Laura Norris Findorff
Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 59.5% yes180,199 yes · 122,800 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted 7-0 with three absent that Judge Laura Norris Findorff MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Findorff’s docket includes 10% civil, 50% domestic relations and 40% criminal. Judge Findorff’s overall combined score on the 2024 Judicial Performance Survey was 3.0 out of 4.0. However, the Commission is concerned that the surveys are not helpful because of the less than 3% average response rate to the survey. A large majority of the 12 attorneys and 31 non-attorneys who responded stated that Judge Findorff meets performance standards. The appellate judges gave Judge Findorff a perfect 4.0 rating. Judge Findorff received scores above 3.0 on case management, communication, and diligence. Her scores on knowledge of the law and demeanor were somewhat lower. Some of the lower scores are likely due to her domestic relations docket where scores are generally lower due to the highly emotional nature of those cases. Comments about Judge Findorff stated that she is very knowledgeable about the law, she is clear and concise, she is patient, pleasant, fair, and respectful of everyone and has a positive but firm demeanor; she runs a smooth docket and explains matters clearly to self-represented parties. Some comments noted that she is too casual in court and allows lawyers to behave in an unprofessional manner. Other comments were that she sets her docket in a manner that requires the lawyers to prepare for trial when it is uncertain if the case will go to trial. In the interview with Judge Findorff, she clarified that she sets her DR docket with notice that one case is set first and another trailing. She believes this is efficient and that counsel are advised at least a week ahead if they will be going to trial. She recognizes that she gets frustrated if time is being wasted in court and that she may allow counsel to argue with her once she has ruled. The Commission has some concerns that Judge Findorff is too accommodating and that this leads to a lack of respect for the Court. However, the Commission finds she is a smart, capable, and hard-working judge who is open to suggestions for improvement. Judge Findorff has no disciplinary history. She has filed her financial disclosures on time. The Commission interviewed Judge Findorff and several members observed her in Court. The Commission reviewed her self-evaluation and written opinions. The Commission also spoke with the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District and representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office. The Commission found this data more informative than the limited survey responses.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 77.3% yes237,028 yes · 69,517 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Fourth Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission unanimously (10-0) agrees that Judge Laura Norris Findorff MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Findorff appears to be committed both to the highest standards in judicial practice and to meaningful self-reflection. She had above average scores on the 2020 Judicial Performance Survey in almost every category. The Commission also reviewed Judge Findorff’s survey results for 2019. In both 2019 and 2020 the attorneys and non-attorneys surveyed consistently scored Judge Findorff above average. The Commission finds Judge Findorff to be a highly competent judge who provides clear written opinions and manages her docket well. She serves as a solid mentor and leader in her role as Presiding County Court Judge. She enjoys mentoring new attorneys. Judge Findorff is very self-aware and actively uses the feedback she receives to improve her skills and performance. The Commission encourages Judge Findorff to continue exploring ways to achieve balance between efficient docket management and communication with litigants. The Commission personally interviewed Judge Findorff, observed her in court, and reviewed judicial performance data, several of her written opinions, written comments from attorneys and non-attorneys, her self-evaluation, and the judicial performance survey results from 2019 and 2020. It should be noted that a new methodology for the survey was used this year to which lower response rates may be attributed. This methodology affected all judges across the board and is not an explanation for individual results. The Commission also spoke with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office, both of whom reported high praise and positive feedback.
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · El Paso · El PasoMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 74.1% yes184,788 yes · 64,563 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Laura Norris Findorff BE RETAINED. Judge Findorff was appointed to the County Court bench for El Paso County on December 18, 2012. Prior to her appointment, Judge Findorff was a Magistrate for the 18th Judicial District, where she worked in the areas of domestic relations, truancy, and mental health court. Judge Findorff received her law degree from University of San Diego. Judge Findorff is currently handling a full County Court docket and helps the District Courts whenever possible, which has included approving settlements for minors under the probate laws. Judge Findorff has been very active in many community service activities including, Judicially Speaking and Teen Court. The Commission recommends, as a result of her exceptional speaking skills, that she be more active in the community as she would be a wonderful ambassador for the judiciary as a whole. This is the one area that the Commission feels Judge Findorff can build upon. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Findorff, reviewed opinions and the self-assessment provided, observed her in Court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys. Among the survey questions was “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Findorff be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 96% recommended to retain, 0% recommended to not retain and 4% made no recommendation. This is a remarkable score. Of the non-attorneys completing the survey, 89% recommended to retain, 5% recommended not to retain and 7% made no recommendation. Judge Findorff received higher than average marks in the attorney survey in every category and every area of review, including case management, knowledge of the law, communication, demeanor, diligence and neutrality. In the non-attorney categories, she was again above average in every category. Judge Findorff scored 20% above average in the area of fairness in sentencing. The Commission was highly impressed with Judge Findorff’s extraordinary scores, her demeanor and her reputation in the legal community, and is making the unusual recommendation that Judge Findorff consider applying for a future opening on the District Court bench.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff, 43 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 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 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 62% 60% 40% 28% 20% 13% 10% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff 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 Findorff Findorff Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 62% 86% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 28% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 10% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.5 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.5 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge All County Findorff Judges Case 3.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 31 23% 39% 12 Non- 64 3% 48% 31 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.9 3.5 3.9 N/A 11 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 12 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 12 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 11 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.2 3.4 3.5 3 41 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.4 4 N/A 8 similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 11 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 11 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 29 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3 3.5 N/A 3 28 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Findorff Attorneys 4 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 4 3.4 42 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 11 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 30 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 30 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.9 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.2 41 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.6 4 3 42 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.3 3.4 3.9 3 42 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 31 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 11 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 4 3 40 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 3.9 N/A 11 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 27 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 29 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 28 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 29 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Findorff Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge Findorff County Judge Findorff Judge Findorff Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.8 3.6 N/A 2.8 30 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 30 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.0 3.5 N/A 3.0 21 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 28 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Findorff, 43 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 137 31 0 12 39% Law Enforcement 133 2 1 1 50% Litigant 2051 47 429 22 47% Juror 23 4 3 3 75% Others 57 11 0 5 45% Total Non-Attorneys 2264 64 433 31 48% Total Respondents 2401 95 433 43 45% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 16 - 2024 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.
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff, 43 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 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 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 62% 60% 40% 28% 20% 13% 10% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff 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 Findorff Findorff Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 62% 86% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 28% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 10% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.5 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 2.9 Fairness 3.5 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge All County Findorff Judges Case 3.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 2.9 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 31 23% 39% 12 Non- 64 3% 48% 31 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.9 3.5 3.9 N/A 11 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 12 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 12 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 11 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.2 3.4 3.5 3 41 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.4 4 N/A 8 similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 11 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 11 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 29 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3 3.5 N/A 3 28 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Findorff Attorneys 4 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 4 3.4 42 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 11 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 30 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 30 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.9 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.2 41 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.6 4 3 42 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.3 3.4 3.9 3 42 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 31 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.8 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 11 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 4 3 40 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.5 3.9 N/A 11 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 27 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 29 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 28 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 29 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Findorff Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge Findorff County Judge Findorff Judge Findorff Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.8 3.6 N/A 2.8 30 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 30 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.0 3.5 N/A 3.0 21 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 28 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Findorff, 43 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 137 31 0 12 39% Law Enforcement 133 2 1 1 50% Litigant 2051 47 429 22 47% Juror 23 4 3 3 75% Others 57 11 0 5 45% Total Non-Attorneys 2264 64 433 31 48% Total Respondents 2401 95 433 43 45% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 16 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend86%26 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend80%6 respondents
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff, 22 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 22 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 86% 83% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 14% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge Findorff 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 Findorff Findorff Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 83% 80% 94% standards No, does not meet 14% 13% 20% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.5 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.8 Judge Findorff All County Judges Judge All County Findorff Judges Case 3.6 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.3 Law Communications 3.6 3.5 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 3.5 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 26 21% 65% 17 Non-Attorneys 6 50% 83% 5 In addition to the responses above, Judge Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.6 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.0 15 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 22 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.0 19 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 22 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.5 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.8 20 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 13 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.1 3.3 N/A 15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 15 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 5 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.6 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8 20 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 12 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 5 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.8 N/A 3.8 5 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.5 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 19 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 19 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 19 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.6 3.8 N/A 3.6 5 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Findorff Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Findorff Attorneys 3.5 Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 11 ## Page 12 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Findorff Judges Findorff Findorff Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 14 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 13 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 13 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 5 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 4 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.8 N/A 3.6 5 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Findorff Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Findorff Attorneys Judge Findorff Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Findorff County Judge Findorff Judge Findorff Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.6 3.8 N/A 3.6 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.4 3.8 N/A 3.4 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 4 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.8 N/A 3.6 5 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Findorff, 22 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 22 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 Laura N. Findorff 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 123 26 0 17 65% Staff 8 5 0 5 - Others 4 1 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 12 6 0 5 83% Total Respondents 135 32 0 22 69% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 17
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Laura N. Findorff 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Laura N. Findorff El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Findorff: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F 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 a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Laura N. Findorff received an overall combined average grade of 3.69 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.62, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.76, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.42 [not shown below]. Judge Findorff Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.69 3.62 3.76 Sample Size -- 43 80 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Findorff’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Findorff Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.69 3.62 43 3.76 80 Overall 3.69 3.62 43 3.76 80 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.81, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.27. Judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Findorff’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Findorff Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.93 54 68% 3.38 26 33% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Laura N. Findorff (Sample Size 43) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laura N. Findorff Laura N. All County Sample Size = 43 A B C D Fail DK/NA Findorff Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 71% 13% 5% 3% 0% 8% 3.66 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 29% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.55 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 55% 16% 8% 0% 0% 21% 3.60 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 18% 8% 3% 0% 11% 3.53 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.59 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 24% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.70 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 66% 32% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3.68 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 53% 21% 5% 0% 0% 21% 3.60 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 59% 16% 9% 0% 0% 16% 3.59 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.64 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 71% 26% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.68 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 53% 18% 3% 3% 0% 24% 3.59 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.64 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 21% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.68 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 76% 18% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 21% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3.55 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 29% 5% 0% 0% 8% 3.57 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 68% 32% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.68 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 26% 3% 0% 0% 11% 3.65 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 61% 18% 3% 3% 3% 13% 3.52 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F 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 a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laura N. Findorff Laura N. All County Findorff Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 30% Completely neutral 81% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 61% 53% Recommend retain 26% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 11% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 87% 77% Neither 11% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.62 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.59 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.66 case after trial. 3.54 3.55 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.60 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.53 3.37 3.64 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.70 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.68 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.60 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.59 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.64 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.68 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.59 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laura N. Findorff 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.63 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.68 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 3.71 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.55 neutral manner. 3.18 3.57 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.62 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.68 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.65 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 19% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 81% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Findorff be retained or not retained in office? 61% Strongly recommend retain 53% 26% Recommend retain 24% 11% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Findorff Judges* Total Retain 87% 77% 3% Neither 11% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 3% 14% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Laura N. Findorff (Sample Size 80) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laura N. Findorff Laura N. All County Sample Size = 80 A B C D Fail DK/NA Findorff Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 9% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3.73 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 10% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 8% 3% 4% 1% 4% 3.70 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 78% 10% 0% 3% 3% 8% 3.70 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.72 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 84% 8% 3% 3% 0% 4% 3.79 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 83% 9% 1% 4% 0% 4% 3.77 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 8% 0% 3% 1% 34% 3.69 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 82% 4% 3% 4% 0% 8% 3.78 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.76 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 83% 8% 0% 4% 1% 5% 3.75 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 10% 4% 0% 1% 4% 3.77 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 6% 5% 0% 1% 4% 3.78 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 78% 10% 3% 4% 1% 5% 3.67 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 9% 4% 1% 0% 4% 3.79 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 11% 1% 0% 0% 20% 3.83 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 75% 10% 1% 3% 0% 11% 3.77 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 80% 10% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3.75 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.76 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 75% 6% 1% 3% 0% 15% 3.81 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 73% 4% 1% 1% 0% 21% 3.87 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 78% 6% 0% 4% 0% 11% 3.80 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.83 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.76 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F 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 a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laura N. Findorff Laura N. All County Findorff Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 13% Competely neutral 89% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.05 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 13% Competely neutral 88% 74% Lenient sentencing total 6% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.08 0.10 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 78% 70% Recommend retain 17% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 1% 7% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 7% Total Retain 95% 84% Neither 1% 7% Total Not Retain 4% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.76 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.72 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.73 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.76 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.70 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.70 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.76 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.79 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.77 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.78 their case. 3.54 3.77 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.78 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laura N. Findorff 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.76 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.79 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.83 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.77 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.75 little wasted time. 3.48 3.83 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.81 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.87 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.80 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.05 Laura N. Findorff 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.08 Laura N. Findorff 0.10 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laura N. Findorff Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Findorff be retained or not retained in office? 78% Strongly recommend retain 70% 17% Recommend retain 14% 1% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 7% Judge Findorff Judges* 3% Total Retain 95% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 1% 7% Total Not Retain 4% 10% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laura N. Findorff All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 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. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not included in this report.] a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 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. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Findorff is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Laura N. Findorff Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 63 21 27 0 15 41.7% Defense Attorneys 70 33 18 0 19 36.5% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 33 14 10 0 9 39.1% Total Attorneys 166 68 55 0 43 38.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 190 132 37 7 14 9.2% Law Enforcement 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Defendant 190 88 94 1 7 7.3% Civil Litigant 58 45 9 0 4 8.2% Witness 6 5 0 0 1 16.7% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 137 70 12 1 54 43.2% Total Non-attorneys 584 343 152 9 80 18.5% Grand Total: 750 411 207 9 123 22.7% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 1359 477 428 0 454 48.8% Defense Attorneys 5458 1988 1427 0 2043 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 199 66 48 0 85 56.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8142 2861 2300 0 2981 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 336 221 82 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3358 2551 368 73 366 12.2% Defendant 15702 7544 6825 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 4907 2614 1583 103 607 18.3% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 400 106 49 0 245 69.8% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34064 17718 10673 622 5051 21.6% Grand Total: 42206 20579 12973 622 8032 27.5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F 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 a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5051 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F 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 a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] 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. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 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 circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Laura N. Findorff 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 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 Laura N. Findorff, 131 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 71 agreed they had worked with Judge Findorff enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 71 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 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.69 Attorneys 3.73 Total Non-Attorneys 3.66 Juror 3.92 Non-Attorney Other* 3.47 Table 1 Judge Laura N. Findorff Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.69 3.73 3.66 3.92 3.47 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 91% Attorneys 96% Total Non-Attorneys 89% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 79% Table 2 Judge Laura N. Findorff Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 96% 89% 100% 79% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Laura N. Findorff Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.72 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.72 3.53 3.92 3.25 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.73 3.78 3.91 3.68 Diligence 3.70 3.70 3.91 3.54 Demeanor 3.76 3.67 3.92 3.47 Fairness N/A 3.64 3.95 3.40 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 176 9 28 34% 51% Total Non- 1045 226 43 9% 42% Attorneys Staff 4 0 2 50% 0% Jurors 206 0 19 10% 10% Other Non- 835 226 22 8% 57% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Findorff, 57 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 28 agreed they had worked with Judge Findorff 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 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 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 October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Laura N. Findorff be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Laura N. Findorff Total Retain 96% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 89% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 12% 7% 4% 8% 6% 8% 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 Findorff All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff 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 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.70 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.69 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.71 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 6 Case Management Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 28 Findorff Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 67% 19% -- -- -- 15% 3.78 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 79% 18% -- 4% -- -- 3.71 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 68% 21% 4% -- -- 7% 3.69 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 71% 21% 4% -- -- 4% 3.70 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.72 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff 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 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.72 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.68 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.75 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.77 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.68 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.71 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 28 Findorff Judges Being able to identify and analyze 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 68% 32% -- -- -- -- 3.68 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 71% 21% -- -- -- 8% 3.77 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 82% 14% -- 4% -- -- 3.75 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 71% 25% 4% -- -- -- 3.68 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.72 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.73 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.65 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 8 Communications Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 28 Findorff Judges Making sure all participants 82% 14% 4% -- -- -- 3.79 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 64% 14% -- -- 4% 18% 3.65 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff 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 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.76 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.68 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.79 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 9 Demeanor Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 28 Findorff Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 82% 18% -- -- -- -- 3.82 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 82% 14% 4% -- -- -- 3.79 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 79% 18% -- -- 4% -- 3.68 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.76 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff 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 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.70 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.68 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.74 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.71 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 10 Diligence Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 28 Findorff Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 71% 29% -- -- -- -- 3.71 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 75% 18% 4% -- -- 4% 3.74 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 68% 18% -- 4% -- 11% 3.68 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.70 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Findorff in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 71% 60% 54% 40% 28% 25% 20% 11% 4% 6% 1% 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 Findorff All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Laura N. Findorff, 74 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 43 agreed they had worked with Judge Findorff enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 43 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 16 ## Page 19 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 are 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 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Findorff be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Laura N. Findorff Total Retain 89% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 5% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 63% 60% 40% 26% 16% 20% 7% 5% 3% 5% 5% 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 Findorff All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.67 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.60 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.70 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.79 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 12 Demeanor Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 43 Findorff Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 74% 19% 2% -- 5% -- 3.58 3.61 Treating participants with respect 88% 7% 2% -- 2% -- 3.79 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 86% 7% 2% -- 5% -- 3.70 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 77% 12% 5% -- 5% 2% 3.60 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.67 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.64 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.64 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.63 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 13 Fairness Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 43 Findorff Judges Giving participants an opportunity 81% 9% 5% -- 5% -- 3.63 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 77% 12% 2% -- 5% 5% 3.63 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 48% 10% -- -- 5% 38% 3.54 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 79% 12% 2% -- 5% 2% 3.64 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.64 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.78 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.77 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.81 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 14 Communications Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 43 Findorff Judges Making sure all participants 81% 14% 5% -- -- -- 3.77 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 86% 9% 5% -- -- -- 3.81 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 84% 12% 2% 2% -- -- 3.77 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.78 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.70 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.62 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.67 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.77 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.69 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 15 Diligence Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 43 Findorff Judges Beginning court on time 79% 14% -- 2% 2% 2% 3.69 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 72% 14% 2% -- 2% 9% 3.69 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 81% 14% 5% -- -- -- 3.77 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 65% 14% 2% -- 2% 16% 3.67 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 79% 9% 5% -- 5% 2% 3.62 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.70 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.53 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.54 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.53 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.49 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Findorff Table 16 Application of Law Judge Laura N. Findorff All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 41 Findorff Judges Giving reasons for rulings 70% 14% 2% 7% 2% 5% 3.49 3.56 Willing to make decision without 60% 5% 2% 2% 5% 26% 3.53 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 74% 9% 5% 2% 5% 5% 3.54 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.53 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Findorff is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Findorff is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 86% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 4% 7% 7% 5% 3% 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 Findorff All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 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 Findorff are. If you feel Judge Findorff generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 83% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 10% 5% 7% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Findorff All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laura N. Findorff 25
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
- 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026