Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Twentieth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of 10-0, finds that Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Brodsky has presided over criminal, misdemeanor, traffic, civil, and small claims matters in the county court since 2015. She brings a great deal of discipline, preparation, compassion, and patience to the judicial role. Judge Brodsky’s Spanish-language skills, her attentiveness to the stressful experience of appearing in court for litigants, her thoroughness, her passion for service, and her mentorship roles are notable. She also demonstrates a command of the substantive knowledge required to effectively serve as a judge, as well as a calm and steady control over her docket and courtroom proceedings. The Judicial Performance Commission evaluates judges on six standards: legal knowledge, communication, administrative performance, integrity, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession. To evaluate Judge Brodsky’s performance the Commission observed her in court, reviewed opinions she authored, considered her self-evaluation, held a public meeting to invite comments, reviewed responses to a survey distributed to all persons who have appeared in her court, and reviewed comments from her colleagues on the bench. The Commission also conducted personal interviews with Judge Brodsky, the current and former Chief Judge, the District Attorney, and a representative of the Boulder defense bar. Judge Brodsky was appointed to the Boulder County Court in 2015 and sat on the Boulder District Court bench as a magistrate from 2011 to 2015. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Brodsky served as the managing attorney of Boulder County Legal Services, she represented parents in dependency and neglect matters, and she served as a Guardian ad Litem for abused and neglected children. Judge Brodsky is the past co-chair of the Availability of Legal Services Committee, and she is the county court bench liaison for the Boulder County Bar Association Professionalism Committee. Judge Brodsky is the director of the Boulder County Court internship/externship program and teaches the judicial externship seminar class at University of Colorado Law School.
• 2022 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 82.0% yes

  91,945 yes · 20,109 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The 20th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Brodsky presides over civil, criminal, misdemeanor, small claims, and traffic matters in Boulder County, Colorado. Judge Brodsky is described as a “model judge” who treats all court participants with kindness, dignity, respect, and empathy. Judge Brodsky excels at efficiently managing a robust docket while making sure each voice is heard and connecting with all who appear before her. As the County Court Presiding Judge at the outset of the pandemic, Judge Brodsky led the development of new policies and procedures to promote access to justice to all litigants and criminal defendants during challenging times. She continues to look for “new ways to do better.” Judge Brodsky is very knowledgeable on the law and prepares thoroughly and thoughtfully for the cases over which she presides. Her written rulings are clear, well-reasoned and easily accessible. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Brodsky, reviewed opinions she wrote, observed her performance in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who participated in Judge Brodsky’s court proceedings.  The Commission also received comments on Judge Brodsky’s performance from the district attorney and representatives of the defense bar and hosted a public hearing, at which citizens provided additional input regarding her performance as a judge. In response to a survey question about whether Judge Brodsky “meets judicial performance standards,” 100 percent of the attorneys answered yes. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 88 percent answered yes; 6 percent had no opinion and 6 percent answered no.
• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 84.1% yes

  111,624 yes · 21,056 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The 20th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) finds that Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Brodsky was appointed to the Boulder County Court bench in October 2015. She previously served as a Domestic Relations Magistrate, beginning in January 2011. Judge Brodsky worked at Colorado Legal Services, first as an attorney in the Family and Children’s Unit and then as the managing attorney of Boulder County Legal Services. After leaving Boulder County Legal Services, Judge Brodsky established a private practice working primarily with respondent parents and children in Dependency and Neglect matters. Judge Brodsky is a 1997 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School and a 1994 graduate of the University of Colorado. The Commission evaluated Judge Brodsky based on the criteria set forth in state law (C.R.S. 13-5.5-107): integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Each Commissioner observed Judge Brodsky in her courtroom. Each Commissioner also reviewed Judge Brodsky’s self-evaluation, samples of her rulings and orders, a report on her caseload, and anonymous results of qualitative surveys sent to people who appeared in her courtroom during 2017. The Commission met with the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, and the Chair of the Boulder Chapter of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. The Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2018, to gather input from the community. The Commission also interviewed Judge Brodsky. Due to concerns about the limited number of survey responses, Commissioners gave less weight to the survey results. Of the 28 attorneys who responded to the survey, 89% said that Judge Brodsky meets performance standards. Of the 72 non-attorneys who responded to the survey, 96% said that Judge Brodsky meets performance standards. The Commission found that court observations, (totaling 50 hours for all Commissioners), meeting with various stakeholders, and interviewing Judge Brodsky provided the best insights. Judge Brodsky presided over a variety of cases in this term including: 30% civil, 10% criminal, 20% traffic, 30% misdemeanor, and 10% small claims matters. Survey respondents of Judge Brodsky’s overall performance highlighted her efficient, thorough, and diligent courtroom conduct. Judge Brodsky received high marks in case management, communications and demeanor. Judge Brodsky is described as being fair and unbiased, treating all participants in the courtroom with respect, to the point of being compassionate and empathetic. The Commission agreed that Judge Brodsky demonstrated knowledgeable, patient, fair, and just conduct during courtroom observations and her personal interview. Judge Brodsky engages in a significant amount of community service and views it as important to her role as a judge. She volunteers in programs that educate the public and students at all grade levels, mentors law students and feeds people through a local food pantry. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Brodsky has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories.

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brodsky, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 7% 7% 8% 5% 0% Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Brodsky Brodsky Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 80% 86% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 7% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 7% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge All County Brodsky Judges Case Management 3.7 3.5 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 65 28% 63% 41 Non-Attorneys 26 - - 25 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Brodsky received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 43 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 54 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.0 44 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.1 52 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3.9 3.5 60 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 37 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 37 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 37 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 23 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 23 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4 3.5 57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 34 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 22 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 22 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 4 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.5 56 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.4 4 3.6 57 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.6 55 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 37 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 32 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 36 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 20 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 18 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 14 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 11 ## Page 12 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brodsky Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brodsky, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 236 65 0 41 63% Staff 7 0 7 - Others 131 14 0 18 - Total Non-Attorneys - 21 - 25 - Total Respondents - 86 - 66 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 17
  • 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2022 cycle
  • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brodsky, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 13% 7% 7% 8% 5% 0% Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Brodsky Brodsky Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 80% 86% 79% standards No, does not meet 0% 14% 7% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 7% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge All County Brodsky Judges Case Management 3.7 3.5 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 65 28% 63% 41 Non-Attorneys 26 - - 25 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Brodsky received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 43 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 54 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.0 44 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.1 52 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3.9 3.5 60 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 37 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 37 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 37 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 23 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 23 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4 3.5 57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 34 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 22 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 22 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 4 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.5 56 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.4 4 3.6 57 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.6 55 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.5 3.3 N/A 3.5 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 37 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 32 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 36 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 20 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 18 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 14 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 11 ## Page 12 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brodsky Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Brodsky County Judges Judge Brodsky Judge Brodsky Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 20 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brodsky, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 236 65 0 41 63% Staff 7 0 7 - Others 131 14 0 18 - Total Non-Attorneys - 21 - 25 - Total Respondents - 86 - 66 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 17
  • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.8

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    100%

    53 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    88%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Brodsky, 60 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 60 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 88% 83% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 4% 6% 6% 6% 0% Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge Brodsky All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Brodsky Brodsky Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 83% 88% 83% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 6% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 6% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.8 Fairness 3.3 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Judge All County Brodsky Judges Case Management 3.8 3.4 Application and 3.8 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.8 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 53 21% 74% 39 Non- 31 - - 21 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Brodsky received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Brodsky Judges Brodsky Brodsky Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 45 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.5 52 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.6 40 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 50 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Brodsky Judges Brodsky Brodsky Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.7 53 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 34 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 30 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 33 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 19 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 18 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Brodsky Judges Brodsky Brodsky Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 53 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 32 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 18 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 18 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Brodsky Judges Brodsky Brodsky Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.6 53 Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.7 53 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 18 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Brodsky Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.8 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Brodsky Judges Brodsky Brodsky Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 34 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 30 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 33 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 16 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 16 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 17 Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 17 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Brodsky Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Brodsky Attorneys 3.9 Judge Brodsky Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge County Number of Brodsky Brodsky Non- Brodsky Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 17 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 14 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 17 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.6 50 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 33 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brodsky, 60 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 60 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 249 53 39 74% Staff - 6 6 - Others 200 23 13 57% Juror - 2 2 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 31 21 - Total Respondents - 84 60 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 16
• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky, 157 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 122 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 122 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.93 4 3.66 3.57 3.52 3.59 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.57 3.52 3.66 3.93 3.59 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 88% 85% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 88% 90% 85% 100% 81% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.67 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.30 3.63 3.92 3.55 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.63 3.73 3.93 3.68 Diligence 3.39 3.63 3.80 3.59 Demeanor 3.60 3.67 4.00 3.58 Fairness N/A 3.64 4.00 3.53 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 247 0 82 33% 32% Total Non- 1005 107 75 7% 12% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 60 0 14 23% 0% Other Non- 945 107 61 6% 15% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brodsky, 82 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 56 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 56 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Total Retain 90% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 11% Figure 3 100% 80% 70% 60% 54% 40% 20% 22% 20% 9% 7% 7% 9% 4% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Brodsky All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.67 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.72 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.62 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.64 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 6 Case Management Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Brodsky Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 56 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 68% 11% 4% -- 2% 16% 3.70 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 75% 20% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.64 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 71% 11% 2% 2% 4% 11% 3.62 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 79% 13% 4% -- 2% 4% 3.72 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.67 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.30 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.24 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.27 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.50 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.18 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.34 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 56 Judges Being able to identify and analyze 68% 14% 7% 5% 5% -- 3.34 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 57% 23% 7% 5% 7% -- 3.18 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 57% 21% 2% 2% 2% 14% 3.50 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 65% 16% 5% 5% 7% -- 3.27 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 59% 23% 4% 5% 7% 2% 3.24 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.30 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.63 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 8 Communications Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 56 Judges Making sure all participants 86% 9% 5% -- -- -- 3.80 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 63% 5% 7% 7% 4% 14% 3.35 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.63 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 3.60 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.50 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.71 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 9 Demeanor Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 56 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 75% 16% 4% 4% 2% -- 3.58 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 84% 11% -- 4% 2% -- 3.71 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 68% 23% 4% 2% 4% -- 3.50 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.60 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 3.39 3.26 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming 3.51 3.22 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.44 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.08 rules 3.29 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 10 Diligence Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 56 Brodsky Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 64% 16% 9% 5% 5% -- 3.29 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 64% 20% 5% 5% 2% 4% 3.44 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 59% 20% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.51 3.26 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.39 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Brodsky in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 55% 60% 52% 40% 26% 27% 20% 12% 11% 7% 8% 2% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Brodsky All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky, 75 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 66 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 66 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Brodsky be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 11% Figure 10 100% 80% 64% 59% 60% 40% 26% 17% 20% 7% 7% 9% 4% 4% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Brodsky All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.67 3.35 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.63 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.69 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.69 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 12 Demeanor Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 65 Brodsky Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 80% 9% 5% 5% -- 2% 3.68 3.47 Treating participants with respect 85% 6% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3.69 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 85% 5% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3.69 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 82% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3.63 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.67 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.64 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.47 case 3.66 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.73 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.57 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 13 Fairness Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 64 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 83% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3% 3.64 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 80% 5% 2% 3% 6% 5% 3.57 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 65% 2% 5% 3% -- 26% 3.73 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 74% 8% 3% 2% 3% 11% 3.66 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.64 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.66 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said 3.77 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.80 3.54 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 14 Communications Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 66 Judges Making sure all participants 77% 18% 2% 2% -- 2% 3.74 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 86% 6% 5% 2% -- 2% 3.80 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 85% 7% 4% -- 1% 1% 3.77 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.63 3.45 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.58 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.62 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.62 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 15 Diligence Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 65 Judges Beginning court on time 68% 21% 3% -- 2% 6% 3.65 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 75% 11% 3% -- 5% 6% 3.62 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 80% 5% 11% -- 2% 3% 3.67 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 73% 8% 8% -- 3% 9% 3.62 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 77% 9% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3.58 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.63 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.63 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.60 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.41 outside pressure 3.62 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Brodsky Table 16 Application of Law Judge Elizabeth House Moulton All Judge Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA County Brodsky Number of Responses: 64 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 79% 8% 3% -- 6% 5% 3.60 3.37 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 71% 5% 5% -- 5% 15% 3.62 3.41 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 71% 12% 3% -- 5% 9% 3.60 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.63 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Brodsky is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Brodsky is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 77% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 11% 8% 7% 7% 3% 6% 2% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Brodsky All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Brodsky are. If you feel Judge Brodsky generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 82% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 4% 6% 5% 8% 7% 8% 2% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Brodsky All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 25
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    94%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    96%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky, 144 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 100 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 100 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.87 3.99 3.74 3.69 3.42 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.74 3.42 3.87 3.99 3.69 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 94% 96% 95% 92% 89% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 1% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 94% 89% 96% 95% 92% standards No, does not meet performance 3% 7% 1% 0% 4% standards No opinion 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.50 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.22 3.83 3.98 3.62 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.48 3.88 3.99 3.68 Diligence 3.35 3.87 3.97 3.76 Demeanor 3.55 3.87 4.00 3.69 Fairness N/A 3.88 4.00 3.68 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 135 0 39 29% 28% Total Non- 727 135 105 18% 31% Attorneys Staff 181 0 50 28% 52% Jurors 54 2 24 46% 4% Other Non- 492 133 31 9% 19% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Brodsky, 39 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 28 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 28 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.5 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.43 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.57 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.5 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.44 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Elizabeth House Moulton A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Brodsky Promptly issuing a decision on the 14 2 5 -- -- 7 28 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 20 4 4 -- -- -- 28 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 14 5 3 -- -- 6 28 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 17 4 3 -- 1 3 28 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.22 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.36 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.18 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.05 are similar 3.15 3.11 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.23 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Elizabeth House A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Moulton Brodsky Being able to identify and 17 5 5 1 -- -- 28 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 14 7 5 2 -- -- 28 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 10 5 2 2 1 2 22 similar Being fair and impartial to both 14 6 6 1 1 -- 28 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 15 5 4 1 1 2 28 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.48 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.64 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.36 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Elizabeth House A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Moulton Brodsky Making sure all participants 22 4 1 -- 1 -- 28 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 14 3 4 1 -- 6 28 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.55 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.5 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.71 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.44 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Elizabeth House Moulton A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Brodsky Giving proceedings a sense of 18 6 4 -- -- -- 28 dignity Treating participants with respect 23 3 1 1 -- -- 28 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 17 6 3 1 -- 1 28 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Brodsky on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.35 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.22 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.46 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 14 6 6 1 -- 1 28 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 16 5 5 -- 1 1 28 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 19 3 2 1 1 2 28 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Brodsky meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Yes, meets performance 89% standards No, does not meet 7% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky, 105 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 72 agreed they had worked with Judge Brodsky enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 72 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.87 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.9 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.92 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.84 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 66 4 -- 1 -- -- 71 Treating participants with respect 68 2 -- -- 1 -- 71 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 62 7 -- -- 1 1 71 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 64 5 -- 1 1 -- 71 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.88 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.88 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.88 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.88 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.87 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Elizabeth House A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Moulton Brodsky Giving participants an 67 3 -- 2 -- -- 72 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 66 5 -- -- 1 -- 72 case without bias Treating fairly people who 48 2 -- -- 1 21 72 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 64 5 -- -- 1 2 72 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.88 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.83 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.92 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.9 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 66 4 -- -- 2 -- 72 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 69 2 -- -- 1 -- 72 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 67 3 -- -- 1 -- 71 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.87 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.96 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.87 for cases 3.64 3.88 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.78 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.84 wasted time 3.55 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 67 3 -- -- -- 2 72 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 63 2 -- 1 1 3 70 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 66 4 1 1 -- -- 72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 54 6 2 -- 1 9 72 Managing court proceedings so that there is 62 7 -- -- 1 2 72 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.83 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.9 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.74 outside pressure 3.55 3.84 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Brodsky All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Elizabeth House A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Moulton Brodsky Giving reasons for rulings 62 4 -- 1 -- 5 72 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 54 4 2 -- 2 9 71 pressure Being able to identify and 63 4 -- 1 1 3 72 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Brodsky meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky Yes, meets performance 96% standards No, does not meet 1% performance standards No opinion 3% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Elizabeth House Moulton Brodsky 22

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
• 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026