← All judges

David Furman

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2016 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 70.5% yes
    1,477,774 yes · 619,845 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2013 Interim Survey Report 2011 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal, that Judge David Furman BE RETAINED. Judge Furman was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals on December 16, 2005.  He received his undergraduate degree from Wheaton College and received his Master of Social Work degree and his law degree from the University of Denver.  Judge Furman practiced trial and appellate litigation with his own firm and served as a Deputy Public Defender in the Appellate Division of the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office.  He then served as a Magistrate in the Denver Juvenile Court.  Prior to his appointment, he was a Magistrate in the Denver District Court, presiding over the Adult Drug Court as well as family law and foreclosure proceedings.  He was an adjunct professor at Colorado Christian University and at University of Denver’s Graduate School of Social Work.  Judge Furman serves on several committees, including the Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues and is currently the Co-Chair of the Colorado Judicial Education Leadership Council.  He serves as an instructor for New Judge Orientation and provides training at the annual judicial conference.  He volunteers with many community and bar organizations. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding Judge Furman’s performance, read opinions he authored, observed him in oral arguments, reviewed his self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview.  Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Furman be retained or not be retained in office?”  Of attorneys completing the survey 87% recommended to retain and 13% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Among judges completing the survey 96% recommended to retain, 2% recommended not to retain, and 2% made no recommendation regarding retention. Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Furman’s performance is strong in the area of treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status.  Attorneys and judges gave him lower marks than other judges on the court in the area of his writing abilities, especially in the area of writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court’s decision.  Some attorneys criticized the length of time it took for him to issue opinions; however, the Commission recognizes that Judge Furman suffered from a medical condition (now resolved) during the evaluation period that could account for those delays.  Numerous attorneys and judges noted his expertise in juvenile and family law.  The Commission found Judge Furman to be well prepared for oral argument and respectful to attorneys appearing before the Court.  The Commission concluded that some of his opinions fail to articulate all the grounds for each decision.  Both the Commission and Judge Furman agree that there is a need for improvement in the articulation of his legal analysis. The Commission believes that his background in juvenile and family law represents an important voice on the Court of Appeals.  The Commission also commends him for his significant activity in the community.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDaavviidd MM.. FFuurrmmaann 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable David M. Furman Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Furman: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 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 third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys 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. Attorneys assigned Judge David M. Furman an overall average grade of 3.24. Judge Furman Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Furman Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 3.38 12 2007 3.51 36 2008 3.44 46 2009 3.34 60 2010 2.70 36 2012 3.12 53 All Years 3.24 243 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaavviidd MM.. FFuurrmmaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 224433)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge David M. Furman Judge Furman All COA Judges* Sample Size = 243 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 51% 14% 10% 7% 7% 11% 3.09 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 50% 16% 9% 3% 2% 21% 3.35 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 54% 8% 5% 3% 3% 27% 3.45 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 55% 14% 7% 3% 1% 20% 3.49 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 48% 4% 2% 0% 1% 45% 3.79 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 43% 14% 9% 3% 2% 29% 3.29 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.41 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 20% 11% 8% 4% 9% 3.09 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 19% 8% 11% 6% 8% 2.96 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 46% 25% 10% 5% 1% 12% 3.24 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 45% 12% 9% 5% 5% 23% 3.11 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 51% 16% 8% 14% 8% 2% 2.89 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 51% 18% 6% 8% 7% 12% 3.10 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.07 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.24 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge David M. Furman Judge Furman All COA Judges* How strongly do you recommend that Judge Furman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 33% 43% Recommend retain 33% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 10% 13% Recommend not retain 19% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 9% Total Retain 66% 69% Neither 10% 13% Total Not Retain 25% 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 32% 42% Recommend retain 32% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% 13% Recommend not retain 19% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 2% 1% Total Retain 64% 68% Neither 9% 13% Total Not Retain 25% 17% Don't Know 2% 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge David M. Furman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 3.24 Overall average grade 3.25 3.41 Question 2 average grade 3.42 3.09 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.14 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.35 answer questions. 3.35 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.45 economic status. 3.48 3.49 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.42 3.79 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.77 3.29 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.36 3.07 Question 3 average grade 3.08 3.09 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.11 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.96 basis of the Court's decision. 3.02 3.24 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.11 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.89 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 3.10 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Furman All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Judge David M. Furman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Furman be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 33% Strongly recommend retain 43% 33% Somewhat recommend retain 26% Excluding DK Respondents 10% Neither retain nor not retain Judge 13% Furman All COA Judges* Total Retain 66% 69% 19% Somewhat recommend not retain Neither 10% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 25% 17% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 32% Strongly recommend retain 42% 32% Somewhat recommend retain 26% 9% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Including DK Respondents Judge 19% Somewhat recommend not retain Furman All COA Judges* 8% Total Retain 64% 68% Neither 9% 13% 6% Total Not Retain 25% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total DK 2% 1% Don't know enough to make a 2% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Furman All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 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 2013. 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. 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 Court of Appeals 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 State 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. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 18.8% for Judge Furman and 17.7% for all Court of Appeals judges. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Furman is 19.5% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges is 21.7%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and the cooperation rate for Judge Furman. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2012. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Furman 1429 1043 139 243 18.8% All Court of 13724 10173 1333 2199 17.7% Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2199 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 18% 10% 6% 7% 6% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 17% 8% 4% 3% 15% 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 57% 10% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 7% 4% 3% 14% 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 8% 3% 3% 20% 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 13% 6% 4% 6% 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 12% 8% 5% 6% 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 24% 12% 3% 2% 10% 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 8% 5% 4% 19% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 47% 18% 12% 11% 10% 2% 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3.07 Question 3 Average Grade 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 69% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 42% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 68% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice 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 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable David M. Furman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate 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 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge David M. Furman, 176 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 107 agreed they had worked with Judge Furman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 107 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.49 Attorneys 3.34 District and Appellate Judges 3.55 Table 1 Judge David M. Furman Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.49 3.34 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 93% Attorneys 87% District & Appellate Judges 96% Table 2 Judge David M. Furman Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 93% 87% 96% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge David M. Furman Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.58 3.55 Writing 3.10 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 204 7 30 36% 57% District and Appellate 211 0 77 50% 27% Judges *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 David M. Furman 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Furman, 70 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 30 agreed they had worked with Judge Furman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 30 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. 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 “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 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%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 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 57% 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 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 5 ## Page 8 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 with 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 e-mailed 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. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice 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. d. Analysis: 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Furman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge David M. Furman Total Retain 87% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 59% 60% 40% 27% 17% 20% 13% 9% 9% 6% 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 Furman All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Furman 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 3.43 Appellate General Overall Average 3.58 3.55 Being prepared for oral argument 3.65 3.94 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.93 3.47 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.81 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.67 economic status 3.77 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.48 questions 3.5 3.22 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.33 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Furman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge David M. Furman All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 30 Average Judges Being fair and impartial toward 53% 30% 13% 3% -- -- 3.33 3.22 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 53% 27% 3% 3% -- 13% 3.5 3.48 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 73% 7% 7% -- -- 13% 3.77 3.67 economic status Being courteous toward 73% 10% 3% -- -- 13% 3.81 3.47 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 47% 3% -- -- -- 50% 3.93 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 60% 23% 3% -- -- 13% 3.65 3.55 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.58 3.43 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Furman 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 3.18 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.1 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.13 decided 3.04 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.98 facts 3 3.39 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.38 3.45 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.17 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.16 Court's decision 2.96 3.22 Writing opinions that are clear 3.19 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Furman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge David M. Furman All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 26 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 38% 46% 12% 4% -- -- 3.19 3.22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 36% 36% 16% 12% -- -- 2.96 3.16 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 40% 32% 16% 4% -- 8% 3.17 3.45 Making decisions without regard to 42% 27% 12% -- -- 19% 3.38 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 40% 32% 16% 12% -- -- 3 2.98 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 35% 38% 12% 4% 4% 8% 3.04 3.13 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.1 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Furman, 106 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 77 agreed they had worked with Judge Furman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 77 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis 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 attorneys 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Furman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge David M. Furman Total Retain 96% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 2% Figure 6 100% 78% 80% 71% 60% 40% 25% 20% 20% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 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 Furman All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.69 3.55 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.92 3.91 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.84 economic status 3.76 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.74 3.58 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.53 decided 3.27 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.61 facts 3.5 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.77 3.62 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 3.43 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.59 Court's decision 3.54 Writing opinions that are clear 3.58 3.48 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Furman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge David M. Furman All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 77 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 58% 31% 10% -- -- -- 3.48 3.58 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 60% 33% 6% -- -- -- 3.54 3.59 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 42% 27% 8% -- -- 23% 3.43 3.64 Making decisions without regard to 69% 19% 2% 4% -- 6% 3.62 3.77 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 63% 31% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.5 3.61 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 46% 31% 10% 2% 2% 8% 3.27 3.53 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 67% 27% 4% 2% -- -- 3.58 3.74 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 69% 17% 2% -- -- 13% 3.76 3.84 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 65% 6% -- -- -- 29% 3.91 3.92 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.55 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David M. Furman 16

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

Sources