LAWYERS AND PARTIES to cases who participated in the first performance evaluation of the New Hampshire Supreme Court gave the justices an overall ranking of "very good," according to a report released earlier this month by Supreme Court Chief Justice David A. Brock.

The evaluation of the Supreme Court justices, part of the judicial performance evaluation program that also included findings on the superior, district and probate courts, was submitted to Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and Senate and House legislative leaders on June 28.

Participants in the evaluation of the Supreme Court were given questionnaires and asked to rank the justices’ performance, management skills, temperament and objectivity on a scale of one to five (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = fair, 5 = unsatisfactory). The Supreme Court received an overall score of 1.9. Because the appellate court works as a group, the justices were not ranked individually.

The Supreme Court justices, for the first time, also completed self-evaluation forms that were used as a basis for discussion of each judge’s work and each other’s contribution to the judicial process. "The justices talked about their individual strengths and the areas in which they could improve. They acknowledged their responsibility to continually assess and adjust their performance to meet goals, guidelines and expectations," Brock said in the report.

The Supreme Court justices’ report also said that in 2001, for cases in which data had been collected, the Supreme Court met or exceeded time standards for processing cases.

"This program provides the kind of accountability that is essential to maintaining public confidence in our independent judiciary," Brock commented following the report’s release. "All of us in the court system believe the process helps us to be better judges and to better serve the people of New Hampshire," he said.

Judges at the superior, district and probate courts have participated in performance evaluations since 1987. In March 2001, the Supreme Court changed and formalized those procedures and adopted a new performance evaluation program for the Supreme Court justices to follow every year. In his report, Brock said the revised standards strengthen the existing program and "help guarantee to the citizens of New Hampshire a highly competent judiciary."

Results of 2001 Judicial Performance Evaluations Released

IN SEPTEMBER 2001, the NH Supreme Court Clerk’s Office for the first time began distributing performance evaluation questionnaires to a sampling of parties and attorneys who filed cases with the Supreme Court in 2001. Questionnaires were mailed to the parties or attorneys in 10 percent of the cases filed. In addition, questionnaires were distributed on oral argument days to parties or attorneys arguing cases before the court. Approximately 150 questionnaires were distributed, and 49 were returned for a response rate of 33 percent.

Also as part of the new judicial performance evaluation process, each justice filled out a self-evaluation form that analyzed the justices’ skills and performance.

The Performance Evaluation Questionnaire and the Self-Evaluation Form for the Supreme Court were divided into the following three sections: Performance and Judicial Management Skills (five questions), Temperament and Demeanor (seven questions) and Bias and Objectivity (two questions). Respondents, who were not permitted to identify themselves in their responses, were asked to evaluate the court’s performance on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = fair, and 5 = unsatisfactory). Respondents gave the Supreme Court an overall score of 1.9, slightly on the "excellent" side of "very good."

By section of the questionnaire, the mean scores were as follows: Performance and Judicial Management Skills, 2.3; Temperament and Demeanor, 1.8; and Bias and Objectivity, 1.6.

The questionnaire also asked respondents to evaluate the performance of other court personnel. Once again, the respondents were asked to rate the performance of court personnel on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 5 (unsatisfactory). The overall mean score in this category was 1.7.

The justices, as a group, used the self-evaluations as a basis to discuss their expectations of one another and of the court, their feelings about their work, and their assessment of each justice’s contribution to the judicial process. As a group, they analyzed the writing, reasoning and communication skills of each justice, and the manner in which each justice interacted with parties and attorneys. They talked about their individual strengths and the areas that could be improved.

Finally, as part of its judicial performance evaluation process, the Supreme Court in June 2001 adopted performance standards that included time standards relating to the processing of cases. The time standards are not requirements, but benchmarks for the court’s performance at different stages of the appellate process, such as screening, briefing and decision-making. In setting each time standard, the court decided upon the average length of time that would be reasonable to expect the court to complete that stage of the appellate process. The report stated that in 2001, the court met or exceeded all of the time standards for which data had been collected:

Trial court evaluations

Trial court judges are evaluated every three years by the administrative judge of their court. Questionnaires are distributed to a sample of attorneys, jurors, witnesses and court staff and are available to the public. The judge also fills out a self-evaluation form.

During 2001, NH Superior Court Chief Justice Walter Murphy completed nine judicial performance evaluations. A total of 540 questionnaires were distributed and 266 were returned for a response rate of 49 percent.

Using the same one to five scale, the nine superior court judges evaluated received an overall score of 1.9, or "very good." Three judges ranked higher, between 1.3 and 1.8; five ranked 1.9 to 2.0; and one was ranked at 2.4, which is the lower end of the "very good" scale.

In the case of one superior court judge, Murphy suggested that certain remedial actions be taken, including periodic mentoring and a review of that judge’s performance again in 2003, one year earlier than the regularly scheduled three-year review.

Brock said in the report that the expectation is that the 28 superior court judges meet or exceed the "very good" performance standard.

The Superior Court Education Committee, in response to concerns raised during the evaluation process, is now considering future court programs in advanced evidence, judicial writing and stress management, if adequate funds are available.

In the district courts, 23 judges were evaluated with an overall score of 2.0 or "very good," with 13 of those judges scoring higher, between 1.5 and 1.9.

According to the report, "corrective" action was taken in the case of three district court judges. In one of the cases, the judge involved was temporarily reassigned to assure monitoring of that judge’s performance, and meetings were held between the judge and Administrative Judge Edwin W. Kelly. A re-evaluation of that judge’s performance several months later "showed considerable improvement over the first," the report said.

The two other district court judges who were subject to corrective action were given "specific instructions on behavioral and practice changes" and will be re-evaluated this year, the report said.

Three probate court judges were evaluated and each scored 1.7.

A complete copy of the report and sample questionnaires are available on the Judicial Branch Web site at www.state.nh.us/courts.

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