Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov

Evaluation history

• 2022 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  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 State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11 - 0. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Lipinsky has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for just over three years, and this is his first time standing for retention as a Court of Appeals judge. During much of his tenure, the Covid-19 pandemic required virtual oral arguments. Judge Lipinsky was thoughtful, well-prepared, and respectful during oral arguments. In addition, his written opinions are clear, well written, and adequately detailed. Judge Lipinsky excels at improving administrative systems. He frequently discusses cases with his clerks to obtain alternate viewpoints. Judge Lipinsky is an experienced case manager who completes cases in a timely manner. He works with the court’s technology committee to anticipate the court’s future needs and has taken on additional cases to help clear the pandemic-generated backlog. Like most judges with a background in corporate civil law, Judge Lipinsky has limited experience with criminal, domestic relations, and personal injury cases. He expressed a commitment to continued work in this area, and we are satisfied that his work with other judges and continuing education have improved his knowledge. The Commission finds Judge Lipinsky is a valuable addition to the Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Lipinsky, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. Survey respondents agreed Judge Lipinsky meets judicial performance standards. 88% of attorneys and 92% of judges who responded to that question answered “yes”. He received an overall score of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. Judge Lipinsky received positive comments for his collegiality from fellow jurists. Appointed in January 2019, this is his first public retention review. The judge received an A.B. magna cum laude, with honors, from Brown University. He earned a J.D. from the New York University School of Law and was a member of the law review. He chaired the Denver litigation department of an international law firm and was the former President of the Faculty of Federal Advocates where he co-authored the U.S. District Court for Colorado pro bono panel initiative. Judge Lipinsky frequently speaks and writes on legal issues relating to technology, discovery, employment law, and ethics. We commend his extensive work on the ethical rules for judges and lawyers which can potentially instill greater public confidence in the court. Judge Lipinsky is heavily involved outside the court, notably in the Access to Justice Commission, designed to expand access to, and enhance the quality of, justice in civil legal matters for low-income litigants. He founded the appellate courts’ liaison committee with the Pledge to Diversity to educate diverse law students about opportunities in the legal profession.

Surveys & reports

• 2022 cycle
  • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney .11 Methodology and How to Read Results .11 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lipinsky de Orlov, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 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 (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge Lipinsky de All Appellate Orlov Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.5 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 94% 92% 81% 80% 73% 60% 40% 23% 20% 14% 8% 5% 4% 3% 3% 0% Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Judge All Judge All Lipinsky Appellate Lipinsky Appellate de Orlov Judges de Orlov Judges Yes, meets performance 73% 81% 92% 94% standards No, does not meet 23% 14% 0% 3% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 8% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.1 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.7 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge All Lipinsky de Appellate Orlov Judges General (Attorneys) 3.4 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.1 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 3.7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 105 20% 25% 26 Judges 13 6% - 13 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Lipinsky de Appellate Number of Responses Orlov Overall Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.2 3.3 24 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.5 3.5 22 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.8 3.6 17 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.6 3.5 23 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 4.0 14 Being prepared for oral argument 3.6 3.6 21 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.1 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lipinsky de Appellate Judges Number of Responses Orlov Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.2 3.4 24 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3 3.3 24 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.5 3.6 24 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.4 3.5 23 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 2.6 3.0 26 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need not 3 3.3 22 be decided 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Appellate Lipinsky de Number of Judges Orlov Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 3.7 13 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision 3.6 3.7 13 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 4 3.7 12 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 12 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.7 3.7 13 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.4 3.6 13 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 3.8 13 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 3.8 13 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 9 ## Page 10 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 10 ## Page 11 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lipinsky de Orlov, 39 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 39 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 11 ## Page 12 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 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 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 12 ## Page 13 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. 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 Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 192 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 17 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. A total of 85 responses were received for a response rate of 44%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2021. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 29 survey invitations sent. A total of 7 responses were received for a response rate of 24%. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on February 1st, 2021 and a reminder was sent on February 8th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 1st, 2021. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 15th, 2021. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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. 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 Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 513 105 0 26 25% Judges 221 13 0 13 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 15
  • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.5

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    88%

    92 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    92%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Lipinsky de Orlov, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 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 (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge Lipinsky de All Appellate Orlov Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 94% 92% 88% 80% 77% 60% 40% 20% 15% 12% 9% 4% 4% 2% 3% 0% Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Judge All Judge All Lipinsky Appellate Lipinsky Appellate de Orlov Judges de Orlov Judges Yes, meets 88% 77% 92% 94% performance standards No, does not meet 12% 15% 4% 2% performance standards No opinion 0% 9% 4% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 General (Attorneys) 3.3 3.3 Writing (Attorneys) 3.1 3.6 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov All Appellate Judges Judge All Lipinsky Appellate de Orlov Judges General (Attorneys) 3.4 3.3 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.1 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 3.7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 92 22% 23% 21 Judges 33 13% - 33 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Lipinsky de Appellate Number of Responses Orlov Overall Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.4 3.2 20 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.3 3.3 19 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.6 3.4 19 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.6 3.4 19 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.8 3.7 13 Being prepared for oral argument 3.7 3.4 18 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Overall 3.1 Judge Lipinsky de Appellate Judges Number of Orlov Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.4 3.2 16 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.4 3.1 16 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.2 3.3 16 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.4 3.2 17 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.4 2.9 17 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3 3.1 17 not be decided 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Lipinsky de Orlov Overall 3.6 Appellate Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Appellate Lipinsky de Number of Judges Orlov Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 3.7 32 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.6 3.7 32 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 3.8 27 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.5 3.7 31 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.6 3.6 32 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.4 3.6 29 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 3.7 32 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.7 3.8 31 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lipinsky de Orlov, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 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. 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 10 ## Page 11 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 942 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28thor 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, 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 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 11 ## Page 12 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 Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2021. All 217 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 8 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2021. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 39 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 21st, 2022 and a reminder was sent on February 9th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 28th, 2022. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on February 6th , 2022 and a reminder was sent on February 11th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 28th, 2022. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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. 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 Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 415 92 0 21 23% Judges 256 33 0 33 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov 14

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

• 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026