Isabel Pallares

Trial Court · Denver · Denver

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2024 retention cycle
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Commission vote: 5 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 76.6% yes
188,800 yes · 57,584 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish 2024 Survey Report 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Denver County Court Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 5-0 that Honorable Judge Isabel Pallares MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance criteria are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Pallares has a reputation for treating parties with respect and discretion. She consistently uses judgment-free language in her courtroom and strives to protect privacy in cases touching on someone’s immigration status, medical issues, and mental health concerns. She prides herself on her legal acumen, research and writing skills, and is frequently asked to help colleagues statewide in this regard. Judge Pallares places importance on her courtroom demeanor and recently attended the National Judicial College’s training on enhancing bench skills. She is known for giving frank feedback and helping new lawyers improve their skill sets, including by leading through example and thoroughly explaining her decisions. Judge Pallares is working to improve docket management and on balancing each party’s right to speak with the importance of courtroom efficiency. Outside of the courtroom, she has served on the Judicial Well-being Standing Committee since 2019 and won the 2022 Colorado Supreme Court Wellbeing Award, which recognizes judicial officers who support their colleagues' wellbeing. She created the “Chamber Chats” program through which diverse judicial officers meet regularly with other diverse judges for open discussions and support. She is heavily involved in several bar associations, including the Hispanic, Women’s, LGBT and Sam Cary bars. She also speaks to student groups frequently about her experience and the judicial system. In evaluating Judge Pallares, the commission used live, livestream and recorded courtroom observations, conducted a personal interview with the judicial officer, case management data and reviewed surveys from attorney and non-attorney courtroom participants, comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and the judicial officer self-evaluation, with supporting documents when submitted, to inform its decision for meets/does not meet performance standards.
2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Denver · Denver
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 71.9% yes
218,050 yes · 85,293 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, on a vote of 10-0, finds that Judge Isabel Pallarés MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. After meeting with Judge Pallarés, reviewing her work, and assessing feedback from attorneys and non-attorneys, the Commission unanimously voted that she meets judicial performance standards. The Commission had previously notified Judge Pallarés about concerns regarding demeanor. The Commission was impressed with her prompt, proactive efforts to address those concerns. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Pallarés, reviewed orders she authored, reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Pallarés, and select members of the Commission observed Judge Pallarés in court, either live or via recordings. Those surveyed were asked, "based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Pallarés meets judicial performance standards?" Of the 12 attorneys responding to the surveys, 30% believe that Judge Pallarés meets performance standards, 50% believe she does not meet performance standards, and 20% had no opinion. Judge Pallarés received ratings below the statewide average among all County Court judges standing for retention with regard to the areas surveyed: (1) case management, (2) application and knowledge of law, (3) communications, (4) diligence, and (5) demeanor. Of the 11 non-attorneys responding to the survey, 100% believe Judge Pallarés meets performance standards.

Surveys & reports

2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Isabel Pallares 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt 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 Pallares, 18 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 18 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3 2.5 2 1 0 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares All County Judges Overall Grade 2.5 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 86% 85% 81% 80% 60% 60% 40% 30% 20% 14% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares 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 Pallares Pallares Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 14% 81% 60% 85% standards No, does not meet 86% 15% 10% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 30% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 Case Management 3.4 2.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 2.8 Communications 3.6 2.2 Diligence 3.4 2.4 Demeanor 3.5 2.4 Fairness 3.4 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge All County Pallares Judges Case Management 2.5 3.4 Application and 2.6 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.8 3.6 Diligence 2.2 3.4 Demeanor 2.4 3.5 Fairness 2.4 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 18 26% 39% 7 Non-Attorneys 16 - - 11 *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 Pallares 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Overall 2.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.1 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.5 3.5 2.2 2.6 13 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2.3 3.4 1.7 2.6 18 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 13 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.8 3.5 2.4 2.9 16 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Overall 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.5 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 2.7 3.4 1.6 3.5 18 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1.1 3.2 1.1 N/A 7 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1.9 3.2 1.9 N/A 7 similar Consistently applying laws and 1.4 3.2 1.4 N/A 7 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 11 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 10 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Overall 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.9 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.8 3.5 2.1 3.3 18 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 1.7 3.4 1.7 N/A 6 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 11 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 11 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Score 2.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.2 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 2.6 3.5 1.4 3.3 18 dignity Treating participants with 2.3 3.5 1.0 3.1 18 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 2.9 3.4 N/A 2.9 11 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Score 2.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.2 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.4 3.1 1.4 N/A 7 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 1.3 3.3 1.3 N/A 7 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 1.0 3.3 1.0 N/A 6 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 2.9 3.6 N/A 2.9 9 Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.6 N/A 3.1 10 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.0 3.6 N/A 3.0 10 cases Being prepared for cases. 2.8 3.6 N/A 2.8 11 Managing court proceedings so 2.4 3.5 N/A 2.4 11 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Score 2.4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.3 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Pallares County Judge Pallares Judge Pallares Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 11 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 11 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 10 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 10 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.4 3.4 1.3 3.1 17 manner. Being fair and impartial 1.3 3.2 1.3 N/A 7 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Pallares, 18 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 18 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, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 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 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. 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 and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 13 ## Page 14 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce the 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 a list of all judges in their district or 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 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 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 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 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 2022 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 14 ## Page 15 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 70 18 7 39% Staff - 11 11 - Others 185 5 0 0% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 16 11 - Total Respondents - 34 18 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 16
2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Isabel Pallares 2019 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 .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 Pallares, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 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 3.5 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares All County Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 90% 86% 81% 80% 65% 60% 40% 18% 18% 20% 13% 10% 5% 5% 5% 4% 0% Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares 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 Pallares Pallares Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 65% 81% 90% 86% standards No, does not meet 18% 13% 5% 10% performance standards No opinion 18% 5% 5% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.5 Communications 3.6 3.3 Diligence 3.5 3.3 Demeanor 3.5 3.5 Fairness 3.5 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge All County Pallares Judges Case 3.0 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.2 3.4 Law Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.3 3.5 Demeanor 3.3 3.5 Fairness 3.5 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 41 28% 39% 16 Non- 34 2% 59% 20 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Pallares received 1 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 3 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.5 3.4 N/A 11 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.8 3.4 2.8 N/A 13 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.4 3 N/A 14 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.6 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.6 34 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.5 3.2 2.5 N/A 17 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.4 3 N/A 10 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 17 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 15 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 18 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 18 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Pallares Attorneys 3.1 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.7 36 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 2.7 3.4 2.7 N/A 11 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 21 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 21 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.9 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.8 36 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.6 3 3.6 38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.2 3.4 2.8 3.6 38 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 21 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.9 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 16 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.5 2.9 3.6 35 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.5 3 N/A 13 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 21 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 20 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 21 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Pallares County Judge Pallares Judge Pallares Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 21 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 21 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 17 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 21 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Pallares, 36 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 36 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 13 ## Page 14 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 14 ## Page 15 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 146 41 0 16 39% Law Enforcement 771 0 34 0 - Litigant 1375 19 244 9 47% Juror 69 10 4 8 80% Others 86 5 20 3 60% Total Non-Attorneys 2301 34 302 20 59% Total Respondents 2447 75 302 36 48% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 16
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  2.8
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  30%
  23 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  47 respondents
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Isabel Pallares 2020 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 Pallares, 23 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 23 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3 2.8 2 1 0 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares All County Judges Overall Grade 2.8 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 83% 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge Pallares 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 Pallares Pallares Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 30% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 50% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 20% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.8 Case Management 3.5 2.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.0 Communications 3.5 2.6 Diligence 3.4 2.6 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Pallares All County Judges Judge All County Pallares Judges Case 2.8 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.6 3.3 Law Communications 3.0 3.5 Diligence 2.6 3.4 Demeanor 2.6 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 23 31% 52% 12 Non-Attorneys 47 10% 23% 11 In addition to the responses above, Judge Pallares received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 2.8 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.6 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 2.8 3.6 2.9 2.0 8 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 2.9 3.5 2.7 4.0 12 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 2.1 3.5 2.1 2.0 9 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3 3.4 2.8 4.0 10 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.5 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 2.8 3.4 1.8 4 17 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 1.4 3.2 1.4 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1.5 3.3 1.5 N/A 8 similar Being fair and impartial to both 0.7 3.1 0.7 N/A 9 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 1.7 3.2 1.7 N/A 9 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 7 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.9 3.7 N/A 3.9 7 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Overall 3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Pallares Attorneys 2.3 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.1 3.6 2.5 4.0 17 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2 3.3 2 N/A 9 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 7 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.8 N/A 3.9 8 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Score 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.7 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 2.7 3.5 2 3.8 16 dignity Treating participants with respect 2.7 3.5 1.9 3.9 17 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.3 3.3 1.1 4.0 17 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 7 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Pallares Score 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Pallares Attorneys 1.9 Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 11 ## Page 12 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Pallares Judges Pallares Pallares Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 1.7 3.2 1.7 N/A 9 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.2 3.3 2.2 N/A 9 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 1.8 3.3 1.8 N/A 8 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 6 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 4 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 4 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 5 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Pallares Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Pallares Attorneys Judge Pallares Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Pallares County Judge Pallares Judge Pallares Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 6 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 7 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 6 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 7 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Pallares, 23 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 23 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. 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 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 15 ## Page 16 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 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 74 23 0 12 52% Staff 118 9 0 3 - Others 336 38 0 8 - Total Non-Attorneys 454 47 0 11 23% Total Respondents 528 70 0 23 33% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Isabel Pallares 17

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

2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026