Joshua B. Lehman

Evaluation history

• 2024 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 73.7% yes

  125,416 yes · 44,756 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of 10-0, agrees that Judge Joshua Blake Lehman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Lehman handles a mixed docket consisting of civil, misdemeanor, traffic, and small claims. Judge Lehman presents himself in court as approachable, knowledgeable, and respectful of all parties. He strives to ensure that all parties are afforded equal access and equal opportunity in court proceedings. He enjoys his position as a County Court Judge, and it is evident to all parties appearing before him as demonstrated by his judicial performance survey scores. He feels he is making a difference in people’s lives and in his community. The Commission believes Judge Lehman is a dedicated, efficient, and respectful judge and appreciates his continued efforts for the community. During observations of Judge Lehman in court, he appeared respectful of all those in the courtroom, and he was efficient in handling his cases. He allows remote appearances in most situations, which the Commission finds effective in improving access to justice. Judge Lehman strives to do a good job for the community and puts in the effort to keep up with changes in the law. The Commission personally interviewed Judge Lehman, observed him in court (both in person and virtually), analyzed judicial performance survey data, reviewed a sample of written orders, considered written comments from attorneys and non-attorneys, and reviewed his self-evaluation. In addition, the Commission received comments from representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office. A total of 28 individuals, 12 attorneys and 16 non-attorneys, believed they had sufficient knowledge to assess whether Judge Lehman meets performance standards. When asked whether Judge Lehman meets performance standards: Of the attorneys responding to the survey, all 12 answered yes. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 15 answered yes and one expressed no opinion.  His overall performance score based on a total of 36 responses is 3.8 out of 4 for all performance categories combined (case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness). Given significantly low response rates to the surveys overall, the Commission gave the appropriate weight to the survey responses in its evaluation.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 78.3% yes

  139,207 yes · 38,459 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that the Honorable Joshua B. Lehman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Lehman presides over criminal, traffic, and civil matters.  The Commission finds Judge Lehman to be thorough, respectful, and self-aware.  He makes court proceedings accessible to self-represented parties, is patient, and ensures those who appear in front of him are heard.  Judge Lehman comes to court prepared and knowledgeable about the law.  His written orders are well-researched and well-written.  Judge Lehman has built processes to ensure that he runs an efficient courtroom, reviews and issues orders on written pleadings outside of the courtroom, while maintaining flexibility to handle emergency matters.  Judge Lehman’s judicial philosophy balances protecting an individual’s rights with allowing the victim to be heard and protecting community safety.  The Commission believes he is a strong judge, who continues to sharpen his skills by reflecting on his performance and process with an eye toward improvement. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Lehman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in Judge Lehman’s courtroom.  A total of thirty-eight individuals, thirty-six attorneys and two non-attorneys, believed they had sufficient knowledge to express their opinion of Judge Lehman.  When asked whether Judge Lehman meets performance standards: Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 94% answered yes; 3% answered no; and 3% had no opinion.  Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 100% answered yes.  The small number of non-attorney responses makes this percentage difficult to consider as a reliable measure.  It should be noted that for the retention cycle in 2020, different methods for non-attorney survey distribution and collection were utilized statewide on a trial basis.  This transition may account for the low response rate from non-attorneys.  Judge Lehman received ratings above the statewide average among all county court judges standing for retention in all areas surveyed: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 74.2% yes

  107,567 yes · 37,364 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Joshua B. Lehman BE RETAINED. Judge Lehman was appointed to the Larimer County Court bench in 2013.  As a County Court Judge, he presides over both criminal and civil cases, including small claims.  Judge Lehman previously served as deputy district attorney in Fort Collins and also represented Federal Employees in appeals of adverse employment actions and discrimination claims.  Judge Lehman received his Bachelor of Science degree from Wyoming University in 1998 and his law degree there in 2001.  Judge Lehman enjoys his job and providing judicial excellence is important to him. As a jurist, he is aware of the heightened tension among litigants that appear before him and strives to create a courtroom environment in which all sides can have their voices fairly heard. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Lehman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Lehman.  The survey asked “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Lehman be retained in office?”  Of the attorneys and non-attorneys completing the survey, 95% of the combined groups recommended retention.  Of the attorneys responding, 96% recommended retention, 0% recommended non-retention, and 4% made no recommendation.  Of the non-attorneys responding, 95% recommended retention, 5% recommended non-retention, and 0% made no recommendation.  A total of 27 attorneys and 57 non-attorneys completed the judicial performance survey regarding Judge Lehman. The very positive responses to the survey questions regarding Judge Lehman’s performance are indicative of his broad approval among the people that appear before him. Both attorneys and non-attorneys rated him well above average in every specific category surveyed. Among attorneys, his scores were particularly high the area of analysis of relevant facts and impartiality.  Among non-attorneys, his highest scores were in the areas of demeanor and treating participants with respect.  The Commission finds that despite being a relatively recent appointment to the bench, Judge Lehman is performing at a very high level. Commissioners were impressed with his response to interview questions and his demonstrated ability to be flexible in dealing with different parties under different circumstances. He is conscientious, fair and his performance will only improve over time.

Surveys & reports

• 2024 cycle
  • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Joshua B. Lehman 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lehman, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 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 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 90% 85% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Lehman Lehman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 90% 85% standards No, does not meet 0% 15% 0% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 10% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.9 Case Management 3.4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.9 Communications 3.6 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.5 3.8 Fairness 3.4 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge All County Lehman Judges Case Management 3.9 3.4 Application and 3.8 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.9 3.6 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.5 Fairness 3.8 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 44 19% 39% 17 Non-Attorneys 34 - - 27 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Lehman received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 28 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 3.9 38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.9 3.4 3.9 3.9 32 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 35 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.6 37 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 17 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 17 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.9 3.2 3.9 N/A 17 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 21 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 19 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 38 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 14 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 21 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 21 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 38 dignity Treating participants with 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.8 38 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 21 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.9 3.1 3.9 N/A 17 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 13 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 16 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 Maintaining appropriate control 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 21 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 19 Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 21 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.9 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lehman County Judge Lehman Judge Lehman Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 21 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 19 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 13 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 21 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.7 37 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 17 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lehman, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total, 5,463 surveys were completed with 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 13 ## Page 14 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce the administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2022 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 14 ## Page 15 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 229 44 17 39% Staff - 4 4 - Others 470 29 22 76% Juror - 1 1 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 34 27 - Total Respondents - 78 44 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 16
  • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jo shua B. Lehman 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 13 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lehman, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 367 12 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 12 Non-attorney email Invite 566 24 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 0 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 24 Total N/A 36 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Lehman Overall Judge Lehman Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.8 36 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 100% 94% 12 15 standards No, does not meet performance 0% 0% 0 0 standards No opinion 0% 6% 0 1 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Lehman Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Communications 3.8 Diligence 3.7 Demeanor 3.7 Fairness 3.7 Judge Lehman Score Judge Number of Lehman Responses Score Case Management 3.8 36 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 35 Communications 3.8 31 Diligence 3.7 29 Demeanor 3.7 30 Fairness 3.7 28 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.8 Attorneys 3.8 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.8 3.9 3.7 29 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.9 4.0 3.9 35 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.7 3.8 3.7 33 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.9 3.9 3.8 35 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.7 3.6 3.8 26 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.7 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.7 3.9 3.6 35 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.8 3.8 N/A 12 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.7 3.7 N/A 12 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.5 3.5 N/A 12 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.8 3.8 N/A 12 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.3 3.3 N/A 12 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.9 N/A 3.9 23 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.5 N/A 3.5 23 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.8 Attorneys 3.7 Non-Attorneys 3.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.9 3.8 3.9 31 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.2 3.2 N/A 12 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.8 3.8 N/A 11 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 4.0 4.0 N/A 12 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.8 N/A 3.8 19 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.9 N/A 3.9 18 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.9 N/A 3.9 18 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.6 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.9 4.0 3.8 29 Treats participants with respect. 3.9 3.9 3.9 30 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.5 3.5 N/A 12 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 2.7 2.7 N/A 12 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.9 3.9 N/A 12 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.4 N/A 3.4 17 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.8 Non-Attorneys 3.7 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.7 3.7 N/A 12 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 4.0 4.0 N/A 10 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.8 3.8 N/A 12 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.3 N/A 3.3 15 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.9 N/A 3.9 16 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.8 N/A 3.8 17 Is prepared for cases 3.9 N/A 3.9 16 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.8 N/A 3.8 17 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.7 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.9 N/A 3.9 16 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 3.6 N/A 3.6 16 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.7 N/A 3.7 14 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.9 N/A 3.9 15 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.9 3.9 N/A 12 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 3.9 3.9 N/A 12 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 3.1 3.1 N/A 12 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.9 3.9 N/A 12 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lehman, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 13 ## Page 14 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 14 ## Page 15 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 15 ## Page 16 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 16 ## Page 17 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 17 ## Page 18 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). 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 are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 18
• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Joshua B. Lehman 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lehman, 79 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 79 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 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 89% 86% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 11% 10% 5% 6% 4% 2% 0% Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Lehman Lehman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 89% 81% 92% 86% standards No, does not meet 11% 13% 6% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 2% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 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 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge All County Lehman Judges Case 3.6 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.5 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 35 47% 54% 19 Non- 80 4% 75% 60 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Lehman received 2 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 Joshua B. Lehman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.5 3.7 N/A 17 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 20 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 16 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 20 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 76 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 3.4 3 N/A 8 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 20 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 55 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 47 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.7 82 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 18 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 62 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 62 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 83 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 83 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 82 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 62 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 20 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 80 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.5 3.6 N/A 17 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 61 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 62 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 60 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 61 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lehman County Judge Lehman Judge Lehman Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 62 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 62 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 46 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 57 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lehman, 79 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 79 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 13 ## Page 14 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 14 ## Page 15 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 74 35 0 19 54% Law Enforcement 107 2 0 1 50% Litigant 2026 53 313 36 68% Juror 63 18 6 18 100% Others 10 7 0 5 71% Total Non-Attorneys 2206 80 319 60 75% Total Respondents 2280 115 319 79 69% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 16
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.8

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    94%

    49 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    100%

    4 respondents
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Joshua B. Lehman 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lehman, 38 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 38 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 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 94% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge Lehman All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Lehman Lehman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 94% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 3% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 3% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.5 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.8 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Lehman All County Judges Judge All County Lehman Judges Case 3.8 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.7 3.3 Law Communications 3.8 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 49 31% 73% 36 Non-Attorneys 4 20% 50% 2 In addition to the responses above, Judge Lehman 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 Joshua B. Lehman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.0 31 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 26 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.0 34 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.4 3.7 4 34 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 31 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 29 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.1 3.6 N/A 32 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 31 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.0 34 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 29 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.0 34 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.0 34 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.7 3.3 3.7 4.0 34 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lehman Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lehman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 11 ## Page 12 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Lehman Judges Lehman Lehman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 32 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 27 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 26 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lehman Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Lehman Attorneys Judge Lehman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Lehman County Judge Lehman Judge Lehman Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lehman, 38 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 38 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 Joshua B. Lehman 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 159 49 0 36 73% Staff 16 4 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 16 4 0 2 50% Total Respondents 175 53 0 38 72% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 17
• 2016 cycle
  • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.7

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    —

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    —

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Joshua B. Lehman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Joshua B. Lehman, 123 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 84 agreed they had worked with Judge Lehman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 84 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.7 Attorneys 3.70 Total Non-Attorneys 3.69 Juror 3.94 Non-Attorney Other* 3.52 Table 1 Judge Joshua B. Lehman Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.7 3.70 3.69 3.94 3.52 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 95% Attorneys 96% Total Non-Attorneys 95% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 92% Table 2 Judge Joshua B. Lehman Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 95% 96% 95% 100% 92% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Joshua B. Lehman Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.70 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.67 3.60 3.92 3.38 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.65 3.70 3.93 3.55 Diligence 3.63 3.74 3.92 3.61 Demeanor 3.83 3.74 3.96 3.59 Fairness N/A 3.67 3.97 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 102 3 27 49% 45% Total Non- 925 264 57 11% 23% Attorneys Staff 13 0 6 62% 25% Jurors 102 1 23 23% 0% Other Non- 810 263 28 8% 35% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lehman, 49 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 27 agreed they had worked with Judge Lehman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 27 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Joshua B. Lehman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Joshua B. Lehman Total Retain 96% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 85% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 11% 12% 4% 8% 6% 8% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Lehman All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lehman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.70 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.75 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.82 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 6 Case Management Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Lehman Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 70% 15% 4% -- -- 11% 3.75 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 78% 19% -- -- 4% -- 3.67 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 67% 15% -- -- -- 19% 3.82 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 67% 22% -- -- -- 11% 3.75 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.70 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lehman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.58 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.70 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.56 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.65 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Lehman Judges Being able to identify and analyze 78% 19% 4% -- -- -- 3.74 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 63% 33% -- -- -- 4% 3.65 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 74% 11% 5% -- 5% 5% 3.56 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 70% 30% -- -- -- -- 3.70 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 59% 22% 7% -- -- 11% 3.58 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lehman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.65 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.40 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 8 Communications Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Lehman Judges Making sure all participants 85% 15% -- -- -- -- 3.85 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 56% 30% -- 4% 4% 7% 3.40 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.65 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lehman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.81 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.89 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 9 Demeanor Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Lehman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 81% 19% -- -- -- -- 3.81 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.83 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lehman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.63 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.70 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.54 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 10 Diligence Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 27 Lehman Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 67% 26% -- -- 4% 4% 3.58 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 63% 19% 4% -- 4% 11% 3.54 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 63% 19% 4% -- -- 15% 3.70 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.63 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Lehman in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 71% 60% 54% 40% 28% 18% 20% 11% 12% 6% 1% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Lehman All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Joshua B. Lehman, 74 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 57 agreed they had worked with Judge Lehman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 57 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 16 ## Page 19 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Lehman be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Joshua B. Lehman Total Retain 95% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 5% Figure 10 100% 81% 80% 71% 60% 40% 20% 14% 16% 5% 3% 5% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Lehman All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.74 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.68 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.84 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.79 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 12 Demeanor Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 57 Lehman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 84% 11% -- 2% 4% -- 3.70 3.61 Treating participants with respect 91% 4% -- 4% 2% -- 3.79 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 86% 11% -- 2% -- 2% 3.84 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 82% 11% -- -- 5% 2% 3.68 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.74 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.67 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.58 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.65 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.61 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 13 Fairness Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 56 Lehman Judges Giving participants an opportunity 88% 4% -- -- 5% 4% 3.75 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 81% 11% -- -- 7% 2% 3.61 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 60% 5% -- 2% 4% 30% 3.65 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 72% 9% -- -- 7% 12% 3.58 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.67 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.85 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 14 Communications Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 57 Lehman Judges Making sure all participants 84% 7% -- -- 4% 5% 3.78 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 82% 11% 2% 2% 4% -- 3.67 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 86% 9% -- 2% -- 4% 3.85 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.70 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.74 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.81 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.67 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.81 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.80 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 15 Diligence Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 55 Lehman Judges Beginning court on time 77% 12% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3.67 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 77% 5% -- 2% 2% 14% 3.80 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 81% 11% -- -- 2% 7% 3.81 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 74% 4% 5% -- 4% 14% 3.67 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 79% 11% 4% -- -- 7% 3.81 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.74 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.60 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.58 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lehman Table 16 Application of Law Judge Joshua B. Lehman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 51 Lehman Judges Giving reasons for rulings 74% 7% -- 4% 4% 12% 3.64 3.56 Willing to make decision without 67% 5% -- -- 7% 21% 3.58 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 66% 11% -- -- 7% 16% 3.53 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.60 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Lehman is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Lehman is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 82% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 5% 4% 9% 7% 2% 5% 2% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Lehman All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Lehman are. If you feel Judge Lehman generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 84% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 6% 5% 8% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Lehman All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Joshua B. Lehman 25

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

Sources

• 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026