James Craig Dolezal

Trial Court · Sedgwick · Sedgwick

Does Not Meet1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Sedgwick · Sedgwick
Does Not Meet
VotersRetained· 59.5% yes· retained despite a “does not meet” evaluation
770 yes · 525 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Does Not Meet Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable James Craig Dolezal DOES NOT MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Five members of the Commission voted that Judge Dolezal does not meet performance standards, while one voted that he does meet performance standards (three members did not participate and there is one vacancy on the Commission). Judge Dolezal has been serving as the Sedgwick County Court Judge for three years. This is a part-time position. Judge Dolezal is a lay judge with no prior formal legal training or experience. The Commission conducted an interim evaluation in the spring of 2019, which identified significant deficiencies in the areas of application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, and case management. As a result of these deficiencies, the Commission recommended that Judge Dolezal complete a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) focused on mastering legal procedure. As part of the PIP, Judge Dolezal observed other judges in the courtroom and had a senior judge observe and critique some of his own courtroom proceedings. He has sought the continued guidance and mentorship of that senior judge from time to time. He has also developed written tools to aid him on the bench and availed himself of bench book materials available to judges. Overall, the Commission found that Judge Dolezal did satisfactorily follow the PIP, although it notes that he did not follow the Commission’s recommendation that he begin regularly utilizing written orders, rather than making only oral rulings. While admittedly the types of cases that usually come before Judge Dolezal are of a nature that oral rulings are often sufficient, the Commission felt that developing and using written orders would assist Judge Dolezal in honing his skills. Nonetheless, it was evident that Judge Dolezal took the Committee’s feedback to heart, has made concerted efforts to improve his performance since the interim evaluation, and remains committed to continued learning and professional development. Indeed, Judge Dolezal’s receptiveness to constructive feedback and willing attitude are notable strengths. However, the Commission continues to have concerns. Of the judicial performance criteria that the Commission is tasked with evaluating, the areas of greatest concern continue to be legal knowledge and communication skills, while the areas of greatest strength are integrity and judicial temperament. By all accounts and based upon the Commission’s interactions and observations, Judge Dolezal is kind, fair, and even tempered. The Commission does not believe any available additional training is likely to remedy the identified deficiencies in a timely manner. The Commission conducted two personal interviews with Judge Dolezal. It also reviewed transcripts and recordings of court proceedings; written materials, including a self-evaluation and orders issued; an appellate order reversing one of Judge Dolezal’s rulings in part; and interim survey results. The Commission was unable to consider subsequent survey results due to an insufficient number of responses. Prior to his appointment in 2017, Judge Dolezal was a semi-retired financial advisor and consultant. Judge James Craig Dolezal’s Response: A County Court’s Jurisdiction is limited to lesser crimes and misdemeanors. The knowledge and experience required of a county judge is less than that of a judge in a higher court, and the satisfactory performance standards for all trial judges measured by the expected legal background and experience in the court room. Over the last three years, as a lay judge, extensive legal knowledge and experience has been acquired to adequately perform in the position. I believe my overall performance is satisfactory. Justice continues to be served and the public trust and confidence has been maintained. I am committed and confident in my abilities.

Surveys & reports

2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge James Dolezal 2019 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 .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 Dolezal, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 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 3.5 3 2.4 2 1 0 Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge Dolezal All County Judges Overall Grade 2.4 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 60% 43% 40% 29% 29% 20% 13% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge Dolezal 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 Dolezal Dolezal Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 0% 81% 43% 86% standards No, does not meet 100% 13% 29% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 29% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.5 Case Management 3.4 2.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 2.1 Communications 3.6 2.0 Diligence 3.5 2.8 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 3.5 Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge All County Dolezal Judges Case 1.5 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.3 3.4 Law Communications 2.1 3.6 Diligence 2.0 3.5 Demeanor 2.8 3.5 Fairness 3.4 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 2 50% 100% 2 Non- 8 38% 88% 7 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Dolezal received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 1.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 1.5 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Dolezal Judges Dolezal Dolezal Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on - 3.5 - N/A 0 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 1 3.4 1 N/A 2 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 1 3.4 1 N/A 1 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 4 N/A 1 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 2.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 0.2 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Dolezal Judges Dolezal Dolezal Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 2.2 3.4 0 2.9 9 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 0 3.2 0 N/A 2 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0 3.4 0 N/A 2 similar Being fair and impartial to both 1 3.2 1 N/A 2 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 0 3.2 0 N/A 2 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3 3.5 N/A 3 7 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.7 3.5 N/A 2.7 7 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 2.1 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Dolezal Attorneys Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Dolezal Judges Dolezal Dolezal Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.2 3.6 0 2.9 9 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 0 3.4 0 N/A 2 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3 3.7 N/A 3 7 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 2.1 3.7 N/A 2.1 7 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Score 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 2.3 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 2.9 County Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Dolezal Dolezal Non- Dolezal Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.1 3.6 1 2.4 9 Treating participants with respect 3.2 3.6 3 3.3 9 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3 3.4 3 3 9 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3 3.5 N/A 3 7 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Score 2 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 0.2 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 2.5 County Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Dolezal Dolezal Non- Dolezal Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 0 3.2 0 N/A 2 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.3 3.5 0.5 2.9 9 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are - 3.5 - N/A 0 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 2.7 3.6 N/A 2.7 7 Maintaining appropriate control 2.4 3.7 N/A 2.4 7 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.6 N/A 3 6 cases Managing court proceedings so 1.7 3.5 N/A 1.7 7 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dolezal Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dolezal Attorneys Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Dolezal County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 7 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 6 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 7 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dolezal, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% 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 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 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 June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 13 ## Page 14 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. 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 November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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 2017 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. 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 14 ## Page 15 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 4 2 0 2 100% Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 - Litigant 4 0 0 0 - Juror 12 5 0 5 100% Others 5 3 0 2 67% Total Non-Attorneys 21 8 0 7 88% Total Respondents 25 10 0 9 90% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 16
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  1.5
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  —
  5 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  —
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge James Dolezal 2020 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 Dolezal, 3 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 3 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 2 1.5 1 0 Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge Dolezal All County Judges Overall Grade 1.5 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 83% 80% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge Dolezal 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 Dolezal Dolezal Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 0% 83% 94% standards No, does not meet 67% 13% 4% performance standards No opinion 33% 5% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.1 Case Management 3.5 1.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 1.3 Communications 3.5 1.1 Diligence 3.4 1.9 Demeanor 3.4 Fairness 3.8 Judge Dolezal All County Judges Judge All County Dolezal Judges Case 2.1 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 1.1 3.3 Law Communications 1.3 3.5 Diligence 1.1 3.4 Demeanor 1.9 3.4 Fairness - 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 5 36% 60% 3 Non-Attorneys 0 - - 0 In addition to the responses above, Judge Dolezal received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 2.1 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 2.1 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.6 4 - 1 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2 3.5 2 - 3 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.5 3 - 2 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 1.7 3.4 1.7 - 3 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 1.1 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 1.1 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 1 3.4 1 N/A 3 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1 3.2 1 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1 3.3 1 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 1.7 3.1 1.7 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 0.7 3.2 0.7 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings - 3.7 N/A - 0 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside - 3.7 N/A - 0 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Overall 1.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 1.3 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 1.7 3.6 1.7 - 3 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 1 3.3 1 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone - 3.8 N/A - 0 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s - 3.8 N/A - 0 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Score 1.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 1.9 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 2 3.5 2 - 3 dignity Treating participants with respect 2 3.5 2 - 3 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 1.7 3.3 1.7 - 3 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for - 3.8 N/A - 0 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Dolezal Score 1.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Dolezal Attorneys 1.1 Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 11 ## Page 12 County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 0.7 3.2 0.7 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 1.7 3.3 1.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 1 3.3 1 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are - 3.6 N/A - 0 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time - 3.7 N/A - 0 Maintaining appropriate control - 3.7 N/A - 0 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for - 3.8 N/A - 0 cases Managing court proceedings so - 3.6 N/A - 0 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Dolezal Score County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Dolezal Attorneys Judge Dolezal Non-Attorneys Judge Dolezal County Judge Dolezal Judge Dolezal Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an - 3.8 N/A - 0 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved - 3.8 N/A - 0 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent - 3.8 N/A - 0 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her - 3.8 N/A - 0 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Dolezal, 3 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 3 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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 2019 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. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 15 ## Page 16 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 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 14 5 0 3 60% Staff 1 0 0 0 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 1 0 0 0 - Total Respondents 15 5 0 3 60% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James Dolezal 17

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

2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026