Harold Sargent

Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 74.0% yes
220,237 yes · 77,462 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Harold Sargent MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. During the performance evaluation period, Judge Sargent largely presided over misdemeanor and traffic cases, accounting for 80 percent of his caseload, with criminal and civil cases accounting for the remainder. Judge Sargent’s performance scores are consistent with his peers, earning a B overall on judicial performance surveys. Most survey comments describe Judge Sargent as fair, impartial, patient, smart, and hard-working. Survey respondents generally felt that Judge Sargent gave equal time to each party, describing him as an active listener. Survey comments reveal that he is respectful and compassionate toward all parties in his courtroom. While Judge Sargent is one of the top-performing judges in the District, a few survey respondents were critical of his courtroom demeanor. Some respondents felt that Judge Sargent’s courtroom banter and jokes diminished the dignity and decorum of the judicial process. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Sargent, reviewed orders he authored, observed him in court, interviewed interested parties, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared before him. Survey respondents were asked whether Judge Sargent met judicial performance standards based on responses to the judicial performance criteria questions. Of the thirty attorney evaluations used in the survey, 78 percent answered yes, meets performance standards; 11 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards; and 11 percent had no opinion. As compared to his peers, Judge Sargent ranked only slightly below, with 83 percent of his peers meeting performance standards. With regard to non-attorney survey responses, Judge Sargent received three responses for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Of the three non-attorney evaluations, 100 percent answered yes, meets performance standards. In 2019, Judge Sargent received 97 non-attorney survey responses with 89 percent reporting that Judge Sargent met performance standards. In courtroom observations conducted by Commission members, Judge Sargent appeared well prepared, offered clear explanations of procedures and decisions, and worked hard to maintain a smooth and efficient schedule.

Surveys & reports

2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Harold Sargent 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 Sargent, 117 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 117 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 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge Sargent All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 89% 85% 86% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 10% 10% 8% 5% 5% 3% 4% 0% Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge Sargent 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 Sargent Sargent Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 85% 81% 89% 86% standards No, does not meet 5% 13% 8% 10% performance standards No opinion 10% 5% 3% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.5 3.6 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge All County Sargent Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.5 Demeanor 3.6 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 27 34% 74% 20 Non- 136 7% 71% 97 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Sargent 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.3 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.5 3.5 3.5 N/A 13 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 20 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 14 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 15 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.1 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.6 117 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.1 3.4 3.1 N/A 17 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 19 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 20 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 93 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 86 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.4 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.7 115 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 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 97 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 96 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.7 116 Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.6 3 3.7 117 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.6 117 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 97 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.2 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 20 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.7 110 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.5 3.3 N/A 15 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 94 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 97 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 89 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 97 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Sargent Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Sargent Attorneys Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Sargent County Judge Sargent Judge Sargent Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 97 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 97 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 71 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 95 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Sargent, 117 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 117 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 Harold Sargent 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 Harold Sargent 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 Harold Sargent 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 79 27 0 20 74% Law Enforcement 306 33 7 13 39% Litigant 1797 40 336 32 80% Juror 193 51 17 45 88% Others 16 12 0 7 58% Total Non-Attorneys 2312 136 360 97 71% Total Respondents 2391 163 360 117 72% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 16
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.2
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  78%
  37 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  100%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Harold Sargent 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 Sargent, 33 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 33 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 3 2 1 0 Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge Sargent All County Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 83% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 11% 11% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge Sargent 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 Sargent Sargent Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 78% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 11% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 11% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.5 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.1 Diligence 3.4 3.2 Demeanor 3.4 3.9 Fairness 3.8 Judge Sargent All County Judges Judge All County Sargent Judges Case 3.3 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.3 Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.1 3.4 Demeanor 3.2 3.4 Fairness 3.9 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 37 21% 81% 30 Non- 3 75% 100% 3 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Sargent 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 Harold Sargent 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.2 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.7 17 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.7 31 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.0 17 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.7 26 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.1 3.4 3 4 28 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3 3.2 3 N/A 25 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.3 3 N/A 22 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.9 3.1 2.9 N/A 27 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.9 3.2 2.9 N/A 24 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.7 N/A 4 3 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.4 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 30 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 14 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 3 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3.1 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.2 3.5 3.1 4.0 30 dignity Treating participants with 3.4 3.5 3.3 4.0 30 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 3.1 3.3 3 4.0 30 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 3 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Sargent Score 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Sargent Attorneys 3 Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 11 ## Page 12 Judge County Judge Judge Number of Sargent Judges Sargent Sargent Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 24 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 22 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 3 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 3 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Sargent Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Sargent Attorneys Judge Sargent Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge Sargent County Judge Sargent Judge Sargent Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 3 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 3 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.8 N/A 3.7 3 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Sargent, 33 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 33 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 Harold Sargent 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 Harold Sargent 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 Harold Sargent 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 177 37 0 30 81% Staff 4 3 0 3 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 4 3 0 3 100% Total Respondents 181 40 0 33 83% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Harold Sargent 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

2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026