← All judges

Lance P. Clark

Trial Court · Bent · Bent

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2024 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Bent · Bent
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 69.1% yes
    1,355 yes · 607 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish 2024 Survey Report 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Sixteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, after careful consideration and a unanimous vote of 5-0, with four absent and one vacancy, affirms that Judge Lance P. Clark MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Clark, who presides over civil, criminal advisements, misdemeanors, traffic, and small claims matters in Bent County, Colorado, demonstrates a calm, patient, fair, and understanding demeanor in the courtroom. He maintains excellent docket control, is consistently prepared for hearings, and issues exceptional oral and written orders. The Commission values his approachability and his continuous efforts to enhance his performance, particularly as a part-time judge. These qualities were evident during the Commission's evaluation and interview, leading to the unanimous decision that Judge Lance Clark meets performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Clark, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed a self-evaluation. Unfortunately, there were not enough 2024 survey results for Judge Clark for the Commission to adequately equate statistical significance.

Surveys & reports

  • 2024 cycle
    • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge La nce P. Clark 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt 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 Clark, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 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 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Clark All County Judges Judge Clark All County Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 85% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Clark All County Judges Judge Clark 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 Clark Clark Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 0% 81% 100% 85% standards No, does not meet 0% 15% 0% 10% performance standards No opinion 100% 5% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 Case Management 3.4 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.1 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.4 4.0 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.4 Judge Clark All County Judges Judge All County Clark Judges Case Management 3.2 3.4 Application and 3.3 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.1 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 4.0 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 4 27% 25% 1 Non-Attorneys 5 - - 4 *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 Clark 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Clark Attorneys 2.7 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Clark Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.5 3.5 - 3.5 2 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.0 3.4 4.0 2.8 5 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.2 3.4 2.0 2.3 4 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 2.0 4.0 5 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Clark Attorneys 0.5 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judge Clark Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.4 3.4 1.0 4.0 5 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 0.0 3.2 0.0 N/A 1 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0.0 3.2 0.0 N/A 1 similar Consistently applying laws and 1.0 3.2 1.0 N/A 1 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 4 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 4 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Clark Attorneys 0.5 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Clark Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.8 5 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 1.0 3.4 1.0 N/A 1 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 4 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 4 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Clark Attorneys 4.0 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 4.0 County Judge Clark Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 5 dignity Treating participants with 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 5 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 4 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Clark Attorneys 1.3 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Clark Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 0.0 3.1 0.0 N/A 1 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 0.0 3.3 0.0 N/A 1 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 4.0 3.3 4.0 N/A 1 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 4 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 4 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 4 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 4 Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 4 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Clark Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Clark Attorneys 2.0 Judge Clark Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Clark County Judge Clark Judge Clark Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 4 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 4 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 4 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 4 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.6 3.4 2.0 4.0 5 manner. Being fair and impartial 2.0 3.2 2.0 N/A 1 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Clark, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 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, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 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 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. 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 and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 13 ## Page 14 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. 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. To help reduce the 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 a list of all judges in their district or 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 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 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 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 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 2022 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 14 ## Page 15 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 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 15 4 1 25% Staff - 4 4 - Others 9 1 0 0% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 5 4 - Total Respondents - 9 5 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lance P. Clark 16

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