Loren Miller Bar Association

Ratings

Current Judicial Evaluation Ratings

The following are the LMBA judicial evaluations for the 2009-2010 year. The LMBA judicial evaluations shall be valid for a period of three years.

LMBA Ratings Criteria

1. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR RATING CANDIDATES IN CONTESTED ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
    
   1. All ratings shall be based solely upon the merits of a candidate which, if available, may include a candidate’s questionnaire, resume, reference checks, committee member evaluations, and demonstrated sensitivity to the concerns of the Black/minority committee.
       
   2. The Committee shall rate applicants as follows:
      1. Exceptionally Well Qualified
      2. Well Qualified
      3. Qualified
      4. Adequate
      5. Not Qualified
      6. Insufficient Information to Rate
      7. Not Rated
       
   3. Definitions or rating categories:
      1. A candidate may be rated “Exceptionally Well Qualified” if he/she has consistently demonstrated outstanding accomplishment in his/her professional and/or judicial career, singular accomplishments in professional practice and excellence in all of the criteria which support a “Well Qualified” rating;
      2. A candidate may be rated “Well Qualified” if he/she has demonstrated a level of skill, experience, sound judgment and excellence in his/her professional and/or judicial career which will sustain or improve the quality of the judiciary. These qualifications are exemplified by the following:
         1. Demonstrated sensitivity to civil rights issues and issues affecting Black and other minority communities;
         2. Experience in trial and appellate court cases and/or administrative procedures;
         3. The potential for continued professional development and leadership on the bench;
         4. Maturity, integrity and courtesy;
         5. The courage and ability to make difficult decisions under stress;
         6. Intellectual honesty and courage;
         7. Distinction in academic or professional achievements;
         8. Involvement in community affairs and activities;
         9. Fairness, open-mindedness and commitment to equal justice under the law; and
         10. Energy and capacity for hard work.
      3. A candidate may be rated “Qualified” if he/she has demonstrated a majority of the ten (10) characteristics of a “Well Qualified” candidate. No candidate shall be considered “Qualified” if he/she fails to meet the criterion of Subparagraph VIII(C)(2)(a) above.
      4. A candidate shall be rated “Adequate” if he/she satisfied the basic criteria to a degree sufficient to consider him/her minimally qualified for the judicial position sought.
      5. A candidate shall receive a rating of “Not Qualified” if he/she has not demonstrated qualifications sufficient to receive a rating of Adequate.
      6. A candidate shall be placed in a category of “Insufficient Information To Rate” only if the Committee determines that there is insufficient information.
      7. A candidate shall be placed in a category of “Not Rated” if the candidate declines to appear or to submit information necessary for the Committee’s deliberation.

VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA  98383
Write to comments@votingforjudges.org.

As the election approaches, Votingforjudges.org will include ratings and endorsements from numerous organizations. We provide this information so that voters will be better informed about the candidates. We do not rate or endorse any candidates; the ratings and endorsements of organizations included at this site reflect the views of those individual organizations and not necessarily the views of votingforjudges.org or its sponsors.