate courts.

V. (a) The chief justice and a majority of the supreme court, in consultation with the administrative judges of the superior, district and probate courts, shall establish judicial evaluation standards, and shall design or determine appropriate programs for judges who need help meeting the judicial evaluation standards. The supreme court shall establish disciplinary rules and may initiate disciplinary action when appropriate. If a judge fails to adequately meet judicial evaluation standards after two consecutive evaluations, or purposely fails to complete assigned programs, the judge’s right to confidentiality shall be waived.

(b) Upon consideration of nomination for another judicial appointment, a judge’s evaluations shall be made available to the governor upon request. Upon nomination, such evaluations shall be made available to the executive council upon request. The contents of such evaluations shall be kept in strict confidence by the governor and executive council.

(c) Judicial performance evaluations shall be retained by the judicial branch for the duration of the judge’s tenure.

VI. The supreme court shall prepare a report on the implementation of the performance evaluation program described in this section within one year of the effective date of this section and submit such report to the governor, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate, and the chairpersons of the House and Senate judiciary committees. Such report shall be made available to the public. Beginning in 2001, the supreme court shall annually file a report on the evaluation process, including, but not limited to, the number of evaluations performed by each court, the percentage of responses received, and, without identifying individual judges, a summary of the overall evaluation results and all actions taken to correct inadequacies and deficiencies. The annual report shall be submitted on or before June 30 of each year to the governor, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate, and the chairpersons of the House and Senate judiciary committees. Such report shall be made available to the public.

Source: 2000, 53:2, eff. April 17, 2000. From www.state.nh.us.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer