Dawn Marie Mann
Trial Court · Huerfano · Huerfano
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Huerfano · HuerfanoCommission vote: 8 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersOn 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 Third Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 8-0, with one commissioner absent and one vacancy, that Judge Dawn Mann Meets Performance Standards. As a County Court Judge, Judge Mann presides over civil and criminal matters, including protection orders, evictions, money disputes, traffic, and misdemeanors in Huerfano County, Colorado. Judge Mann receives high marks for treating all courtroom participants with respect and fairness. Survey respondents from attorneys and self-represented litigants noted that she is courteous and treats all people in her courtroom with professionalism. Judge Mann is thorough in her written rulings and carefully applies the law to the cases she presides over. Judge Mann has expressed a continuing commitment to focusing on the timeliness of her orders and improving her case management. Based on these observations, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Dawn Mann meets performance standards. The Commission conducted an in-person interview with Judge Mann, reviewed written orders, observed her in court, reviewed a self-evaluation survey, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys. The survey results indicated that Judge Mann met performance standards in categories including Knowledge of Law, Communication, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness. Judge Mann was appointed to the County Court in 2019. Prior to her appointment she was in private practice where she focused on general civil transactions and litigation including Probate Court and served as Guardian ad Litem for children. Judge Mann received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Nova University in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in 1995 before she relocated to Colorado in 1998. Judge Mann enjoys supporting the local community by choosing to shop locally and by attending local events.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Huerfano · HuerfanoMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.8% yes2,458 yes · 873 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2021 Interim Survey Report The Third Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (8-0) that Judge Dawn Marie Mann MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and recommends her retention as Huerfano County Court Judge. 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. It was observed of Judge Mann that she has a strong self-awareness of areas of the law in which her knowledge may not be as extensive as in other areas and she works diligently to become more knowledgeable. That diligence on and off the bench resulted in a survey score in application of the law of .3 points higher than the state average for all county court judges. The primary areas in which Judge Mann requires improvement are in timeliness and caseload management. The Commission recognizes that the caseload management concerns could be due to judicial backlogs caused by Covid-19 restrictions. However, these statistics can certainly improve. Lastly, the Commission during its interview found that Judge Mann could be more personally accountable in some of the areas of caseload management that require improvement. Since March of 2022, the Commission has performed courtroom observations of Judge Mann, reviewed multiple evaluations, caseload statistics, written decisions, and interviewed Judge Mann herself. The Commission was pleased to find that Judge Mann scored above average on nearly every category involved in her retention surveys. These include case management, application of the law, communications, diligence, and demeanor. The Commission also found in its interview of Judge Mann and its own courtroom observations that her personality is warm and affable which makes almost all of those who appear in her courtroom feel calm and comfortable, particularly non-attorneys and those who are not represented by legal counsel. Judge Mann has served on the Huerfano County Court bench since January 1, 2019. She is originally from Florida and attended Nova University Law School. In 1998, she first came to the area and started a private law practice in Walsenburg, Colorado. Her areas of practice included child dependency and neglect and family law. In 2008, she moved her practice to Pueblo, Colorado and focused primarily on family law, estate planning, probate, and real estate law. In 2019, Judge Mann returned to Huerfano County to take the County Court position of which she describes as her “dream job.” Tercer Distrito Judicial Jueza del Tribunal del Condado de Huerfano Honorable Dawn Marie Mann La Comisión sobre Desempeño Judicial del Tercer Distrito Judicial concuerda en que la Jueza Dawn Marie Mann CUMPLE CON LAS NORMAS DE DESEMPEÑO, con un voto unánime (8-0) y recomienda retenerla en su cargo como Jueza del Tribunal del Condado de Huerfano. 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. Se observó que la Jueza Mann posee una sólida conciencia sobre las áreas de la ley en donde su conocimiento puede no ser tan amplio como en otras áreas y se esfuerza diligentemente para adquirir más conocimientos. Dicha diligencia dentro y fuera del estrado dio como resultado una puntuación de la encuesta en cuanto a aplicación de la ley de .3 puntos más alta que el promedio estatal para todos los jueces de tribunales de condados. Las principales áreas en donde la Jueza Mann requiere mejorar son puntualidad y gestión de la carga de casos. La Comisión reconoce que las inquietudes sobre gestión de la carga de casos podrían deberse a acumulaciones judiciales provocadas por las restricciones de Covid-19. Sin embargo, seguramente pueden mejorar estas estadísticas. Por último, la Comisión durante su entrevista encontró que la Jueza Mann podía responsabilizarse más personalmente en algunas de las áreas de gestión de casos que requieren mejorar. Desde marzo de 2022, la Comisión ha realizado observaciones en la sala de tribunales de la Jueza Mann, revisado múltiples evaluaciones, estadísticas de casos, decisiones escritas y entrevistó a la Jueza Mann misma. La Comisión estuvo complacida de encontrar que la Jueza Mann recibió puntuaciones sobre el promedio en casi toda categoría involucrada en sus encuestas de retención. Estas incluyen gestión de casos, aplicación de la ley, comunicaciones, diligencia y actitud. La Comisión también encontró en su entrevista de la Jueza Mann y sus propias observaciones de la sala de tribunales que su personalidad es cálida y afable, lo cual hace que casi todos los que comparecen en su sala de tribunales se sientan calmados y cómodos, en particular quienes no son abogados y quienes no tienen representación de un abogado. La Jueza Mann ha sido jueza del Tribunal del Condado de Huerfano desde el 1 de enero de 2019. Es originaria de Florida y asistió a la Facultad de Derecho de Nova University. En 1998, llegó por primera vez a la región y comenzó a ejercer independientemente en Walsenburg, Colorado. Sus áreas de ejercicio de la profesión incluyeron dependencia y negligencia de menores y derecho familiar. En 2008, trasladó su bufete a Pueblo, Colorado y se enfocó principalmente en derecho familiar, planificación de sucesiones, trámites testamentarios y derecho inmobiliario. En 2019, la Jueza Mann regresó al Condado de Huerfano para asumir su cargo en el Tribunal del Condado, el cual describe como su “trabajo soñado”.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Dawn M. Mann 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 Mann, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 Mann All County Judges Judge Mann All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 73% 60% 40% 27% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Mann All County Judges Judge Mann 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 Mann Mann Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 73% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 27% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.2 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.4 Judge Mann All County Judges All County Judge Mann Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.2 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.2 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 22 38% 73% 16 Non-Attorneys 11 - - 9 *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 Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.5 22 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.9 24 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.8 23 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.8 24 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.2 3.3 2.9 3.8 24 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 16 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 14 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 15 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 8 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 8 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.8 24 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 16 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 8 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 8 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.9 24 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.9 24 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.9 24 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 8 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 14 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 11 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 15 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 8 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 8 Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 8 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 11 ## Page 12 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 8 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Mann Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mann, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 58 22 0 16 73% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 78 5 0 3 - Total Non-Attorneys - 11 - 9 - Total Respondents - 33 - 25 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 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 textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Dawn M. Mann 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 Mann, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 Mann All County Judges Judge Mann All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 80% 79% 80% 73% 60% 40% 27% 20% 14% 13% 8% 5% 0% Judge Mann All County Judges Judge Mann 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 Mann Mann Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 73% 80% 100% 79% standards No, does not meet 27% 14% 0% 13% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.5 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.2 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.4 Judge Mann All County Judges All County Judge Mann Judges Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and 3.2 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.2 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 22 38% 73% 16 Non-Attorneys 11 - - 9 *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 Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.5 22 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.9 24 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.8 23 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.8 24 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3.2 3.3 2.9 3.8 24 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 16 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3 3.3 3 N/A 14 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 15 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 8 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 8 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.8 24 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 16 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 8 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 8 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.9 24 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.9 24 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.9 24 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 8 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 14 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 11 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 15 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 8 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 8 Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 8 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 N/A 4.0 2 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 11 ## Page 12 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 8 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Mann Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Mann County Judges Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 4.0 3.4 N/A 4.0 7 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.9 3.4 N/A 3.9 7 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mann, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 58 22 0 16 73% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 78 5 0 3 - Total Non-Attorneys - 11 - 9 - Total Respondents - 33 - 25 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend80%34 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Dawn M. Mann 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 Mann, 20 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 20 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 Mann All County Judges Judge Mann All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 83% 83% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 13% 12% 4% 6% 0% Judge Mann All County Judges Judge Mann 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 Mann Mann Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 80% 83% 100% 83% standards No, does not meet 20% 13% 0% 12% performance standards No opinion 0% 4% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.6 Fairness 3.3 Judge Mann All County Judges Judge All County Mann Judges Case Management 3.5 3.4 Application and 3.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.6 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 34 25% 32% 11 Non- 10 - - 9 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 Mann 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.4 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Mann Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 13 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.6 18 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.2 4.0 14 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 18 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Mann Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.8 19 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 9 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 10 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 9 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 9 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.6 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Mann Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.9 18 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 10 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 8 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 8 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.8 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Mann Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.9 18 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.4 4 3.9 18 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 8 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mann Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.1 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Mann Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 10 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 10 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 10 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 8 Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 8 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 8 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 8 Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 8 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Mann Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mann Attorneys 3.4 Judge Mann Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Mann County Judge Mann Judge Mann Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 8 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.3 N/A 3.6 8 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 7 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 8 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 18 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 10 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mann, 20 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 20 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 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 Dawn M. Mann 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 134 34 11 32% Staff - 5 5 - Others 89 4 3 75% Juror - 1 1 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 10 9 - Total Respondents - 44 20 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Dawn M. Mann 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