Sean Patrick Finn
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Adams · AdamsMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agrees by a vote of 7 to 1, with two commissioners absent, that Judge Sean Patrick Finn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Finn is widely regarded as a highly knowledgeable and intellectually rigorous jurist. Attorneys and judicial colleagues consistently described him as well prepared, efficient, and very familiar with the law. The Commission found notable strengths in legal knowledge, administrative performance, and courtroom management. Judge Finn maintains an efficient docket, communicates clear expectations to counsel, and is recognized for his command of courtroom procedure and the law. He is also active in legal education, teaching judges, and attorneys throughout Colorado. The Commission evaluated Judge Finn through courtroom observation, review of selected written decisions, survey responses (which, as with many judicial evaluations, were limited, with 44 total responses including 7 attorney responses), interviews with Judge Finn, the Chief Judge of the 17th Judicial District, and representatives from both the Public Defender’s Office and District Attorney’s Office, judicial performance data, and Judge Finn’s self-evaluation. The Commission found that Judge Finn demonstrates professionalism and a commitment to the judicial role. At the same time, some members of the Commission identified concerns relating to Judge Finn’s interaction with attorneys that warrant continued attention. The Commission discussed these matters directly with Judge Finn and it believes that increased sensitivity to how all participants experience proceedings in his courtroom will further enhance confidence in his fairness, impartiality, and professionalism. Judge Finn has served as a District Court Judge in the 17th Judicial District, serving Adams and Broomfield Counties, since his appointment in 2018 by Governor John Hickenlooper. During this evaluation term, he presided over civil, domestic relations, juvenile, mental health, and criminal matters. Before joining the bench, Judge Finn served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Adams and Broomfield Counties and as Chief Trial Deputy and Chief Appellate Deputy in Boulder County. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado and his law degree from Loyola Law School and remains active in legal education and professional training statewide.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Adams · AdamsMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.7% yes167,939 yes · 60,050 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (8-0) finds that Judge Sean Patrick Finn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Two Commission members did not participate in the voting. The Commission based its findings on a review of the judge’s writings, a WebEx interview with him, and a review of the results of a survey of attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared before him conducted by the state Office of Judicial Performance. The ratings are based on a scale of (1) – poor, through (4) – excellent. Judge Finn’s ratings are consistently high, and are, in each category, at or above the average score for District Court Judges statewide. He earned, for example, a 3.7 score for “Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well-reasoned,” a 3.8 for “Giving the proceedings a sense of dignity,” and a 4.0 for “Treating participants with respect.” Eighty-eight percent of attorney respondents to the survey agreed with the 17th District Judicial Performance Commission’s finding that Judge Finn meets performance standards. The results of those surveys demonstrate that members of the legal community and the general public hold him in high esteem because of his professionalism and compassionate demeanor. Many of the people surveyed commented specifically on Judge Finn’s even temperament and his knowledge of the law.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sean P. Finn 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.17 Methodology and How to Read Results .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Finn, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 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 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 90% 85% 82% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 10% 12% 11% 11% 11% 6% 3% 0% Judge Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Finn Finn Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 90% 82% 78% 85% standards No, does not meet 10% 12% 11% 11% performance standards No opinion 0% 6% 11% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 3.3 Fairness 3.5 Judge Finn All District Judges Judge All District Finn Judges Case 3.7 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.4 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 34 43% 59% 20 Non- 13 11% 62% 8 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Finn received 1 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 Sean P. Finn 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 19 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 20 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 14 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 20 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.4 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.4 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 29 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are - 3.1 - N/A 0 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 19 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.5 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.7 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 29 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 19 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 9 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 9 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.5 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 29 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 29 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 29 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.4 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.6 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.1 29 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 15 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 9 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 9 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 9 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 9 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Finn District Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 9 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 9 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 6 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 9 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Finn 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Finn enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score 3.3 District Judges Number of Judge Finn Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.3 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Finn, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 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 143,430 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 Sean P. Finn 14 ## Page 15 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 Sean P. Finn 15 ## Page 16 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 Sean P. Finn 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Finn to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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 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. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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 Sean P. Finn 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 80 34 0 20 59% Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 - Litigant 59 5 2 3 60% Juror 0 0 0 0 - Others 61 8 4 5 63% Total Non-Attorneys 120 13 6 8 62% Total Respondents 200 47 6 28 60% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 18 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sean P. Finn 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Survey of Appellate Judges .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.17 Methodology and How to Read Results .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Finn, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 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 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 90% 85% 82% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 10% 12% 11% 11% 11% 6% 3% 0% Judge Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Finn Finn Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 90% 82% 78% 85% standards No, does not meet 10% 12% 11% 11% performance standards No opinion 0% 6% 11% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 3.3 Fairness 3.5 Judge Finn All District Judges Judge All District Finn Judges Case 3.7 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.4 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 34 43% 59% 20 Non- 13 11% 62% 8 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Finn received 1 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 Sean P. Finn 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 19 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 20 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 14 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 20 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.4 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.4 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 29 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are - 3.1 - N/A 0 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 19 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.5 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.7 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 29 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 19 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 9 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 9 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.5 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 29 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 29 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 29 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 9 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.4 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.6 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.1 29 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 15 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 9 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 9 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 9 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 9 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Finn District Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 9 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 9 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 6 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 9 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Finn 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Finn enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score 3.3 District Judges Number of Judge Finn Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.3 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Finn, 28 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 28 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 143,430 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 Sean P. Finn 14 ## Page 15 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 Sean P. Finn 15 ## Page 16 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 Sean P. Finn 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Finn to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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 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. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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 Sean P. Finn 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 80 34 0 20 59% Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 - Litigant 59 5 2 3 60% Juror 0 0 0 0 - Others 61 8 4 5 63% Total Non-Attorneys 120 13 6 8 62% Total Respondents 200 47 6 28 60% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 18 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend—40 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend—respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Sean P. Finn 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Finn, 27 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 27 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 Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 88% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 8% 4% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Finn All District Judges Judge Finn All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Finn Finn Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 88% 83% 92% standards No, does not meet 8% 12% 6% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.5 Fairness 3.7 Judge Finn All District Judges Judge All District Finn Judges Case 3.6 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.3 Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.5 Fairness - 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 40 28% 68% 27 Non-Attorneys 0 - - 0 In addition to the responses above, Judge Finn 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 Sean P. Finn 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.6 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.5 3.7 - 25 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 27 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.4 3.5 - 23 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.6 - 27 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.5 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.4 3.6 - 25 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 25 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 19 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 25 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 24 rules Giving reasons for rulings - 3.6 N/A - 0 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside - 3.6 N/A - 0 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 - 25 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 22 reasoned Using language that everyone - 3.7 N/A - 0 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s - 3.7 N/A - 0 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.8 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.8 - 25 Treating participants with respect 4 3.5 4 - 25 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.4 3.6 - 25 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who - 3.6 N/A - 0 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Finn Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Finn Attorneys 3.7 Judge Finn Non-Attorneys 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 11 ## Page 12 District Judge Finn Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 25 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 20 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 25 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are - 3.6 N/A - 0 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time - 3.7 N/A - 0 Maintaining appropriate control - 3.6 N/A - 0 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for - 3.6 N/A - 0 cases Managing court proceedings so - 3.5 N/A - 0 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Finn Attorneys Judge Finn Non-Attorneys Judge Finn District Judge Finn Judge Finn Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an - 3.7 N/A - 0 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved - 3.6 N/A - 0 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent - 3.7 N/A - 0 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her - 3.7 N/A - 0 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Finn 5 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Finn enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Finn Score 3.6 District Judges Number of Judge Finn Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.6 3.6 5 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Finn, 27 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 27 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 Sean P. Finn 15 ## Page 16 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 Sean P. Finn 16 ## Page 17 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 Sean P. Finn 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 5 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Finn to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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 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. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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 Sean P. Finn 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 145 40 0 27 68% Staff 0 0 0 0 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 0 0 0 0 - Total Respondents 145 40 0 27 68% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Sean P. Finn 19
Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.
Sources
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026