← All judges

Alan M. Loeb

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2014 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 68.9% yes
    1,054,428 yes · 475,687 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10 to 0 that Chief Judge Alan M. Loeb BE RETAINED. Judge Loeb was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2003. He has served as Chief Judge of the Court since October 1, 2013.  As Chief Judge, his administrative duties include court policies, budget issues, facilities, division assignments, judge workloads, and staff supervision. He also serves on numerous committees of the Colorado Supreme Court.  Judge Loeb earned his bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1968 and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1971.  Before his appointment to the Court, Judge Loeb was in private practice, concentrating on complex civil litigation and appeals.  He has participated in many public outreach activities while serving on the Court, including the Courts in the Community Program and the Denver and Colorado Attorney Mentoring Programs.  His community interests include service as District Governor for the more than 50 Rotary Clubs in Northern Colorado. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Loeb, read opinions that he authored, reviewed his self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding his performance.  Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained in office, or not be retained in office?”  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 85% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 12% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of judges responding to the survey, 95% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation regarding retention. Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Loeb’s performance is strong in the areas of being courteous, fair, and impartial; in writing reasoned decisions that are clear and based on law and facts; in issuing opinions in a timely manner; in being prepared for oral argument; and in refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.  Numerous attorneys commented that Judge Loeb is thoughtful, fair, and well-prepared for oral argument.  The survey responses and comments of district court judges similarly indicate that Judge Loeb is thoughtful and writes clear and well-reasoned opinions.  Based on its review of Judge Loeb’s opinions, the Commission found them to be clear and well-reasoned.  Overall, the Commission believes that Judge Loeb is an exemplary judge and has the skills to be an effective leader of the Court.
  • 2006 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 69.1% yes
    841,730 yes · 377,157 no50% needed to retain
    Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10 to 0 that Judge Alan M. Loeb BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Loeb was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2003. He graduated from East High School in Denver, Stanford University, and the University of Michigan Law School. For 32 years before his appointment to the Court, Judge Loeb tried cases and litigated disputes. His law practice concentrated on complex civil litigation and appeals, especially of securities and corporate law issues. His community interests include service as District Governor for the more than 50 Rotary Clubs in Colorado. Strengths: Attorneys who responded to survey questions rated Judge Loeb above the survey average for making decisions without regard to possible criticism and not engaging in ex parte communications. Attorneys rated Judge Loeb as at the survey average for (1) making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts, (2) issuing opinions in a timely manner, (3) writing opinions that are clear, and (4) treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status. The Commission reviewed several opinions that Judge Loeb wrote and agreed that his opinions are generally very good. Judge Loeb is working to learn more about criminal sentencing and workers' compensation. Weaknesses: Attorneys rated Judge Loeb slightly below the survey average for: (1) being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case, (2) writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision, (3) allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions, (4) refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided, (5) being courteous to attorneys, and (6) being prepared for oral argument. Recommendation: 64% of attorneys surveyed and 89% of judges surveyed strongly recommended that Judge Loeb be retained in office. Overall, 92% of attorneys and 99% of judges supported his retention. The Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Loeb be retained.

Surveys & reports

  • 2014 cycle
    • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 18th, 2011 The Honorable Alan M. Loeb Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Loeb: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases before a Court of Appeals panel of which you were a member or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the survey, and a breakout of results by year since 2005 or when you were sworn in, whichever is most recent. 2. The numerical results of the survey in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The third section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides copies of the questions that were used for the survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Alan M. Loeb an overall average grade of 3.44. The average attorney grade for all Court of Appeals Judges was 3.31. The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through the first quarter of 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Judge Loeb’s overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Judge Loeb Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Loeb All COA Judges Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.50 29 3.61 163 2006 3.67 9 3.52 134 2007 3.42 14 3.43 357 2008 3.42 34 3.32 650 2009 3.36 41 3.28 995 2010 3.47 31 3.21 1,060 All Years 3.44 158 3.31 3,359 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed from 2005 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Judges who were appointed after 2005 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115588)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Alan M. Loeb Sample Size = 158 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Loeb All COA Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 57% 17% 8% 4% 3% 11% 3.35 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 14% 6% 3% 2% 21% 3.45 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 55% 10% 5% 0% 1% 29% 3.65 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 11% 6% 0% 1% 25% 3.66 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 2% 0% 0% 0% 46% 3.97 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 46% 16% 4% 1% 2% 31% 3.50 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.60 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 53% 24% 9% 5% 2% 8% 3.31 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 20% 12% 8% 2% 8% 3.18 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 23% 10% 2% 2% 10% 3.39 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 45% 13% 8% 2% 3% 29% 3.35 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 56% 11% 13% 10% 8% 2% 3.01 2.92 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 52% 16% 5% 3% 3% 21% 3.40 3.16 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.27 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Alan M. Loeb Sample Size = 158 Judge Loeb All COA Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 66% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 9% Total Retain 84% 84% Total Not Retain 16% 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 10% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 8% Total Retain 75% 75% Undecided/Don't Know 10% 11% Total Not Retain 14% 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Alan M. Loeb Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.44 Overall average grade 3.31 3.60 Question 2 average grade 3.48 3.35 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.23 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.45 answer questions. 3.41 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.65 economic status. 3.52 3.66 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.51 3.97 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.79 3.50 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.41 3.27 Question 3 average grade 3.14 3.31 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.18 basis of the Court's decision. 3.06 3.39 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.30 3.35 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.26 3.01 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.92 3.40 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.16 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Loeb All COA Judges 4 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 8 Judge Alan M. Loeb Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 66% Strongly recommend retain 66% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Judge Loeb All COA Judges 10% Total Retain 84% 84% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 16% 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 59% Strongly recommend retain 59% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 10% Judge Loeb All COA Judges Undecided or Don't Know 11% Total Retain 75% 75% Undecided or DK 10% 11% Total Not Retain 14% 15% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Loeb All COA Judges 5 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to seven Supreme Court 7 ## Page 11 justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 8 ## Page 12 The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through March 2011 for those questions that have been consistently asked of attorneys during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice‟s or judge‟s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge‟s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice or judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. 9 ## Page 13 d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge‟s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all COA judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all COA judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don‟t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge‟s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 22.0% for Supreme Court justices and 17.4% for Court of Appeals. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey- evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Judge Loeb is shown below. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Judge Loeb 1041 869 14 158 15.4% All Court of Appeals 19,604 15,913 295 3,359 17.4% Judges All Appellate Judges 25,254 20,265 358 4,588 18.4% (SC and COA) 10 ## Page 14 Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated. From 2005 to 2008 a total of 1,963 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys regarding appellate justices and judges. Nine hundred and thirty (930), or 47.4%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Correspondingly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 6,681 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey regarding appellate justices and judges, of which 22.5% (1500 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a justice or judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 2.4 judges.1 1 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding justices and judges who are active at this writing. 11 ## Page 15 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge or justice being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 56% 18% 9% 6% 5% 7% 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 53% 17% 6% 3% 3% 18% 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 9% 4% 3% 3% 24% 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 6% 2% 2% 18% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 4% 2% 0% 1% 43% 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 50% 14% 7% 2% 2% 24% 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 26% 11% 6% 3% 7% 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 24% 12% 8% 5% 7% 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 26% 11% 3% 2% 8% 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 7% 4% 4% 22% 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 19% 11% 10% 9% 2% 2.92 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 47% 19% 10% 4% 5% 15% 3.16 Question 3 Average Grade 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 13 ## Page 17 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 84% Total Not Retain 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 75% Undecided/Don't Know 11% Total Not Retain 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [ Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
    • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Alan M. Loeb Colorado Court of Appeals 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Loeb: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; and 2) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Court of Appeals non-attorney employees were also asked to evaluate the judges (using the non- attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey and the district/appellate judge survey. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Alan M. Loeb March 26, 2014 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Attorneys assigned Judge Alan M. Loeb an overall average grade of 3.44, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Judge Loeb an overall average grade of 3.77, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.61. Judge Loeb Average Grades Attorneys District and Combined (All Years) Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.61 3.44 3.77 Sample Size - 214 117 Table 1 The attorney results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2006 through 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Judge Loeb's overall average grades from attorneys for up to eight years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Loeb Average Sample Year Score Size 2006 3.67 9 2007 3.42 14 2008 3.42 34 2009 3.36 41 2010 3.47 31 2011 NA NA 2012 NA NA 2013 3.47 85 All Years 3.44 214 Table 2 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 221144)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Alan M. Loeb Sample Size = 214 Judge Loeb A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 57% 20% 12% 2% 3% 6% 3.34 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 56% 19% 7% 2% 1% 14% 3.47 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 63% 12% 6% 1% 1% 17% 3.62 status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 63% 12% 6% 0% 0% 17% 3.66 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 55% 4% 0% 0% 0% 41% 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 53% 17% 6% 1% 1% 22% 3.51 Question 2 Average Grade 3.59 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 54% 28% 8% 4% 1% 6% 3.37 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 51% 25% 11% 5% 2% 6% 3.26 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 25% 9% 2% 1% 9% 3.42 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 18% 10% 2% 3% 19% 3.27 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 53% 17% 14% 9% 6% 1% 3.04 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 48% 25% 5% 2% 2% 17% 3.39 Question 3 Average Grade 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Alan M. Loeb Judge Loeb How strongly do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 28% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% Total Retain 85% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 3% 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 8 Judge Alan M. Loeb Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades Overall average grade 3.44 Question 2 average grade 3.59 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.34 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.47 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.62 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.66 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.93 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.51 Question 3 average grade 3.29 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.37 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.26 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.42 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.27 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.04 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Loeb 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Judge Alan M. Loeb Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 28% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% Judge Loeb Total Retain 85% Neither 12% Recommend not retain 2% Total Not Retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 177)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Judge Alan M. Loeb Sample Size = 117 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Loeb 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 70% 18% 0% 0% 0% 12% 3.80 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 66% 19% 2% 0% 0% 13% 3.74 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 63% 21% 3% 0% 0% 13% 3.70 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 51% 17% 2% 0% 0% 30% 3.71 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 68% 16% 0% 0% 0% 16% 3.81 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 65% 22% 2% 0% 0% 11% 3.71 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 61% 18% 1% 1% 0% 19% 3.72 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 72% 9% 1% 1% 0% 17% 3.84 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 60% 6% 0% 1% 0% 33% 3.87 Overall Average Grade: 3.77 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 76% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 4% Recommend not retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 0% Total Retain 95% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 1% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 12 Judge Alan M. Loeb Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades Overall average of 1 through 9 3.77 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.80 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.74 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.70 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.71 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.81 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.71 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.72 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.84 status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.87 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Strongly recommend retain 76% Recommend retain 19% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 4% Judge Loeb Total Retain 95% Recommend not retain 1% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 1% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Loeb 10 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 13 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 14 Methodology The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge and justice by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges and justices that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Court of Appeals judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 12 ## Page 15 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column on the far right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 13 ## Page 16 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2006 through 2013, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 17.6% for Judge Loeb. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2013 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Loeb is 33.1%. A table of Judge Loeb’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2006 through 2013. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Loeb 1277 1003 60 214 17.6% II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-one (171) district judges and 27 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. The overall averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. 14 ## Page 17 The following page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form and the percentage distribution to the retention question in bar-graph form. The last part of the District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the judge. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, 198 questionnaires were mailed (171 district judges and 27 appellate judges) and 117 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 15 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 ## Page 21 ## Page 22 ## Page 23 ## Page 24
  • 2006 cycle
    • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee AAllaann MM.. LLooeebb 2006 Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 2 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Alan M. Loeb Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Ave. Denver, Co. 80203 Dear Judge Loeb: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored or co-authored by those appellate court judges who face a retention vote in the next general election, and a second survey among all the State’s judges and justices. This report contains the results of these two surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 2a through 2l) Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Survey of Judges Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1 through 10 on the Survey of Judges questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by the trail judges to each substantive question in the survey. The judges were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the Survey of Judges questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 SSuurrvveeyy ooff JJuuddggeess ## Page 4 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges Average Grades: Questions 1 through 9 and Overall Average 3.7 Overall average of 1 through 14 3.7 1. Being fair and impartial toward 3.7 both sides of the case. 3.7 3.6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.6 3. Writing opinions that 3.6 adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. 3.7 3.5 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.5 3.7 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.7 3.7 6. Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts. 3.7 3.7 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.7 8. Treating parties equally 3.8 regardless of race, sex or economic status. 3.8 3.8 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.8 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Judge Loeb Average Grade Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Loeb Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 5 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges Retention Recommendation 100% 91% 89% 90% 85% 80% 77% 70% 60% 50% 40% ` 30% 20% 13% 10% 9% 10% 7% 7% 7% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% o n gl y n ot r et ai n w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d o m e w h at r et ai n St r o n gl y r et ai n o n gl y n ot r et ai n w h at n ot r et ai n o m e w h at r et ai n St r o n gl y r et ai n St r m e S St r m e S o o S S Including Undecided J u d g e L o e b Excluding Undecided Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Loeb Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 6 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 1. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 53% 64% B 17% 15% C 3% 3% D 1% Fail 0% No Grade 27% 17% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 7 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 2. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Writing opinions that are clear?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 54% 61% B 25% 27% C 5% 3% D 1% Fail No Grade 16% 9% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 8 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 3. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 56% 64% B 23% 25% C 3% 2% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 17% 9% Average 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 9 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 4. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 36% 39% B 23% 26% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 36% 31% Average 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 10 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 5. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 61% 67% B 14% 14% C 3% 2% D 1% Fail No Grade 22% 16% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 11 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 6. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Making reasoned decision based upon the law and facts?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 61% 69% B 19% 19% C 4% 3% D 1% Fail No Grade 16% 8% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 12 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 7. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 54% 59% B 19% 21% C 4% 3% D 0% Fail 0% No Grade 23% 17% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 13 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 8. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 59% 66% B 10% 10% C 3% 2% D 0% Fail No Grade 29% 23% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 14 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges 9. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 47% 51% B 7% 8% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 44% 40% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 15 Alan M. Loeb Survey of Judges R10e.t Do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained in office or not be retained in office? Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb Strongly Recommend 89% 91% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 7% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 1% 1% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 1% 0% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 16 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 17 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey Average Grades: Questions 2a through 2l and Overall Average 3.4 Overall average of 2a through 2l 3.5 3.3 2a. Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case. 3.5 3.4 2b. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.4 2c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.2 the Court's decision. 3.4 3.5 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.4 2e. Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and 3.6 proceedure. 3.7 3.7 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.5 2g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.1 facts. 3.3 2h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.2 decided. 3.5 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.8 economic status. 3.8 3.6 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.8 4 2k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 3.6 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.7 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Judge Loeb Average Grade Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Loeb Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 18 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 81% 80% 70% 70% 64% 60% 55% 50% 40% ` 30% 28% 24% 20% 14% 13% 13% 11% 10% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% o n gl y n ot r et ai n w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d o m e w h at r et ai n St r o n gl y r et ai n o n gl y n ot r et ai n w h at n ot r et ai n o m e w h at r et ai n St r o n gl y r et ai n St r m e S St r m e S o o S S Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Loeb Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Loeb Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 19 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 52% 61% B 10% 18% C 10% 10% D 7% 2% Fail No Grade 21% 9% Average 3.3 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 20 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Writing opinions that are clear?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 55% 59% B 21% 24% C 14% 8% D 3% 5% Fail No Grade 7% 5% Average 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 21 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 52% 59% B 21% 21% C 10% 11% D 10% 4% Fail No Grade 7% 5% Average 3.2 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 22 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 59% 51% B 17% 30% C 10% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 7% Average 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 23 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 45% 52% B 10% 12% C 7% 3% D Fail No Grade 38% 33% Average 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 24 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 38% 49% B 10% 14% C 3% 6% D 2% Fail No Grade 48% 28% Average 3.7 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 25 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 55% 55% B 10% 25% C 14% 9% D 7% 6% Fail 7% 1% No Grade 7% 4% Average 3.1 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 26 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 52% 55% B 7% 20% C 3% 6% D 7% 2% Fail 7% No Grade 24% 17% Average 3.2 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 27 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 38% 58% B 7% 6% C 5% D Fail No Grade 55% 31% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 28 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Being courteous toward attorneys?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 38% 58% B 21% 7% C 3% 2% D Fail No Grade 38% 33% Average 3.6 3.8 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 29 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2k. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 48% 47% B 3% C 2% D Fail No Grade 52% 48% Average 4.0 3.9 Letter Grade A A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 30 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 2l. How would you grade Judge Loeb on "Being prepared for oral argument?" Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb A 34% 47% B 21% 9% C 3% D Fail No Grade 45% 41% Average 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 31 Alan M. Loeb Attorney Survey 3. Do you recommend that Judge Loeb be retained in office or not be retained in office? Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Loeb Judge Loeb Strongly Recommend 64% 81% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 28% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 4% 3% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 32 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 33 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with names and addresses of attorneys who, in the previous 12 months, had a case decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, of which the decision had been authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges up for a retention vote in 2006. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of Colorado judges and justices. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges facing a retention vote in 2006, and a second survey of all Colorado judges and justices. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate for each survey as well as the response rate for your surveys. Overall Response Rate Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondent Type Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 405 160 2 40 43.8% Judges 266 154 35 66.7% Response Rate for Judge Loeb Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondent Type Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 72 29 0 5 43.3% Judges 266 154 35 66.7% 1 ## Page 34 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Judge Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to the combined averages for all the other Court of Appeals judges for which surveys in 2006 were conducted. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes a comparative column of results showing the results for that question for all other Court of Appeals judges for which surveys were conducted in 2006. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and judges. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. 2 ## Page 35 Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 36 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 37 Additional Comments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Appellate Questionnaire _ Evaluation of _ [JUDGE NAME] _ _ _ 1. Which of the following types of cases have you _ appealed in which Judge [Name] authored or _ co-authored the decision? (Please circle all that apply.) _ _ Civil. 1 Criminal. 2 _ Domestic. 3 _ Juvenile. 4 Other. 5 _ _ ## Page 38 2. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F 3. Comments about Judge [Name]’s relating to any of your responses to the for fail, please grade the Judge [Name] on the following. If, for a previous questions? specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade Judge [Name], please circle the number indicating “Can’t Grade.” _ Can’t _ A B C D F Grade _ a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Writing opinions that are clear. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Writing opinions that adequately explain _ the basis of the Court’s decision. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how f. Making decisions without regard to strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 not retained in office? g. Making reasoned decisions based upon Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office. 5 the law and facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office. 4 h. Refraining from reaching issues that Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 need not be decided. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office. 2 i. Treating parties equally regardless of Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office. 1 race, sex or economic status. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Name] ? k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 l. Being prepared for oral argument. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Please use back page for any additional comments. ## Page 39 Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Robert M. Russel in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Survey of Colorado Judges _ _ Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the five _ Court of Appeals judges who are standing for retention in November 2006. For questions 1 through 10 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” indicates you believe the judge or justice is doing excellent on that aspect of his or her job, a “D” indicates that you believe he or she is doing poorly on that aspect of the job and an “F” indicates that you believe the judge or justice is failing at that task. B’s and C’s indicate that you believe the judge or justice is performing between excellent and poor on the particular task. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the Please mail the completed questionnaire in the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Thank you. 8 ## Page 40 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. C. Please write comments you would like to make about No Judge Alan M. Loeb in the space below. If you would like to A B C D F Grade make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 sheet with additional comments. Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ 2. Writing opinions that are clear. _ No A B C D F Grade _ Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the D. Please write comments you would like to make about Court’s decision. Judge Jose D. L. Marquez in the space below. If you would No like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to A B C D F Grade attach a sheet with additional comments. Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. _ No _ A B C D F Grade _ Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Continued on Back Page 2 7 ## Page 41 A. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Russell E. Carparelli in the space below. If you would like to 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. _ No _ A B C D F Grade Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Janice B. Davidson in the space below. If you would like to Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be _ decided. _ No _ A B C D F Grade Judge Russell E. Carparelli. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Janice B. Davidson. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Alan M. Loeb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jose D.L. Marquez. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert M. Russel. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ 6 3 ## Page 42 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 10. Recommend to be retained/not economic status. retained in office. No Judge Judge Judge A B C D F Grade Carparelli Davidson Loeb Judge Russell E. Carparelli............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain ...... 5 5 5 Judge Janice B. Davidson.............. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain... 4 4 4 Judge Alan M. Loeb....................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Jose D.L. Marquez.............. 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation......... 3 3 3 Judge Robert M. Russel................. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain. 2 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain.... 1 1 1 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. Judge Judge No Marquez Russel A B C D F Grade Strongly recommend to retain....... 5 5 Judge Russell E. Carparelli............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain... 4 4 Judge Janice B. Davidson.............. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Alan M. Loeb....................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation......... 3 3 Judge Jose D.L. Marquez.............. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain. 2 2 Judge Robert M. Russel.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain.... 1 1 4 5

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