← All judges

Emily C. Lieberman

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2022 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Commission vote: 8 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards
    VotersRetained· 67.5% yes
    109,348 yes · 52,778 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees Judge Emily C. Lieberman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 8 – 0 (one recusal). The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Since her appointment to the bench in August of 2020, Judge Lieberman’s docket has been exclusively domestic relations matters. Judge Lieberman received a 96% score among attorneys for meeting performance standards and a 55% score from non-attorneys. Her survey scores in Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor and Fairness were generally average for a district court judge handling a domestic relations docket, which were viewed by the Commission as a positive indication that the Judge was performing her duties well, given Judge Lieberman did not have a prior background in domestic relations. Both survey data and the Commission’s own observations show that Judge Lieberman is balanced and fair.  Her rulings reflect the seriousness with which she takes her work. Comments regarding Judge Lieberman's rulings frequently noted that her rulings are well-reasoned, and her decisions frequently brought effective resolutions to difficult family law situations. Judge Lieberman received positive comments for her preparation in handling matters before her. Survey data did indicate that non-attorneys may perceive Judge Lieberman as having a bias and a lack of compassion, but the Commission believes this perception of Judge Lieberman will improve with experience and will result in an enhanced perception of her fairness and compassion. In performing its evaluation, the Commission conducted an in-person interview with Judge Lieberman. It also read a selection of her legal opinions, observed her in court, reviewed her judicial performance survey report and reviewed her self-evaluation. A survey of appellate judges familiar with Judge Lieberman rate her higher than the average district court judge. Judge Lieberman is meeting performance standards despite a very heavy docket and lack of a paralegal or law clerk to help her with the demands of a heavy workload.

Surveys & reports

  • 2022 cycle
    • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Emily Lieberman 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Fairness .14 Survey of Appellate Judges .15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.19 Methodology and How to Read Results .19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lieberman, 15 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 15 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 3.7 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge Lieberman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 82% 80% 76% 60% 40% 18% 20% 13% 8% 6% 5% 0% Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge Lieberman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Lieberman Lieberman Judges Judges Yes, meets 92% 82% 76% performance standards No, does not meet 8% 13% 18% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.4 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.7 Diligence 3.3 3.7 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.4 Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge All District Lieberman Judges Case Management 3.7 3.4 Application and 3.7 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.7 3.3 Demeanor 3.7 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 31 27% 42% 13 Non-Attorneys 3 - - 2 *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 Lieberman 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 6 ## Page 7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.5 3.4 3.4 4.0 14 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 15 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.3 3.7 4.0 12 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.5 15 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.3 3.7 4.0 15 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 13 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 11 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 13 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.2 3.8 N/A 13 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.6 4.0 15 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 13 reasoned Using language that everyone can 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.0 15 Treating participants with respect 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.0 15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.0 15 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 12 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 10 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 12 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 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 2 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for - 3.3 N/A - 0 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 12 ## Page 13 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 13 ## Page 14 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lieberman Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 14 ## Page 15 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Lieberman 0 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Lieberman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lieberman Score District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Lieberman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 0.0 3.6 0 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 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 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. 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 quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. 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 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 list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 16 ## Page 17 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 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 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 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 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, 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 2020 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 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 interim. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 17 ## Page 18 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 0 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Lieberman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for interim. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2021. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 116 31 0 13 42% Staff 2 0 2 - Others 24 1 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 24 3 - 2 - Total Respondents - 34 - 15 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily Lieberman 20
    • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Overall score
      3.2
      judge rating, 0–4 scale
      Attorneys recommend
      96%
      147 respondents
      Non-attorneys recommend
      55%
      respondent count not on record
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Emily C. Lieberman 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court 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 . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications . 10 Demeanor . 11 Diligence . 12 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lieberman, 91 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 91 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge Lieberman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 96% 83% 79% 80% 60% 55% 40% 30% 20% 15% 16% 12% 4% 4% 5% 0% Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge Lieberman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Lieberman Lieberman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 96% 83% 55% 79% standards No, does not meet performance 4% 12% 30% 16% standards No opinion 0% 4% 15% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.1 Fairness 3.3 Judge Lieberman All District Judges Judge All District Lieberman Judges Case Management 3.3 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.0 3.3 of Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.1 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 147 26% 33% 49 Non- 109 - - 42 Attorneys *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 Lieberman received 1 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge Judge District Judge Lieberman Number of Lieberman Judges Lieberman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.4 3.7 2.8 80 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 3.5 2.6 83 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.3 3.8 2.8 68 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.6 2.8 79 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 2.4 Judge Judge District Judge Lieberman Number of Lieberman Judges Lieberman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3 3.3 3.5 2.2 83 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 47 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 32 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 46 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.4 3.2 N/A 2.4 36 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 2.5 3.3 N/A 2.5 33 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge District Judge Lieberman Number of Lieberman Judges Lieberman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.8 80 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 47 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 36 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 35 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.8 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge Judge District Judge Lieberman Number of Lieberman Judges Lieberman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.7 79 Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.4 3.8 2.9 80 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.6 3.2 N/A 2.6 36 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lieberman Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Judge District Judge Lieberman Number of Lieberman Judges Lieberman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 46 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 43 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 45 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 34 Maintaining appropriate control 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 34 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 32 cases Being prepared for cases. 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 33 Managing court proceedings so 2.9 3.4 N/A 2.9 34 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lieberman Score 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lieberman Attorneys 3.7 Judge Lieberman Non-Attorneys 2.4 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Lieberman Lieberman Lieberman Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Non-Attorneys Giving participants an 2.3 3.3 N/A 2.3 34 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.2 3.2 N/A 2.2 34 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.7 3.3 N/A 2.7 30 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.6 3.3 N/A 2.6 34 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.2 3.3 3.7 2.5 79 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 46 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Lieberman 4 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Lieberman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lieberman Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Lieberman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.7 4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lieberman, 91 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 91 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, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 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 an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. 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 quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. 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 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 list of all judges in their district our 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 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 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 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 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 2021 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. 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, 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 16 ## Page 17 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 39 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 4 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Lieberman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2022. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 569 147 49 33% Staff - 2 2 - Others 1054 106 39 37% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 109 42 - Total Respondents - 256 91 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Emily C. Lieberman 19

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

Sources