Corinne Magid

Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2026 retention cycle
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously by a vote of 10-0 finds Judge Corinne Magid MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Corinne Magid was appointed to the County Court in Jefferson County in March 2019. She presides over a mixed docket of criminal and civil law, with the majority being criminal, consisting of misdemeanor and traffic cases. Judge Magid is described as prepared, fair, kind, respectful, and compassionate. She listens to all in her courtroom and is thorough when making rulings. During the interim period Judge Magid was given feedback that she needed to assert her role in courtroom management of parties when necessary. She took this feedback and has made improvements. In 2024, Judge Magid began assisting in the county court civil division, which provided and continues to provide relief for its high volume of cases. Judge Magid is innovative and creative in improving systems. She has developed processes and implemented changes with small claims court, electronic search warrants, 48-hour bond hearings, county court staffing, and she created Spanish advisement processes that improved efficiency. Judge Magid volunteers for the Colorado Women’s Bar Association Lawyers Teaching for Change, which involves visiting elementary schools to discuss the legal system. She also participates in the district’s legislative committee to ensure compliance with laws and new legislation. The commission commends Judge Magid for her innovation and creativity and encourages her to continue with her efforts in systems improvement. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Magid, reviewed orders she authored, observed her in court, reviewed the judicial performance survey responses from attorneys, non-attorneys, jurors and court staff, and received feedback from the chief judge of the 1st Judicial District, the Office of the District Attorney and the Office of the State Public Defender. There was a limited number of survey responses for this evaluation period. Of the non-attorneys who responded, a good portion of those were jurors, whose feedback was positive. With all information considered, the commission finds Judge Magid meets or exceeds performance standards. Judge Magid was appointed Jefferson County Judge in March 2019. Prior to her appointment, Judge Magid served as the Presiding Judge for the municipal courts of Golden and Northglenn and as a magistrate for Denver County Court. She has also worked as a law clerk for the Court of Appeals and as a prosecutor. Judge Magid received her undergraduate degree from Colorado State University in 2000 and her Juris Doctorate from Boston University in 2003. During this retention cycle, Judge Magid served as the Presiding Judge of County Court, a position for which she was nominated by her peers and appointed by the Chief Judge.
2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 70.6% yes
155,572 yes · 64,810 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2021 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Corinne Magid MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Magid presides primarily over criminal cases, 50% misdemeanor, and 50% traffic cases. She occasionally presides over civil and small claims cases. Participants in Judge Magid’s courtroom described her demeanor as being respectful, professional, and patient. She is consistently prepared and efficiently manages cases. Judge Magid’s attentiveness to the pro se litigants in her courtroom was noted as admirable. Courtroom observers noted that Judge Magid controlled her courtroom effectively, putting jurors and witnesses at ease. Judge Magid also received praise for being a knowledgeable and efficient judge. Reviews say her rulings are clear, concise, and well delivered. Judge Magid is referred to by her peers as the “research” judge as she is willing to tackle the legal research necessary to fully address the issues raised in the cases presented in her courtroom. Both the Public Defender’s and District Attorney’s Offices noted that Judge Magid provided constructive feedback to new attorneys, mentoring them so that they can improve their litigation skills. She also seeks feedback on her performance by asking attorneys and judges questions about her actions and decisions. Judge Magid is described as a team player always willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. Based on the scores and comments received and reviewed by this Commission, Judge Magid is one of Jefferson County’s highest-performing judges. This Commission’s findings are based on a personal interview with Judge Magid, a review of opinions she authored, observations of her in court, interviews with the Public Defender’s and District Attorney’s Offices, and a review of comments received from interested parties during the evaluation. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Magid demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories under review: case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Magid was appointed as a Jefferson County Judge in March 2019. Prior to her appointment, Judge Magid served as the Presiding Judge for the municipal courts of Golden and Northglenn and as a magistrate for Denver County Court. She’s also worked as a law clerk for the Court of Appeals and as a prosecutor. Judge Magid received her undergraduate degree from Colorado State University in 2000 and her Juris Doctor from Boston University in 2003. Judge Magid serves on the State Judicial Wellness Committee that looks at ways to prevent burnout of judges and allow them to take leaves of absence. She also serves on the 1st Judicial District’s Legislative Committee in addition to other community volunteer organizations. Judge Magid has earned the respect of her peers and will serve as the Presiding Judge in County Court starting Fall 2022. Primer Distrito Judicial Jueza del Tribunal del condado de Jefferson Honorable Corinne Magid La Comisión sobre Desempeño Judicial del Primer Distrito Judicial acuerda por unanimidad, con un voto de 10-0, que la Jueza Corinne Magid CUMPLE CON LAS NORMAS DE DESEMPEÑO. Las normas de desempeño judicial de las leyes de Colorado son integridad, conocimiento de la ley, habilidades de comunicación, temperamento judicial, desempeño administrativo y servicio a la profesión jurídica y al público. La Jueza Magid supervisa principalmente casos penales, un 50% de delitos menores y un 50% de tránsito. Ocasionalmente, supervisa casos civiles y de menor cuantía. Los participantes del tribunal de la Jueza Magid describieron su actitud como respetuosa, profesional y paciente. Siempre está preparada y maneja los casos con eficiencia. Se puntualizó que la atención de la Jueza Magid a los litigantes pro se en su tribunal fue admirable. Los observadores del tribunal señalaron que la Jueza Magid ponía orden en la sala con eficacia y hacía que los jurados y los testigos se sintieran cómodos. La Jueza Magid también recibió elogios por ser una jueza bien informada y eficiente. Según los comentarios, se dice que sus fallos son claros, concisos y bien dictados. La Jueza Magid es conocida por sus colegas como la jueza “investigadora”, ya que está dispuesta a llevar a cabo la investigación jurídica necesaria para abordar plenamente las cuestiones planteadas en los casos presentados ante su tribunal. Tanto la Defensoría Pública como la Fiscalía del Distrito señalaron que la Jueza Magid proporcionaba comentarios constructivos a los abogados nuevos, asesorándolos para que pudieran mejorar sus habilidades de litigación. Asimismo, pide opiniones sobre su desempeño haciendo preguntas a los abogados y jueces sobre sus acciones y decisiones. La Jueza Magid se caracteriza por ser una persona que trabaja en equipo y que siempre está dispuesta a ocuparse de los casos que se le presentan, incluso cuando son complicados y llevan mucho tiempo. En función de los puntajes y comentarios recibidos y revisados por esta Comisión, la Jueza Magid es una de las juezas de más alto desempeño en el condado de Jefferson. Las conclusiones de esta Comisión se basan en una entrevista personal con la Jueza Magid, una revisión de las opiniones de su autoría, observaciones de ella en el tribunal, entrevistas con la Defensoría Pública y la Fiscalía del Distrito, y una revisión de los comentarios recibidos de las partes interesadas durante la evaluación. Conforme a la evaluación de la Comisión, la Jueza Magid demostró que cumple con las normas de desempeño o las excede en todas las categorías objeto de revisión: gestión de casos, aplicación y conocimiento de la ley, comunicaciones, diligencia, actitud y ecuanimidad. La Jueza Magid fue nombrada como jueza del condado de Jefferson en marzo de 2019. Antes de su nombramiento, fue jueza presidenta de los tribunales municipales de Golden y Northglenn y magistrada del tribunal del condado de Denver. También, ha trabajado como asistente legal para el Tribunal de Apelaciones y como fiscal. La Jueza Magid recibió su licenciatura de pregrado en la Universidad Estatal de Colorado en 2000 y recibió su doctorado en Jurisprudencia en la Universidad de Boston en 2003. La Jueza Magid forma parte del Comité de Bienestar Judicial del estado, que estudia las formas de evitar el agotamiento de los jueces y de permitirles tomar licencias. Asimismo, trabaja en el Comité Legislativo del 1er Distrito Judicial, además de otras organizaciones de voluntariado de la comunidad. La Jueza Magid se ha ganado el respeto de sus colegas y se desempeñará como jueza presidenta del Tribunal del condado a partir del otoño de 2022.

Surveys & reports

2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Corrine M. Magid 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Magid, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 80% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 14% 13% 9% 8% 4% 5% 0% Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Magid Magid Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 87% 80% 80% 79% standards No, does not meet 4% 14% 20% 13% performance standards No opinion 9% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.5 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.4 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge All County Magid Judges Case Management 3.8 3.5 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 46 15% 50% 23 Non-Attorneys 22 - - 21 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Magid received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.9 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.5 31 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 41 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.6 34 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.7 40 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.7 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.4 42 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 22 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 23 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 19 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.9 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.5 42 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 17 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.8 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 42 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.3 42 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 42 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 19 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.7 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 19 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 23 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 19 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 19 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 13 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 11 ## Page 12 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 19 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Magid Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 18 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 18 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 15 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 18 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Magid, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: 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 Corrine M. Magid 14 ## Page 15 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. 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 Corrine M. Magid 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 317 46 0 23 50% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 176 16 0 15 - Total Non-Attorneys - 22 - 21 - Total Respondents - 68 - 44 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 17
- 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Structured scores pending
  Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Corrine M. Magid 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Magid, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 80% 80% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 14% 13% 9% 8% 4% 5% 0% Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Magid Magid Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 87% 80% 80% 79% standards No, does not meet 4% 14% 20% 13% performance standards No opinion 9% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.5 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.4 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge All County Magid Judges Case Management 3.8 3.5 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 46 15% 50% 23 Non-Attorneys 22 - - 21 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Magid received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.9 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.5 31 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 41 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.6 34 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.7 40 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.7 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.4 42 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 22 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.2 3.6 N/A 23 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 19 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.9 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.5 42 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 17 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.8 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 42 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.3 42 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 42 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 19 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.7 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.7 3.2 3.7 N/A 23 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.3 3.9 N/A 19 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 23 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 19 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 19 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 19 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 13 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 11 ## Page 12 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 19 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Magid Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Magid County Judges Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 18 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 18 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 15 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 18 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Magid, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: 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 Corrine M. Magid 14 ## Page 15 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. 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 Corrine M. Magid 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 317 46 0 23 50% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 176 16 0 15 - Total Non-Attorneys - 22 - 21 - Total Respondents - 68 - 44 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corrine M. Magid 17
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.3
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  61%
  43 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  78%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Corinne M. Magid 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Magid, 63 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 83% 83% 78% 80% 61% 60% 40% 22% 17% 20% 13% 14% 12% 8% 4% 6% 0% Judge Magid All County Judges Judge Magid All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Magid Magid Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 61% 83% 78% 83% standards No, does not meet 17% 13% 8% 12% performance standards No opinion 22% 4% 14% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.2 Demeanor 3.4 3.0 Fairness 3.3 Judge Magid All County Judges Judge All County Magid Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and 3.1 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.2 3.4 Fairness 3.0 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 43 16% 53% 23 Non- 42 - - 40 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Magid received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Magid Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.2 32 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 46 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.0 36 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.3 41 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Magid Attorneys 2.9 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.2 County Judge Magid Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 57 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 23 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 19 similar Consistently applying laws and 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 19 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.1 3.3 N/A 3.1 35 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 30 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.5 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Magid Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 61 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 15 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 39 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 39 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.1 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Magid Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 58 Treating participants with respect 3.2 3.4 3 3.3 60 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.1 3.3 N/A 3.1 37 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Magid Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Magid Attorneys 3.1 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Magid Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 22 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 16 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 19 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 36 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 37 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 35 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 35 Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 37 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Magid Score 3.0 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Magid Attorneys 2.6 Judge Magid Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Magid County Judge Magid Judge Magid Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 35 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.0 3.3 N/A 3.0 35 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 23 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 33 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.3 57 manner. Being fair and impartial 2.5 3.3 2.5 N/A 22 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Magid, 63 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 63 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 Corinne M. Magid 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 266 43 23 53% Staff - 3 3 - Others 454 24 22 92% Juror - 14 14 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 42 40 - Total Respondents - 85 63 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Corinne M. Magid 16

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

Sources

2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026