SURVEY RESULTS - North Carolina Bar Association · SURVEY RESULTS NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION...

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY – PHASE I

SURVEY RESULTSNORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION JANUARY 2014



Preface


introduction | The Judicial Performance evaluation (JPe) committee of the north carolina bar association is pleased to provide this report summarizing the results of Phase i of its survey of north carolina superior and district court judges elected or appointed to the bench before March 31, 2013, whose terms expire in 2014, as well as special superior court judges. a second survey (Phase ii) will be conducted in March 2014 in which attorneys will evaluate superior and district court judges appointed after March 31, 2013, whose terms expire in 2014 and lawyers who file for election to the superior or district court in 2014.

background | in 2006, the ncba’s administration of Justice committee produced a report noting the lack of information available to members of the public to enable them to cast an informed vote based on a judge’s performance. The report recommended the creation of the JPe committee. The ncba’s board of governors followed that recommendation, and the JPe committee was formed in 2008. The committee was charged with creating and administering a survey by which lawyers could evaluate a judge’s performance. results of the survey could be utilized to provide information for the voting public. The JPe committee is currently led by former district court Judge nancy black norelli and it is comprised of seven retired judges, seven retired attorneys and seven laypersons.

The ncba contracted with bdo usa, llP, a national accounting firm with local offices in raleigh, to conduct the survey. bdo usa served as gate-keeper throughout the survey process, ensuring that only persons meeting the survey requirements were allowed to participate and that those who did participate remained anonymous.

The ncba also employed statistician larry nelson, a well-respected retired member of the faculty at north carolina state university, to evaluate the methodology to ensure that the survey would encourage the most participation possible and generate statistically valid results.

survey details | The survey asked attorneys with an active north carolina law license to rate each included judge with whom the attor-ney had sufficient professional contact to be able to evaluate the judge’s performance in the six categories below, using a scale of 5 (excellent), 4 (good), 3 (average), 2 (below average) and 1 (poor):

1. integrity and impartiality | Judge is fair to all persons, bases decisions on facts and law and refrains from inappropriate ex parte communications;

2. legal ability | Judge demonstrates knowledge of law and rules of procedure and evidence;

3. Professionalism | Judge exercises patience, is courteous to all and attentive to proceedings at hand, fulfills out-of-court duties and responsibili-ties, and upholds the dignity of the office;

4. communication | Judge speaks clearly and understandably, prepares coherent decisions and carefully reviews orders before entry;

5. administrative skills | Judge is punctual and prepared, controls the courtroom appropriately, uses courtroom time efficiently, enforces deadlines appropriately, makes timely decisions and enters orders promptly; and

6. overall Performance | rate the judge’s overall performance.

if the rating attorney felt that his or her knowledge of a particular judge was sufficient to rate some but not all of the qualities, the lawyer indicated “do not know” for the quality or qualities that he or she felt unqualified to rate. as a result, the number of responses for a single judge may vary somewhat among the six categories.

To identify the members of the bench who would be eligible to seek election in 2014, the JPe committee collected information from the north carolina state board of elections and the administrative office of the courts. a total of 134 judges, 21 in superior court and 113 in district court, were included in the survey.

a list was compiled of the more than 20,000 lawyers having an active north carolina law license, and email addresses for approximately 95% of those attorneys were obtained. attorneys with email addresses were able to participate in the survey online via an electronic invitation from bdo usa. attorneys without email addresses; attorneys who notified the ncba that they did not wish to participate online; attorneys working for the government, including judges, clerks of court, district attorneys and public defenders; and members of the ncba’s senior lawyers division were provided a paper version of the survey.

on october 15, 2013, bdo usa distributed the survey electronically to each attorney with a known email address. Paper surveys were mailed with an enclosed business reply envelope addressed to and returned directly to bdo usa, who had exclusive access to manage the survey. all survey responses were directed to bdo usa, who protected confidentiality, ensured that each respondent was an eligible attorney and safe-guarded against the possibility of multiple responses from one individual.

The survey was open for participation from october 15 to november 15, 2013. bdo usa compiled the survey results for Professor nelson, who conducted a statistical analysis. Professor nelson received anonymous raw data from the survey, which did not identify the judges. upon review of the data, Professor nelson reported that the results were statistically valid for each judge included in the survey.

summary of results | The total number of responses per judge varied, reflecting variation in the length of past service of the judge as well as, especially for district court judges, the total number of attorneys who practice in the particular judicial district in which the judge presides. for example, a resident judge in a judicial district with a low number of attorneys may have received what seems to be a low overall number of responses, but the total number of responses constitutes a significant percentage of the total number of attorneys practicing in that judicial district.

Preface



Preface


Judges not included in rePort | The number of judges included in this report is lower than the number of judges in the survey. results for a judge are not included if the judge is deceased or made a public announcement by december 28, 2013, that he or she will not seek election to any judicial office in 2014. if an omitted judge later decides to file for election, the JPe committee will include the survey results for the judge on the ncba web page and in any subsequent publication reporting the survey results and accessible to the public. a total of 120 judges – 17 in superior court and 103 in district court – are listed in this report.

The reasons for decisions by those judges to retire from the bench vary and do not reflect the rating any judge may have received in the survey.

navigating tHis rePort | The information in this report is set out in two distinct sections.

The first section sets forth the summary results for each judge included in the report. The information in this first section reports the average nu-merical rating given by attorneys for each of the six categories for which the judge was evaluated.

The second section provides detailed results for each judge included in the report. This section reports the total number of attorneys who re-sponded for each judge and a breakdown of the number of responses in each rating (5 to 1) for each category for each judge.

in both sections, the superior court judges are listed first and then the district court judges, in order by the number of his or her judicial district and in alphabetical order within the district for those districts with two or more judges.

PHase ii survey | a separate survey evaluating the qualifications of each (i) non-incumbent candidate who files for election in 2014 and (ii) superior and district court judges appointed after March 31, 2013, whose terms expire in 2014 will be conducted in March 2014 and released in april 2014. Those results, combined with the results in this report, will be compiled in an online voter’s guide that will be posted at electncjudges.org.

Preface, conTinued



suPerior courT Judge caTegorical averages


suPerior court Judge categorical averages

district Judge name integrity & imPartiality legal ability Professionalism communication administrative

skillsoverall

Performance

3a marvin k. blount iii 4.17 4.06 4.25 4.15 4.19 4.10

4b cHarles H. Henry 4.65 4.54 4.72 4.56 4.44 4.57

10a Paul c. ridgeway 4.72 4.74 4.84 4.76 4.75 4.75

10c Paul g. gessner 4.23 4.24 4.42 4.45 4.42 4.28

11b tHomas H. lock 4.22 4.32 4.45 4.37 4.36 4.29

15b carl r. fox 4.58 4.39 4.60 4.55 4.44 4.50

15b allen baddour 4.04 4.09 4.03 4.08 4.18 3.96

17a ed wilson 4.77 4.68 4.79 4.70 4.68 4.73

18c stuart albrigHt 4.13 4.26 4.30 4.30 4.40 4.18

19a w. erwin sPainHour 4.59 4.71 4.65 4.64 4.66 4.63

19b v. bradford long 4.62 4.51 4.69 4.67 4.65 4.61

22b mark e. klass 4.51 4.25 4.51 4.45 4.40 4.42

25a c. tHomas edwards 4.46 4.28 4.26 4.30 4.27 4.32

26b ricHard boner 4.29 4.27 4.16 4.11 4.25 4.21

26c bob bell 4.38 4.27 4.30 4.25 4.24 4.25

27a Jesse b. caldwell iii 4.55 4.48 4.47 4.51 4.40 4.50

29b mark e. Powell 4.47 4.10 4.45 4.03 4.40 4.23

suPerior courT Judges



disTricT courT Judge caTegorical averages


district court Judge categorical averages


skillsoverall

Performance

1 eula e. reid 4.31 4.01 4.48 4.37 4.38 4.22

1 robert P. trivette 4.39 4.41 4.34 4.38 4.41 4.40

2 darrell b. cayton Jr. 4.09 4.28 4.12 4.33 4.33 4.16

2 regina r. Parker 4.63 4.39 4.63 4.56 4.52 4.57

3a gwyn Hilburn 4.53 4.33 4.55 4.42 4.35 4.42

4 Paul a. Hardison 4.29 4.22 4.35 4.35 4.22 4.30

4 saraH c. seaton 4.24 4.22 4.29 4.45 4.38 4.28

5 James Henry faison iii 4.69 4.28 4.83 4.64 4.60 4.60

5 melinda H. croucH 3.94 3.87 4.06 3.88 3.86 3.88

5 cHad Hogston 4.22 4.14 4.39 4.35 4.33 4.22

6b tHomas l. Jones Jr. 4.67 4.58 4.72 4.70 4.66 4.68

7 Pell cooPer 4.64 4.28 4.66 4.36 4.25 4.33

8 betH HeatH 4.60 4.39 4.61 4.48 4.42 4.51

9a mark galloway 4.47 4.43 4.55 4.47 4.38 4.49

9b J. Henry banks 4.22 4.12 4.28 4.28 4.12 4.19

10 kris d. bailey 3.82 3.40 3.80 3.78 3.73 3.63

10 micHael J. denning 4.15 3.94 4.31 4.12 4.09 4.04

10 margaret eagles 4.32 4.24 4.36 4.29 4.29 4.28

10 keitH o'brien gregory 3.74 3.70 3.72 3.85 3.90 3.71

10 ned w. mangum 4.54 4.53 4.61 4.54 4.52 4.55

10 louis meyer 3.95 3.62 4.12 3.94 3.81 3.79

10 vince roZier Jr. 4.44 4.28 4.48 4.42 4.42 4.40

11 caron H. stewart 3.95 3.79 4.15 3.99 3.94 3.90

11 addie rawls 4.29 4.23 4.24 4.36 4.16 4.26

12 talmage (tal) baggett 4.29 3.92 4.17 4.10 4.18 4.14

12 george J. franks 4.44 4.30 4.40 4.37 4.27 4.29

12 david H. Hasty 4.25 4.19 4.24 4.17 3.98 4.20

12 toni s. king 4.64 4.45 4.64 4.63 4.49 4.56

12 robert stieHl 4.16 4.29 4.11 4.02 4.08 4.10

Judicial disTricTs 1 – 12





district court Judge categorical averages, conTinued


skillsoverall

Performance

13 william f. fairley 4.76 4.68 4.77 4.75 4.71 4.77

13 sHerry dew Prince 4.00 4.08 4.09 4.20 4.28 4.04

14 Pat evans 3.17 3.29 3.10 3.28 3.18 3.19

14 nancy e. gordon 2.94 3.29 2.50 2.89 3.21 2.75

14 James t. (Jim) Hill 4.24 4.18 4.21 4.26 4.26 4.19

14 marcia H. morey 4.28 4.32 4.36 4.31 4.29 4.31

14 doretta walker 3.65 3.36 3.50 3.47 3.55 3.42

14 brian c. wilks 4.21 4.15 4.29 4.26 4.22 4.19

15a brad allen 3.79 3.78 3.76 3.94 4.20 3.85

15b JosePH (Joe) moody buckner 4.23 4.32 4.22 4.33 4.33 4.28

16a regina m. Joe 4.61 4.51 4.69 4.58 4.59 4.59

16b J. stanley carmical 4.80 4.75 4.79 4.79 4.81 4.82

16b JoHn b. carter Jr. 4.56 4.43 4.43 4.49 4.27 4.45

16b Herbert l. ricHardson 4.44 4.33 4.35 4.48 4.54 4.38

17a stanley l. (stan) allen 4.18 4.19 4.13 4.12 4.23 4.18

17a fred wilkins 4.28 4.40 4.34 4.19 4.33 4.32

17b sPencer g. key Jr. 4.48 4.31 4.33 4.31 4.10 4.31

17b cHarles m. (cHuck) neaves Jr. 4.59 4.48 4.58 4.42 4.48 4.53

17b angela b. Puckett 3.61 3.84 3.72 3.71 3.61 3.58

18 wendy m. enocHs 4.28 4.23 4.34 4.26 4.27 4.26

18 H. tHomas (tom) Jarrell Jr. 4.42 4.47 4.45 4.58 4.46 4.48

19a brent cloninger 4.26 3.85 4.13 4.01 4.01 4.08

19a william g. Hamby Jr. 4.23 4.09 4.26 4.16 4.18 4.15

19a donna H. JoHnson 3.46 3.65 3.38 3.53 3.84 3.48

19a martin b. (marty) mcgee 4.32 4.23 4.31 4.14 4.13 4.16

19b scott etHeridge 4.15 4.18 4.08 4.27 4.23 4.14

19b lee w. gavin 4.19 4.03 4.12 4.03 4.01 4.08

19b Jayrene russell maness 4.35 4.22 4.22 4.14 4.30 4.15

Judicial disTricTs 13 – 19b







skillsoverall

Performance

19c cHarlie brown 4.30 4.46 4.24 4.40 4.51 4.34

19c betH s. dixon 3.88 3.94 4.00 4.12 4.04 3.93

19c kevin eddinger 4.24 4.27 4.16 4.15 4.09 4.23

20a scott t. brewer 3.20 3.56 3.19 3.45 3.59 3.29

20a william c. (bill) tucker 4.43 4.49 4.40 4.42 4.33 4.41

21 george a. bedswortH 4.40 4.25 4.52 4.34 4.24 4.32

21 denise s. Hartsfield 3.24 3.60 3.29 3.82 3.51 3.42

21 lisa v. menefee 4.51 4.45 4.51 4.51 4.49 4.47

22a H. tHomas cHurcH 4.20 4.14 3.97 4.05 3.89 4.03

22b mary fowler covington 3.59 3.64 3.22 3.64 3.64 3.56

22b wayne l. micHael 4.44 4.44 4.52 4.43 4.41 4.45

22b Jimmy laird myers 4.22 3.49 4.18 3.91 3.78 3.87

22b rod Penry 4.45 4.24 4.46 4.43 4.46 4.41

22b carlton terry 3.92 4.11 3.98 4.05 3.98 3.98

22b aPril c. wood 3.55 3.55 3.42 3.68 3.38 3.51

23 david v. byrd 4.00 4.05 3.92 3.87 3.65 3.92

23 micHael d. duncan 4.73 4.61 4.76 4.73 4.65 4.74

24 warren HugHes 4.47 4.30 4.60 4.57 4.53 4.43

25 bob brady 4.39 4.30 4.45 4.21 4.11 4.25

25 sHerri wilson elliott 4.26 4.18 4.23 4.26 4.25 4.26

25 gregory r. (greg) Hayes 3.60 3.80 3.61 4.00 3.79 3.71

25 mark killian 4.57 4.40 4.61 4.49 4.36 4.48

25 robert a. mullinax Jr. 4.45 4.36 4.44 4.44 4.38 4.44

25 amy sigmon walker 4.12 3.96 3.98 4.08 3.94 3.94

Judicial disTricTs 19c – 25







skillsoverall

Performance

26 donald cureton Jr. 4.59 4.35 4.63 4.49 4.39 4.52

26 rickye mckoy-mitcHell 4.42 4.06 4.45 4.30 4.15 4.24

26 Paige b. mctHenia 4.45 4.39 4.52 4.45 4.38 4.45

26 regan a. miller 4.38 4.14 4.38 4.28 4.22 4.26

26 tHeo nixon 3.87 4.04 3.80 3.90 3.96 3.85

26 matt osman 4.06 4.12 3.88 3.92 4.10 4.00

26 sean smitH 3.84 3.95 3.69 3.74 3.90 3.77

26 becky tHorne tin 4.32 4.41 4.35 4.39 4.37 4.35

27a ralPH c. gingles Jr. 4.38 4.27 4.47 4.36 4.32 4.37

27a micHael k. lands 3.42 3.42 3.21 3.19 3.37 3.25

27b ali Paksoy Jr. 4.65 4.41 4.62 4.53 4.53 4.53

28 edwin d. clontZ 3.76 3.34 3.70 3.25 3.42 3.38

28 susan m. dotson-smitH 4.16 3.89 4.07 3.98 3.94 4.00

28 Julie m. kePPle 4.64 4.54 4.73 4.75 4.60 4.70

28 ward d. scott 4.58 4.64 4.52 4.51 4.54 4.54

28 Patricia kaufmann young 3.79 3.93 3.58 3.64 3.68 3.68

29a robert k. martelle 4.23 4.20 4.17 4.24 4.03 4.07

29a c. randy Pool 4.12 4.14 4.09 4.08 4.01 4.11

29a laura anne Powell 4.60 4.56 4.53 4.53 4.46 4.47

30 kristina l. earwood 4.25 3.96 3.95 4.18 4.15 4.09

30 donna forga 4.30 4.01 4.16 4.19 4.13 4.10

30 roy wiJewickrama 4.33 4.23 4.43 4.44 4.31 4.32

Judicial disTricTs 26 – 30



individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs


individual suPerior court Judge rePorts

3A • MArvin K. Blount iii

QualiTy number of resPonses

excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating

integrity & impartiality 411230

(56.0%)82

(20.0%)51

(12.4%)33

(8.0%)15

(3.6%)4.17

legal ability 407183

(45.0%)117

(28.7%)68

(16.7%)25

(6.1%)14

(3.5%)4.06

Professionalism 413243

(58.8%)79

(19.1%)54

(13.1%)25

(6.1%)12

(2.9%)4.25

communication 401199

(49.6%)111

(27.7%)57

(14.2%)22

(5.5%)12

(3.0%)4.15

administrative skills 312163

(52.2%)82

(26.3%)41

(13.1%)14

(4.5%)12

(3.9%)4.19

overall Performance 399203

(50.9%)95

(23.8%)52

(13.0%)36

(9.0%)13

(3.3%)4.10

4B • ChArles h. henry


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(77.4%)32

(13.4%)16

(6.7%)4

(1.7%)2

(0.8%)4.65


(66.7%)57

(23.5%)19

(7.8%)4

(1.6%)1

(0.4%)4.54


(81.7%)28

(11.6%)10

(4.1%)4

(1.7%)2

(0.9%)4.72


(68.5%)52

(22.1%)15

(6.4%)6

(2.6%)1

(0.4%)4.56


(63.8%)48

(24.1%)13

(6.5%)7

(3.5%)4

(2.1%)4.44


(70.5%)46

(19.4%)17

(7.2%)5

(2.1%)2

(0.8%)4.57

10A • PAul C. riDGeWAy


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(81.2%)108

(13.1%)28

(3.4%)9

(1.1%)10

(1.2%)4.72


(80.4%)118

(14.4%)33

(4.0%)7

(0.9%)3

(0.3%)4.74


(87.6%)83

(10.0%)13

(1.6%)4

(0.5%)3

(0.3%)4.84


(80.3%)128

(15.9%)25

(3.1%)3

(0.4%)2

(0.3%)4.76


(78.0%)130

(19.2%)16

(2.4%)3

(0.4%)0

(0.0%)4.75


(81.6%)114

(14.0%)26

(3.2%)3

(0.4%)7

(0.8%)4.75





suPerior court Judges, conTinued

10C • PAul G. Gessner


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.4%)140

(20.9%)73

(10.9%)33

(4.9%)33

(4.9%)4.23


(52.0%)193

(28.8%)85

(12.7%)26

(3.9%)18

(2.6%)4.24


(65.0%)138

(20.6%)56

(8.4%)20

(3.0%)20

(3.0%)4.42


(62.0%)168

(25.6%)59

(9.0%)13

(2.0%)9

(1.4%)4.45


(58.3%)162

(29.3%)54

(9.8%)6

(1.1%)8

(1.5%)4.42


(57.4%)166

(25.0%)64

(9.6%)30

(4.5%)23

(3.5%)4.28

11B • thoMAs h. loCK


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.7%)88

(24.0%)31

(8.4%)24

(6.5%)16

(4.4%)4.22


(54.9%)110

(30.1%)35

(9.6%)12

(3.3%)8

(2.1%)4.32


(66.9%)71

(19.4%)32

(8.7%)7

(1.9%)11

(3.1%)4.45


(57.7%)101

(28.3%)34

(9.5%)9

(2.5%)7

(2.0%)4.37


(60.8%)71

(23.2%)30

(9.8%)10

(3.3%)9

(2.9%)4.36


(56.2%)101

(27.8%)30

(8.3%)17

(4.7%)11

(3.0%)4.29

15B • CArl r. Fox


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(71.7%)169

(18.8%)51

(5.7%)27

(3.0%)7

(0.8%)4.58


(60.1%)220

(24.7%)95

(10.7%)26

(2.9%)14

(1.6%)4.39


(72.5%)168

(18.8%)50

(5.6%)16

(1.8%)11

(1.3%)4.60


(67.7%)201

(23.0%)61

(7.0%)12

(1.4%)8

(0.9%)4.55


(60.9%)196

(26.4%)67

(9.0%)19

(2.6%)8

(1.1%)4.44


(64.4%)222

(25.2%)62

(7.0%)22

(2.5%)8

(0.9%)4.50






15B • Allen BADDour


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(49.9%)176

(24.5%)81

(11.3%)58

(8.1%)45

(6.2%)4.04


(50.2%)177

(24.7%)99

(13.8%)44

(6.1%)37

(5.2%)4.09


(53.0%)152

(21.2%)71

(9.9%)58

(8.1%)56

(7.8%)4.03


(49.7%)177

(25.4%)96

(13.8%)37

(5.3%)41

(5.8%)4.08


(51.1%)161

(28.0%)71

(12.3%)25

(4.3%)24

(4.3%)4.18


(46.5%)179

(25.2%)91

(12.8%)58

(8.2%)51

(7.3%)3.96

17A • eD Wilson


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(83.7%)38

(10.5%)18

(5.0%)3

(0.8%)0

(0.0%)4.77


(75.6%)64

(18.0%)18

(5.1%)5

(1.3%)0

(0.0%)4.68


(84.1%)40

(11.1%)14

(3.9%)3

(0.9%)0

(0.0%)4.79


(77.1%)61

(17.5%)15

(4.3%)4

(1.1%)0

(0.0%)4.70


(74.3%)62

(20.9%)10

(3.4%)4

(1.4%)0

(0.0%)4.68


(79.2%)55

(15.4%)15

(4.2%)4

(1.2%)0

(0.0%)4.73

18C • stuArt AlBriGht


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(60.9%)93

(14.8%)51

(8.1%)54

(8.6%)47

(7.6%)4.13


(55.8%)153

(24.5%)79

(12.7%)28

(4.5%)16

(2.5%)4.26


(62.5%)111

(17.8%)66

(10.6%)29

(4.7%)27

(4.4%)4.30


(57.3%)148

(23.9%)78

(12.6%)22

(3.6%)16

(2.6%)4.30


(59.6%)132

(25.8%)56

(10.9%)11

(2.1%)8

(1.6%)4.40


(57.0%)125

(20.3%)67

(10.9%)47

(7.6%)26

(4.2%)4.18






19A • W. erWin sPAinhour


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(78.4%)72

(11.3%)28

(4.4%)20

(3.1%)18

(2.8%)4.59


(79.6%)89

(13.9%)33

(5.1%)5

(0.8%)4

(0.6%)4.71


(79.2%)78

(12.2%)33

(5.2%)11

(1.7%)11

(1.7%)4.65


(75.0%)111

(17.7%)32

(5.1%)8

(1.3%)6

(0.9%)4.64


(76.4%)88

(16.6%)25

(4.7%)8

(1.5%)4

(0.8%)4.66


(78.0%)77

(12.2%)39

(6.2%)16

(2.5%)7

(1.1%)4.63

19B • v. BrADForD lonG


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.3%)56

(16.1%)16

(4.6%)12

(3.4%)2

(0.6%)4.62


(65.4%)83

(23.9%)27

(7.8%)8

(2.3%)2

(0.6%)4.51


(77.8%)53

(15.3%)18

(5.2%)5

(1.4%)1

(0.3%)4.69


(75.4%)60

(17.6%)21

(6.2%)1

(0.3%)2

(0.5%)4.67


(72.3%)62

(20.9%)19

(6.4%)1

(0.4%)0

(0.0%)4.65


(71.9%)69

(20.2%)18

(5.3%)7

(2.0%)2

(0.6%)4.61

22B • MArK e. KlAss


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(68.0%)98

(22.1%)24

(5.4%)10

(2.3%)10

(2.2%)4.51


(50.8%)140

(31.7%)52

(11.8%)12

(2.7%)13

(3.0%)4.25


(65.1%)111

(25.2%)31

(7.0%)7

(1.6%)5

(1.1%)4.51


(60.0%)128

(29.4%)28

(6.4%)15

(3.4%)3

(0.8%)4.45


(57.0%)116

(30.6%)36

(9.5%)5

(1.3%)6

(1.6%)4.40


(59.9%)122

(27.8%)37

(8.4%)8

(1.8%)9

(2.1%)4.42






25A • C. thoMAs eDWArDs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(66.2%)26

(19.5%)14

(10.5%)2

(1.5%)3

(2.3%)4.46

legal ability 13468

(50.7%)43

(32.1%)17

(12.7%)4

(3.0%)2

(1.5%)4.28


(51.5%)40

(30.3%)18

(13.6%)2

(1.5%)4

(3.1%)4.26

communication 12971

(55.0%)39

(30.2%)10

(7.8%)5

(3.9%)4

(3.1%)4.30


(53.8%)32

(26.9%)17

(14.3%)3

(2.5%)3

(2.5%)4.27


(55.3%)37

(28.0%)15

(11.4%)5

(3.8%)2

(1.5%)4.32

26B • riChArD Boner


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(57.7%)155

(24.3%)66

(10.3%)29

(4.5%)20

(3.2%)4.29


(52.9%)188

(29.4%)77

(12.1%)21

(3.3%)15

(2.3%)4.27


(54.7%)147

(23.0%)70

(10.9%)44

(6.9%)29

(4.5%)4.16


(48.2%)185

(29.2%)77

(12.2%)40

(6.3%)26

(4.1%)4.11


(54.4%)150

(27.3%)61

(11.1%)22

(4.0%)18

(3.2%)4.25


(51.5%)185

(29.2%)69

(10.9%)33

(5.2%)20

(3.2%)4.21

26C • BoB Bell


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(62.4%)78

(22.4%)32

(9.2%)10

(2.9%)11

(3.1%)4.38


(50.4%)122

(34.8%)31

(8.8%)12

(3.4%)9

(2.6%)4.27


(56.9%)92

(26.4%)34

(9.8%)11

(3.2%)13

(3.7%)4.30


(49.3%)119

(34.5%)39

(11.3%)6

(1.7%)11

(3.2%)4.25


(49.7%)99

(33.4%)33

(11.1%)7

(2.4%)10

(3.4%)4.24


(50.9%)115

(32.7%)38

(10.8%)8

(2.3%)12

(3.3%)4.25






27A • Jesse B. CAlDWell iii


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(72.1%)94

(17.6%)30

(5.6%)13

(2.4%)12

(2.3%)4.55


(63.3%)138

(26.0%)42

(7.9%)8

(1.5%)7

(1.3%)4.48


(69.4%)93

(17.5%)36

(6.8%)16

(3.0%)17

(3.3%)4.47


(68.8%)103

(19.7%)39

(7.5%)8

(1.5%)13

(2.5%)4.51


(63.6%)99

(22.5%)31

(7.0%)18

(4.1%)12

(2.8%)4.40


(67.4%)111

(21.2%)36

(6.9%)18

(3.4%)6

(1.1%)4.50

29B • MArK e. PoWell


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(63.0%)49

(24.5%)20

(10.0%)3

(1.5%)2

(1.0%)4.47

legal ability 20280

(39.6%)80

(39.6%)31

(15.3%)4

(2.0%)7

(3.5%)4.10


(59.6%)56

(28.3%)20

(10.1%)3

(1.5%)1

(0.5%)4.45

communication 19872

(36.4%)79

(39.9%)30

(15.2%)14

(7.1%)3

(1.4%)4.03


(54.7%)52

(32.7%)17

(10.7%)2

(1.3%)1

(0.6%)4.40


(46.3%)73

(36.3%)27

(13.4%)5

(2.5%)3

(1.5%)4.23



individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs

individual district court Judge rePorts

disTricT courT Judges | district 1


1 • eulA e. reiD


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(59.7%)16

(20.8%)10

(13.0%)3

(3.9%)2

(2.6%)4.31

legal ability 7830

(38.5%)29

(37.2%)10

(12.8%)8

(10.3%)1

(1.2%)4.01


(66.3%)18

(22.5%)5

(6.3%)2

(2.5%)2

(2.4%)4.48

communication 7641

(53.9%)26

(34.2%)7

(9.2%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.7%)4.37


(56.3%)20

(31.3%)5

(7.8%)2

(3.1%)1

(1.5%)4.38


(46.8%)28

(36.4%)8

(10.4%)4

(5.2%)1

(1.2%)4.22

1 • roBert P. trivette


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(61.3%)15

(18.8%)14

(17.5%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.39

legal ability 8047

(58.8%)22

(27.5%)8

(10.0%)3

(3.7%)0

(0.0%)4.41


(62.0%)13

(16.5%)12

(15.2%)5

(6.3%)0

(0.0%)4.34

communication 7644

(57.9%)20

(26.3%)9

(11.9%)3

(3.9%)0

(0.0%)4.38


(60.7%)13

(21.3%)10

(16.4%)1

(1.6%)0

(0.0%)4.41


(56.4%)22

(28.2%)11

(14.1%)1

(1.3%)0

(0.0%)4.40






2 • DArrell B. CAyton Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(57.5%)15

(17.2%)8

(9.2%)8

(9.2%)6

(6.9%)4.09

legal ability 8652

(60.5%)15

(17.4%)11

(12.8%)7

(8.1%)1

(1.2%)4.28


(57.0%)15

(17.4%)9

(10.5%)9

(10.5%)4

(4.6%)4.12

communication 8453

(63.1%)14

(16.7%)10

(11.9%)6

(7.1%)1

(1.2%)4.33


(60.6%)13

(19.7%)9

(13.6%)3

(4.5%)1

(1.6%)4.33


(57.0%)15

(17.4%)11

(12.8%)9

(10.5%)2

(2.3%)4.16

2 • reGinA r. PArKer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(73.7%)20

(20.2%)3

(3.0%)1

(1.0%)2

(2.1%)4.63

legal ability 9955

(55.6%)33

(33.3%)8

(8.1%)1

(1.0%)2

(2.0%)4.39


(75.8%)16

(16.2%)5

(5.1%)1

(1.0%)2

(1.9%)4.63

communication 9868

(69.4%)22

(22.4%)5

(5.1%)1

(1.0%)2

(2.1%)4.56


(67.1%)19

(23.2%)6

(7.3%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.4%)4.52


(69.4%)23

(23.5%)4

(4.1%)1

(1.0%)2

(2.0%)4.57




disTricT courT Judges | district 3a


3A • GWyn hilBurn


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(76.6%)15

(11.7%)5

(3.9%)5

(3.9%)5

(3.9%)4.53

legal ability 12880

(62.5%)28

(21.9%)7

(5.5%)8

(6.3%)5

(3.8%)4.33


(76.6%)15

(11.7%)6

(4.7%)6

(4.7%)3

(2.3%)4.55

communication 12887

(68.0%)23

(18.0%)9

(7.0%)3

(2.3%)6

(4.7%)4.42


(64.6%)19

(16.8%)12

(10.6%)5

(4.4%)4

(3.6%)4.35


(69.3%)19

(15.0%)11

(8.7%)3

(2.4%)6

(4.6%)4.42






4 • PAul A. hArDison


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(63.2%)21

(16.8%)12

(9.6%)8

(6.4%)5

(4.0%)4.29

legal ability 12572

(57.6%)21

(16.8%)23

(18.4%)5

(4.0%)4

(3.2%)4.22


(64.8%)22

(17.6%)11

(8.8%)7

(5.6%)4

(3.2%)4.35

communication 12476

(61.3%)32

(25.8%)7

(5.6%)2

(1.6%)7

(5.7%)4.35


(59.8%)21

(18.8%)12

(10.7%)6

(5.4%)6

(5.3%)4.22


(60.0%)27

(21.6%)12

(9.6%)7

(5.6%)4

(3.2%)4.30

4 • sArAh C. seAton


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(62.9%)16

(16.5%)9

(9.3%)4

(4.1%)7

(7.2%)4.24

legal ability 9556

(58.9%)20

(21.1%)10

(10.5%)2

(2.1%)7

(7.4%)4.22


(65.6%)14

(14.6%)9

(9.4%)4

(4.2%)6

(6.2%)4.29

communication 9666

(68.8%)17

(17.7%)7

(7.3%)2

(2.1%)4

(4.1%)4.45


(64.8%)17

(19.3%)8

(9.1%)2

(2.3%)4

(4.5%)4.38


(63.5%)17

(17.7%)8

(8.3%)4

(4.2%)6

(6.3%)4.28






5 • JAMes henry FAison iii


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(79.3%)23

(15.3%)3

(2.0%)2

(1.3%)3

(2.1%)4.69

legal ability 15076

(50.7%)44

(29.3%)27

(18.0%)2

(1.3%)1

(0.7%)4.28


(87.3%)14

(9.3%)4

(2.7%)0

(0.0%)1

(0.7%)4.83


(72.3%)31

(20.9%)8

(5.4%)2

(1.4%)0

(0.0%)4.64


(68.3%)30

(24.4%)8

(6.5%)1

(0.8%)0

(0.0%)4.60


(67.8%)39

(26.2%)6

(4.0%)3

(2.0%)0

(0.0%)4.60

5 • MelinDA h. CrouCh


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(47.7%)24

(22.0%)14

(12.8%)12

(11.0%)7

(6.5%)3.94

legal ability 11044

(40.0%)30

(27.3%)20

(18.2%)10

(9.1%)6

(5.4%)3.87


(47.7%)30

(27.5%)17

(15.6%)2

(1.8%)8

(7.4%)4.06

communication 10845

(41.7%)30

(27.8%)15

(13.9%)11

(10.2%)7

(6.4%)3.88


(42.9%)21

(25.0%)13

(15.5%)7

(8.3%)7

(8.3%)3.86


(40.7%)30

(27.8%)19

(17.6%)7

(6.5%)8

(7.4%)3.88

5 • ChAD hoGston


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(49.5%)36

(33.6%)10

(9.3%)5

(4.7%)3

(2.9%)4.22

legal ability 10744

(41.1%)42

(39.3%)16

(15.0%)2

(1.9%)3

(2.7%)4.14


(55.7%)35

(33.0%)7

(6.6%)4

(3.8%)1

(0.9%)4.39

communication 10556

(53.3%)35

(33.3%)10

(9.5%)3

(2.9%)1

(1.0%)4.35


(54.0%)28

(32.2%)8

(9.2%)2

(2.3%)2

(2.3%)4.33


(45.3%)41

(38.7%)11

(10.4%)4

(3.8%)2

(1.8%)4.22




disTricT courT Judges | district 6b


6B • thoMAs l. Jones Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(85.4%)3

(6.3%)1

(2.1%)1

(2.1%)2

(4.1%)4.67

legal ability 4838

(79.2%)6

(12.5%)1

(2.1%)0

(0.0%)3

(6.2%)4.58


(85.1%)5

(10.6%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)2

(4.3%)4.72

communication 4638

(82.6%)6

(13.0%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)2

(4.4%)4.70


(79.5%)7

(15.9%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)2

(4.6%)4.66


(83.0%)5

(10.6%)1

(2.1%)0

(0.0%)2

(4.3%)4.68






7 • Pell CooPer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.0%)13

(15.5%)7

(8.3%)1

(1.2%)0

(0.0%)4.64

legal ability 8352

(62.7%)12

(14.5%)10

(12.0%)8

(9.6%)1

(1.2%)4.28


(75.3%)14

(16.5%)6

(7.0%)1

(1.2%)0

(0.0%)4.66

communication 8551

(60.0%)17

(20.0%)15

(17.6%)1

(1.2%)1

(1.2%)4.36


(59.2%)12

(15.8%)14

(18.4%)3

(3.9%)2

(2.7%)4.25


(61.2%)14

(16.5%)14

(16.4%)5

(5.9%)0

(0.0%)4.33






8 • Beth heAth


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(73.8%)12

(14.3%)8

(9.5%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.60

legal ability 8449

(58.3%)21

(25.0%)12

(14.3%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.39


(75.3%)11

(12.9%)8

(9.4%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.61

communication 8557

(67.1%)16

(18.8%)10

(11.8%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.3%)4.48


(60.5%)21

(27.6%)6

(7.9%)1

(1.3%)2

(2.7%)4.42


(66.7%)18

(21.4%)7

(8.3%)3

(3.6%)0

(0.0%)4.51






9A • MArK GAlloWAy


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(70.2%)21

(18.4%)5

(4.4%)3

(2.6%)5

(4.4%)4.47

legal ability 11572

(62.6%)32

(27.8%)4

(3.5%)3

(2.6%)4

(3.5%)4.43


(73.5%)20

(17.7%)3

(2.7%)3

(2.7%)4

(3.4%)4.55

communication 11377

(68.1%)22

(19.5%)7

(6.2%)4

(3.5%)3

(2.7%)4.47


(63.8%)23

(21.9%)7

(6.7%)4

(3.8%)4

(3.8%)4.38


(67.5%)26

(22.8%)4

(3.5%)4

(3.5%)3

(2.7%)4.49






9B • J. henry BAnKs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(57.1%)21

(23.1%)9

(9.9%)4

(4.4%)5

(5.5%)4.22

legal ability 9147

(51.6%)22

(24.2%)12

(13.2%)6

(6.6%)4

(4.4%)4.12


(62.2%)14

(15.6%)13

(14.4%)3

(3.3%)4

(4.5%)4.28

communication 9052

(57.8%)23

(25.6%)6

(6.7%)6

(6.7%)3

(3.2%)4.28


(53.0%)20

(24.1%)9

(10.8%)5

(6.0%)5

(6.1%)4.12


(55.1%)19

(21.3%)14

(15.7%)3

(3.4%)4

(4.5%)4.19






10 • Kris D. BAiley


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(33.2%)90

(35.2%)44

(17.2%)25

(9.8%)12

(4.6%)3.82

legal ability 25449

(19.3%)76

(29.9%)69

(27.2%)48

(18.9%)12

(4.7%)3.40


(32.8%)83

(32.8%)51

(20.2%)25

(9.9%)11

(4.3%)3.80

communication 25064

(25.6%)103

(41.2%)55

(22.0%)21

(8.4%)7

(2.8%)3.78


(28.3%)68

(33.2%)54

(26.3%)16

(7.8%)9

(4.4%)3.73


(24.1%)87

(34.9%)62

(24.9%)30

(12.0%)10

(4.1%)3.63

10 • MiChAel J. DenninG


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(49.1%)76

(28.0%)39

(14.4%)17

(6.3%)6

(2.2%)4.15

legal ability 26794

(35.2%)105

(39.3%)34

(12.7%)26

(9.7%)8

(3.1%)3.94


(55.8%)72

(26.8%)31

(11.5%)12

(4.5%)4

(1.4%)4.31


(44.2%)88

(32.7%)42

(15.6%)15

(5.6%)5

(1.9%)4.12


(43.5%)78

(32.6%)39

(16.3%)11

(4.6%)7

(3.0%)4.09


(40.7%)89

(33.0%)48

(17.8%)17

(6.3%)6

(2.2%)4.04

10 • MArGAret eAGles


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(60.1%)76

(21.1%)42

(11.6%)17

(4.7%)9

(2.5%)4.32


(52.7%)100

(28.0%)43

(12.0%)17

(4.8%)9

(2.5%)4.24


(60.0%)88

(24.4%)34

(9.4%)14

(3.9%)8

(2.3%)4.36


(53.1%)105

(29.8%)39

(11.1%)16

(4.5%)5

(1.5%)4.29


(52.9%)95

(30.8%)32

(10.4%)12

(3.9%)6

(2.0%)4.29


(54.9%)96

(26.9%)42

(11.8%)16

(4.5%)7

(1.9%)4.28




disTricT courT Judges | district 10, conTinued


10 • Keith o'Brien GreGory


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(44.2%)63

(20.2%)43

(13.8%)29

(9.3%)39

(12.5%)3.74


(37.7%)78

(25.3%)52

(16.9%)29

(9.4%)33

(10.7%)3.70


(42.6%)66

(21.2%)45

(14.4%)29

(9.3%)39

(12.5%)3.72


(43.6%)68

(22.1%)56

(18.2%)23

(7.5%)26

(8.6%)3.85


(45.3%)60

(22.6%)46

(17.4%)16

(6.0%)23

(8.7%)3.90


(40.1%)74

(24.1%)44

(14.3%)31

(10.1%)35

(11.4%)3.71

10 • neD W. MAnGuM


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(67.3%)84

(23.1%)24

(6.6%)8

(2.2%)3

(0.8%)4.54


(64.2%)99

(27.3%)25

(6.9%)3

(0.8%)3

(0.8%)4.53


(70.3%)83

(22.6%)19

(5.2%)5

(1.4%)2

(0.5%)4.61


(65.9%)94

(25.8%)21

(5.8%)5

(1.4%)4

(1.1%)4.54


(61.3%)101

(31.8%)15

(4.7%)5

(1.6%)2

(0.6%)4.52


(65.6%)97

(26.9%)18

(5.0%)6

(1.7%)3

(0.8%)4.55

10 • louis Meyer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(52.0%)54

(17.9%)40

(13.2%)20

(6.6%)31

(10.3%)3.95


(43.0%)53

(17.5%)42

(13.9%)29

(9.6%)48

(16.0%)3.62


(55.1%)61

(20.3%)40

(13.3%)11

(3.7%)23

(7.6%)4.12


(46.9%)69

(23.5%)43

(14.6%)19

(6.5%)25

(8.5%)3.94


(44.2%)54

(20.9%)46

(17.8%)14

(5.4%)30

(11.7%)3.81


(44.4%)60

(20.2%)48

(16.2%)26

(8.8%)31

(10.4%)3.79






10 • vinCe rozier Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(66.4%)86

(20.4%)29

(6.9%)14

(3.3%)13

(3.0%)4.44


(55.5%)114

(27.0%)49

(11.6%)10

(2.4%)15

(3.5%)4.28


(67.1%)90

(21.0%)34

(7.9%)5

(1.2%)12

(2.8%)4.48


(63.2%)96

(22.9%)39

(9.3%)9

(2.1%)10

(2.5%)4.42


(60.7%)99

(27.2%)28

(7.7%)7

(1.9%)9

(2.5%)4.42


(61.4%)101

(23.9%)43

(10.2%)8

(1.9%)11

(2.6%)4.40






11 • CAron h. steWArt


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(46.7%)26

(24.3%)16

(15.0%)6

(5.6%)9

(8.4%)3.95

legal ability 10739

(36.4%)31

(29.0%)19

(17.8%)12

(11.2%)6

(5.6%)3.79


(51.4%)29

(27.1%)13

(12.1%)4

(3.7%)6

(5.7%)4.15

communication 10748

(44.9%)29

(27.1%)17

(15.9%)7

(6.5%)6

(5.6%)3.99


(40.8%)33

(33.7%)11

(11.2%)7

(7.1%)7

(7.2%)3.94


(40.6%)31

(29.2%)18

(17.0%)6

(5.7%)8

(7.5%)3.90

11 • ADDie rAWls


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(59.5%)38

(24.1%)11

(7.0%)8

(5.1%)7

(4.3%)4.29

legal ability 15882

(51.9%)44

(27.8%)21

(13.3%)8

(5.1%)3

(1.9%)4.23


(52.8%)46

(28.9%)15

(9.4%)11

(6.9%)3

(2.0%)4.24

communication 15994

(59.1%)42

(26.4%)15

(9.4%)3

(1.9%)5

(3.2%)4.36


(52.5%)33

(23.4%)21

(14.9%)9

(6.4%)4

(2.8%)4.16


(53.5%)44

(27.7%)20

(12.6%)7

(4.4%)3

(1.8%)4.26






12 • tAlMAGe (tAl) BAGGett


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(51.2%)29

(34.5%)8

(9.5%)1

(1.2%)3

(3.6%)4.29

legal ability 8434

(40.5%)22

(26.2%)20

(23.8%)3

(3.6%)5

(5.9%)3.92


(52.4%)22

(26.2%)9

(10.7%)6

(7.1%)3

(3.6%)4.17

communication 8438

(45.2%)25

(29.8%)16

(19.0%)1

(1.2%)4

(4.8%)4.10


(45.1%)25

(35.2%)11

(15.5%)1

(1.4%)2

(2.8%)4.18


(44.7%)29

(34.1%)12

(14.1%)4

(4.7%)2

(2.4%)4.14

12 • GeorGe J. FrAnKs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(64.6%)16

(19.5%)10

(12.2%)2

(2.4%)1

(1.3%)4.44

legal ability 8244

(53.7%)20

(24.4%)17

(20.7%)1

(1.2%)0

(0.0%)4.30


(61.0%)19

(23.2%)10

(12.2%)2

(2.4%)1

(1.2%)4.40

communication 8148

(59.3%)19

(23.5%)11

(13.6%)2

(2.5%)1

(1.1%)4.37


(56.2%)14

(19.2%)16

(21.9%)1

(1.4%)1

(1.3%)4.27


(53.0%)23

(27.7%)12

(14.5%)4

(4.8%)0

(0.0%)4.29

12 • DAviD h. hAsty


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(46.7%)28

(37.3%)9

(12.0%)2

(2.7%)1

(1.3%)4.25

legal ability 7532

(42.7%)29

(38.7%)11

(14.7%)2

(2.7%)1

(1.2%)4.19


(48.0%)25

(33.3%)11

(14.7%)2

(2.7%)1

(1.3%)4.24

communication 7529

(38.7%)33

(44.0%)10

(13.3%)3

(4.0%)0

(0.0%)4.17


(38.1%)24

(38.1%)8

(12.7%)4

(6.3%)3

(4.8%)3.98


(40.8%)32

(42.1%)11

(14.5%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)4.20






12 • toni s. KinG


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.0%)16

(18.2%)3

(3.4%)2

(2.3%)1

(1.1%)4.64

legal ability 8654

(62.8%)22

(25.6%)6

(7.0%)3

(3.5%)1

(1.1%)4.45


(73.6%)18

(20.7%)2

(2.3%)3

(3.4%)0

(0.0%)4.64

communication 8660

(69.8%)22

(25.6%)2

(2.3%)2

(2.3%)0

(0.0%)4.63


(62.3%)22

(28.6%)4

(5.2%)3

(3.9%)0

(0.0%)4.49


(67.0%)23

(26.1%)3

(3.4%)2

(2.3%)1

(1.2%)4.56

12 • roBert stiehl


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.2%)23

(21.9%)10

(9.5%)7

(6.7%)6

(5.7%)4.16

legal ability 10456

(53.8%)30

(28.8%)11

(10.6%)6

(5.8%)1

(1.0%)4.29


(52.4%)24

(22.9%)14

(13.3%)7

(6.7%)5

(4.7%)4.11

communication 10248

(47.1%)27

(26.5%)14

(13.7%)7

(6.9%)6

(5.8%)4.02


(50.6%)21

(23.6%)12

(13.5%)7

(7.9%)4

(4.4%)4.08


(49.5%)28

(26.7%)14

(13.3%)6

(5.7%)5

(4.8%)4.10






13 • WilliAM F. FAirley


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(82.9%)9

(11.8%)3

(4.0%)1

(1.3%)0

(0.0%)4.76

legal ability 7658

(76.3%)14

(18.4%)2

(2.7%)2

(2.6%)0

(0.0%)4.68


(82.7%)11

(14.7%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.6%)0

(0.0%)4.77

communication 7559

(78.7%)14

(18.7%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)0

(0.0%)4.75


(76.8%)13

(18.8%)2

(2.9%)1

(1.5%)0

(0.0%)4.71


(82.4%)11

(14.9%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.7%)0

(0.0%)4.77

13 • sherry DeW PrinCe


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(50.7%)18

(24.0%)7

(9.3%)5

(6.7%)7

(9.3%)4.00

legal ability 7436

(48.6%)22

(29.7%)7

(9.5%)4

(5.4%)5

(6.8%)4.08


(55.4%)16

(21.6%)4

(5.4%)9

(12.2%)4

(5.4%)4.09

communication 7439

(52.7%)20

(27.0%)10

(13.5%)1

(1.4%)4

(5.4%)4.20


(52.3%)22

(33.8%)4

(6.2%)3

(4.6%)2

(3.1%)4.28


(50.7%)18

(24.7%)6

(8.2%)8

(11.0%)4

(5.4%)4.04






14 • PAt evAns


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(29.7%)39

(18.4%)31

(14.6%)28

(13.2%)51

(24.1%)3.17

legal ability 21260

(28.3%)49

(23.1%)35

(16.5%)28

(13.2%)40

(18.9%)3.29


(30.7%)29

(13.5%)34

(15.8%)32

(14.9%)54

(25.1%)3.10

communication 21162

(29.4%)45

(21.3%)37

(17.5%)25

(11.8%)42

(20.0%)3.28


(29.7%)34

(19.4%)26

(14.9%)19

(10.9%)44

(25.1%)3.18


(30.3%)38

(18.0%)32

(15.2%)28

(13.3%)49

(23.2%)3.19

14 • nAnCy e. GorDon


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(21.7%)49

(18.4%)49

(18.4%)40

(15.0%)71

(26.5%)2.94

legal ability 26676

(28.6%)61

(22.9%)46

(17.3%)29

(10.9%)54

(20.3%)3.29


(15.3%)38

(14.2%)43

(16.0%)39

(14.6%)107

(39.9%)2.50

communication 26649

(18.4%)54

(20.3%)56

(21.1%)33

(12.4%)74

(27.8%)2.89


(25.7%)52

(23.0%)43

(19.0%)25

(11.1%)48

(21.2%)3.21


(16.0%)52

(19.4%)44

(16.4%)54

(20.1%)75

(28.1%)2.75

14 • JAMes t. (JiM) hill


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(57.1%)57

(23.1%)29

(11.7%)7

(2.8%)13

(5.3%)4.24


(47.2%)82

(33.3%)30

(12.2%)13

(5.3%)5

(2.0%)4.18


(53.4%)68

(27.5%)26

(10.5%)10

(4.0%)11

(4.6%)4.21


(52.4%)76

(30.9%)26

(10.6%)5

(2.0%)10

(4.1%)4.26


(51.9%)65

(30.4%)25

(11.7%)8

(3.7%)5

(2.3%)4.26


(49.0%)80

(32.4%)27

(10.9%)9

(3.6%)10

(4.1%)4.19






14 • MArCiA h. Morey


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.9%)70

(26.0%)24

(8.9%)13

(4.8%)9

(3.4%)4.28


(55.7%)77

(28.4%)30

(11.1%)6

(2.2%)7

(2.6%)4.32


(61.3%)60

(22.3%)25

(9.3%)13

(4.8%)6

(2.3%)4.36


(54.9%)78

(29.3%)29

(10.9%)5

(1.9%)8

(3.0%)4.31


(54.4%)74

(29.8%)25

(10.1%)5

(2.0%)9

(3.7%)4.29


(53.9%)83

(30.9%)25

(9.3%)11

(4.1%)5

(1.8%)4.31

14 • DorettA WAlKer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(34.2%)55

(23.5%)54

(23.1%)26

(11.1%)19

(8.1%)3.65

legal ability 23660

(25.4%)55

(23.3%)58

(24.6%)35

(14.8%)28

(11.9%)3.36


(30.9%)60

(25.4%)43

(18.2%)33

(14.0%)27

(11.5%)3.50

communication 23164

(27.7%)55

(23.8%)60

(26.0%)30

(13.0%)22

(9.5%)3.47


(29.3%)48

(25.1%)49

(25.7%)21

(11.0%)17

(8.9%)3.55


(26.4%)53

(22.6%)62

(26.4%)38

(16.2%)20

(8.4%)3.42

14 • BriAn C. WilKs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(54.3%)46

(23.1%)28

(14.1%)13

(6.5%)4

(2.0%)4.21

legal ability 20197

(48.3%)57

(28.4%)31

(15.4%)13

(6.5%)3

(1.4%)4.15


(56.2%)48

(23.9%)29

(14.4%)7

(3.5%)4

(2.0%)4.29


(51.5%)60

(30.6%)22

(11.2%)10

(5.1%)3

(1.6%)4.26


(50.6%)51

(29.3%)24

(13.8%)7

(4.0%)4

(2.3%)4.22


(49.7%)54

(27.1%)32

(16.1%)13

(6.5%)1

(0.6%)4.19






15A • BrAD Allen


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(49.7%)22

(15.0%)18

(12.2%)16

(10.9%)18

(12.2%)3.79

legal ability 14854

(36.5%)45

(30.4%)24

(16.2%)13

(8.8%)12

(8.1%)3.78


(44.6%)32

(21.6%)17

(11.5%)15

(10.1%)18

(12.2%)3.76

communication 14663

(43.2%)40

(27.4%)24

(16.4%)9

(6.2%)10

(6.8%)3.94


(52.7%)33

(25.6%)19

(14.7%)4

(3.1%)5

(3.9%)4.20


(42.9%)36

(24.5%)22

(15.0%)15

(10.2%)11

(7.4%)3.85






15B • JosePh (Joe) MooDy BuCKner


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(60.7%)54

(17.5%)32

(10.4%)21

(6.8%)14

(4.6%)4.23


(58.4%)75

(24.4%)33

(10.7%)13

(4.2%)7

(2.3%)4.32


(57.4%)68

(21.9%)29

(9.4%)23

(7.4%)12

(3.9%)4.22


(61.2%)64

(20.8%)33

(10.7%)12

(3.9%)10

(3.4%)4.33


(63.9%)56

(19.0%)24

(8.2%)12

(4.1%)14

(4.8%)4.33


(58.7%)65

(21.3%)36

(11.8%)18

(5.9%)7

(2.3%)4.28






16A • reGinA M. Joe


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.0%)13

(17.1%)2

(2.6%)3

(3.9%)1

(1.4%)4.61

legal ability 7752

(67.5%)16

(20.8%)6

(7.8%)2

(2.6%)1

(1.3%)4.51


(80.5%)10

(13.0%)2

(2.6%)2

(2.6%)1

(1.3%)4.69

communication 7758

(75.3%)11

(14.3%)5

(6.5%)1

(1.3%)2

(2.6%)4.58


(74.3%)10

(14.3%)6

(8.6%)1

(1.4%)1

(1.4%)4.59


(72.4%)15

(19.7%)3

(3.9%)2

(2.6%)1

(1.4%)4.59






16B • J. stAnley CArMiCAl


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(86.4%)7

(10.6%)1

(1.5%)0

(0.0%)1

(1.5%)4.80

legal ability 6752

(77.6%)13

(19.4%)2

(3.0%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.75


(85.3%)8

(11.8%)1

(1.5%)0

(0.0%)1

(1.4%)4.79

communication 6755

(82.1%)10

(14.9%)2

(3.0%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.79


(82.8%)10

(15.6%)1

(1.6%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.81


(85.1%)8

(11.9%)2

(3.0%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.82

16B • John B. CArter Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(70.4%)10

(18.5%)4

(7.4%)2

(3.7%)0

(0.0%)4.56

legal ability 5432

(59.3%)15

(27.8%)6

(11.1%)0

(0.0%)1

(1.8%)4.43


(66.7%)10

(18.5%)4

(7.4%)3

(5.6%)1

(1.8%)4.43

communication 5334

(64.2%)11

(20.8%)8

(15.0%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.49


(59.2%)11

(22.4%)4

(8.2%)3

(6.1%)2

(4.1%)4.27


(66.0%)9

(17.0%)7

(13.2%)2

(3.8%)0

(0.0%)4.45

16B • herBert l. riChArDson


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(64.5%)14

(22.6%)5

(8.1%)1

(1.6%)2

(3.2%)4.44

legal ability 6335

(55.6%)19

(30.2%)5

(7.9%)3

(4.8%)1

(1.5%)4.33


(60.3%)16

(25.4%)4

(6.3%)3

(4.8%)2

(3.2%)4.35

communication 6444

(68.8%)13

(20.3%)3

(4.7%)2

(3.1%)2

(3.1%)4.48


(64.8%)16

(29.6%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.8%)4.54


(59.4%)18

(28.1%)4

(6.3%)2

(3.1%)2

(3.1%)4.38






17A • stAnley l. (stAn) Allen


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(47.8%)21

(31.3%)9

(13.4%)4

(6.0%)1

(1.5%)4.18

legal ability 6833

(48.5%)22

(32.4%)7

(10.3%)5

(7.4%)1

(1.4%)4.19


(49.3%)16

(23.9%)13

(19.4%)4

(6.0%)1

(1.4%)4.13

communication 6733

(49.3%)16

(23.9%)11

(16.4%)7

(10.4%)0

(0.0%)4.12


(51.7%)18

(30.0%)6

(10.0%)4

(6.7%)1

(1.6%)4.23


(48.5%)20

(30.3%)8

(12.1%)6

(9.1%)0

(0.0%)4.18

17A • FreD WilKins


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(62.7%)13

(19.4%)5

(7.5%)3

(4.5%)4

(5.9%)4.28

legal ability 6843

(63.2%)17

(25.0%)2

(2.9%)4

(5.9%)2

(3.0%)4.40


(63.2%)15

(22.1%)4

(5.9%)2

(2.9%)4

(5.9%)4.34

communication 6838

(55.9%)17

(25.0%)5

(7.4%)4

(5.9%)4

(5.8%)4.19


(61.9%)14

(22.2%)6

(9.5%)0

(0.0%)4

(6.4%)4.33


(60.3%)17

(25.0%)4

(5.9%)3

(4.4%)3

(4.4%)4.32






17B • sPenCer G. Key Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.7%)26

(34.7%)3

(4.0%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)4.48

legal ability 7537

(49.3%)26

(34.7%)10

(13.3%)2

(2.7%)0

(0.0%)4.31


(56.0%)21

(28.0%)8

(10.7%)3

(4.0%)1

(1.3%)4.33

communication 7536

(48.0%)29

(38.7%)8

(10.7%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)4.31


(47.8%)19

(27.5%)10

(14.5%)5

(7.2%)2

(3.0%)4.10


(50.7%)25

(33.3%)10

(13.3%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.4%)4.31

17B • ChArles M. (ChuCK) neAves Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(68.4%)25

(26.3%)3

(3.2%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.1%)4.59

legal ability 9560

(63.2%)25

(26.3%)7

(7.4%)2

(2.1%)1

(1.0%)4.48


(68.4%)23

(24.2%)5

(5.3%)1

(1.1%)1

(1.0%)4.58

communication 9355

(59.1%)26

(28.0%)9

(9.7%)2

(2.2%)1

(1.0%)4.42


(62.9%)25

(28.1%)5

(5.6%)1

(1.1%)2

(2.3%)4.48


(67.0%)22

(22.7%)7

(7.2%)2

(2.1%)1

(1.0%)4.53

17B • AnGelA B. PuCKett


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(37.8%)13

(17.6%)17

(23.0%)8

(10.8%)8

(10.8%)3.61

legal ability 7426

(35.1%)27

(36.5%)11

(14.9%)3

(4.1%)7

(9.4%)3.84


(37.8%)21

(28.4%)10

(13.5%)6

(8.1%)9

(12.2%)3.72

communication 7326

(35.6%)23

(31.5%)10

(13.7%)5

(6.8%)9

(12.4%)3.71


(34.3%)19

(28.4%)11

(16.4%)4

(6.0%)10

(14.9%)3.61


(31.1%)19

(25.7%)17

(23.0%)8

(10.8%)7

(9.4%)3.58






18 • WenDy M. enoChs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.0%)59

(25.2%)30

(12.8%)6

(2.6%)8

(3.4%)4.28


(50.6%)72

(30.6%)29

(12.3%)8

(3.4%)7

(3.1%)4.23


(60.7%)53

(22.6%)24

(10.3%)6

(2.6%)9

(3.8%)4.34


(53.4%)67

(28.6%)30

(12.8%)2

(0.9%)10

(4.3%)4.26


(56.4%)58

(26.4%)21

(9.5%)7

(3.2%)10

(4.5%)4.27


(53.9%)63

(27.2%)31

(13.4%)5

(2.2%)8

(3.3%)4.26

18 • h. thoMAs (toM) JArrell Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(64.4%)56

(22.4%)16

(6.4%)10

(4.0%)7

(2.8%)4.42


(60.4%)70

(28.0%)25

(10.0%)4

(1.6%)0

(0.0%)4.47


(64.0%)58

(23.2%)21

(8.4%)7

(2.8%)4

(1.6%)4.45


(68.1%)58

(23.4%)16

(6.5%)5

(2.0%)0

(0.0%)4.58


(63.3%)56

(24.8%)17

(7.5%)8

(3.5%)2

(0.9%)4.46


(64.4%)59

(23.9%)20

(8.1%)7

(2.8%)2

(0.8%)4.48






19A • Brent CloninGer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(61.6%)15

(17.4%)8

(9.3%)7

(8.1%)3

(3.6%)4.26

legal ability 8836

(40.9%)26

(29.5%)11

(12.5%)7

(8.0%)8

(9.1%)3.85


(54.0%)19

(21.8%)11

(12.6%)5

(5.7%)5

(5.9%)4.13

communication 8842

(47.7%)25

(28.4%)9

(10.2%)4

(4.5%)8

(9.2%)4.01


(45.1%)24

(29.3%)11

(13.4%)5

(6.1%)5

(6.1%)4.01


(46.0%)28

(32.2%)9

(10.3%)6

(6.9%)4

(4.6%)4.08

19A • WilliAM G. hAMBy Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(62.1%)26

(18.6%)9

(6.4%)8

(5.7%)10

(7.2%)4.23

legal ability 14075

(53.6%)31

(22.1%)15

(10.7%)9

(6.4%)10

(7.2%)4.09


(62.4%)28

(19.9%)8

(5.7%)7

(5.0%)10

(7.0%)4.26

communication 14075

(53.6%)37

(26.4%)12

(8.6%)7

(5.0%)9

(6.4%)4.16


(55.0%)31

(23.7%)14

(10.7%)7

(5.3%)7

(5.3%)4.18


(53.9%)38

(27.0%)9

(6.4%)8

(5.7%)10

(7.0%)4.15

19A • DonnA h. Johnson


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(36.5%)19

(22.4%)8

(9.4%)12

(14.1%)15

(17.6%)3.46

legal ability 8430

(35.7%)21

(25.0%)16

(19.0%)8

(9.5%)9

(10.8%)3.65


(36.5%)15

(17.6%)12

(14.1%)9

(10.6%)18

(21.2%)3.38

communication 8529

(34.1%)22

(25.9%)13

(15.3%)7

(8.2%)14

(16.5%)3.53


(45.0%)18

(22.5%)13

(16.3%)3

(3.8%)10

(12.4%)3.84


(36.9%)16

(19.0%)11

(13.1%)14

(16.7%)12

(14.3%)3.48





disTricT courT Judges | district 19a, conTinued

19A • MArtin B. (MArty) Mcgee


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(65.9%)20

(15.2%)12

(9.1%)6

(4.5%)7

(5.3%)4.32

legal ability 13275

(56.8%)32

(24.2%)13

(9.8%)5

(3.8%)7

(5.4%)4.23


(60.4%)30

(22.4%)12

(9.0%)5

(3.7%)6

(4.5%)4.31

communication 13268

(51.5%)35

(26.5%)16

(12.1%)6

(4.5%)7

(5.4%)4.14


(53.8%)26

(21.8%)15

(12.6%)8

(6.7%)6

(5.1%)4.13


(54.9%)31

(23.3%)13

(9.8%)9

(6.8%)7

(5.2%)4.16






19B • sCott etheriDGe


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(55.5%)20

(18.2%)18

(16.4%)7

(6.4%)4

(3.5%)4.15

legal ability 11055

(50.0%)31

(28.2%)15

(13.6%)7

(6.4%)2

(1.8%)4.18


(46.4%)34

(30.4%)16

(14.3%)3

(2.7%)7

(6.2%)4.08

communication 10958

(53.2%)28

(25.7%)18

(16.5%)4

(3.7%)1

(0.9%)4.27


(52.0%)31

(30.4%)10

(9.8%)4

(3.9%)4

(3.9%)4.23


(46.3%)35

(32.4%)16

(14.8%)2

(1.9%)5

(4.6%)4.14

19B • lee W. GAvin


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.3%)21

(19.4%)11

(10.2%)7

(6.5%)6

(5.6%)4.19

legal ability 10951

(46.8%)31

(28.4%)16

(14.7%)1

(0.9%)10

(9.2%)4.03


(54.2%)23

(21.5%)15

(14.0%)3

(2.8%)8

(7.5%)4.12

communication 10651

(48.1%)29

(27.4%)12

(11.3%)6

(5.7%)8

(7.5%)4.03


(49.0%)23

(23.5%)15

(15.3%)4

(4.1%)8

(8.1%)4.01


(48.6%)29

(27.6%)14

(13.3%)4

(3.8%)7

(6.7%)4.08

19B • JAyrene russell MAness


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.4%)27

(26.7%)9

(8.9%)3

(3.0%)3

(3.0%)4.35

legal ability 10152

(51.5%)31

(30.7%)11

(10.9%)2

(2.0%)5

(4.9%)4.22


(54.5%)27

(26.7%)11

(10.9%)2

(2.0%)6

(5.9%)4.22

communication 10048

(48.0%)32

(32.0%)10

(10.0%)6

(6.0%)4

(4.0%)4.14


(58.2%)24

(24.5%)10

(10.2%)3

(3.1%)4

(4.0%)4.30


(48.5%)32

(32.3%)11

(11.1%)2

(2.0%)6

(6.1%)4.15





disTricT courT Judges | district 19c

19C • ChArlie BroWn


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(66.0%)13

(13.8%)7

(7.4%)9

(9.6%)3

(3.2%)4.30

legal ability 9264

(69.6%)15

(16.3%)6

(6.5%)5

(5.4%)2

(2.2%)4.46


(67.0%)11

(11.7%)5

(5.3%)10

(10.6%)5

(5.4%)4.24

communication 9467

(71.3%)8

(8.5%)11

(11.7%)6

(6.4%)2

(2.1%)4.40


(75.3%)8

(9.0%)8

(9.0%)4

(4.5%)2

(2.2%)4.51


(68.1%)13

(13.8%)5

(5.3%)9

(9.6%)3

(3.2%)4.34

19C • Beth s. Dixon


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(44.6%)21

(25.3%)10

(12.0%)8

(9.6%)7

(8.5%)3.88

legal ability 8238

(46.3%)20

(24.4%)12

(14.6%)5

(6.1%)7

(8.6%)3.94


(50.0%)17

(20.7%)13

(15.9%)5

(6.1%)6

(7.3%)4.00

communication 8143

(53.1%)17

(21.0%)13

(16.0%)4

(4.9%)4

(5.0%)4.12


(52.1%)15

(20.5%)10

(13.7%)5

(6.8%)5

(6.9%)4.04


(46.9%)17

(21.0%)14

(17.3%)6

(7.4%)6

(7.4%)3.93

19C • Kevin eDDinGer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(59.7%)10

(16.1%)10

(16.1%)3

(4.8%)2

(3.3%)4.24

legal ability 6236

(58.1%)15

(24.2%)6

(9.7%)2

(3.2%)3

(4.8%)4.27


(54.8%)13

(21.0%)9

(14.5%)3

(4.8%)3

(4.9%)4.16

communication 6132

(52.5%)11

(18.0%)14

(23.0%)3

(4.9%)1

(1.6%)4.15


(47.4%)13

(22.8%)14

(24.6%)1

(1.8%)2

(3.4%)4.09


(54.8%)13

(21.0%)12

(19.4%)1

(1.6%)2

(3.2%)4.23






20A • sCott t. BreWer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(28.1%)26

(21.5%)14

(11.6%)24

(19.8%)23

(19.0%)3.20

legal ability 12039

(32.5%)35

(29.2%)18

(15.0%)10

(8.3%)18

(15.0%)3.56


(27.0%)23

(18.9%)24

(19.7%)18

(14.8%)24

(19.6%)3.19

communication 12035

(29.2%)28

(23.3%)29

(24.2%)12

(10.0%)16

(13.3%)3.45


(38.2%)25

(22.7%)17

(15.5%)8

(7.3%)18

(16.3%)3.59


(28.6%)28

(23.5%)17

(14.3%)18

(15.1%)22

(18.5%)3.29

20A • WilliAM C. (Bill) tuCKer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(71.4%)13

(15.5%)3

(3.6%)3

(3.6%)5

(5.9%)4.43

legal ability 8556

(65.9%)20

(23.5%)6

(7.1%)1

(1.2%)2

(2.3%)4.49


(72.9%)10

(11.8%)3

(3.5%)5

(5.9%)5

(5.9%)4.40

communication 8557

(67.1%)16

(18.8%)6

(7.1%)3

(3.5%)3

(3.5%)4.42


(67.1%)10

(13.7%)7

(9.6%)3

(4.1%)4

(5.5%)4.33


(67.1%)15

(18.3%)5

(6.1%)5

(6.1%)2

(2.4%)4.41






21 • GeorGe A. BeDsWorth


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(65.5%)47

(20.5%)14

(6.1%)10

(4.4%)8

(3.5%)4.40


(52.6%)74

(32.5%)15

(6.6%)9

(3.9%)10

(4.4%)4.25


(68.1%)49

(21.4%)16

(7.0%)2

(0.9%)6

(2.6%)4.52


(56.6%)64

(28.3%)24

(10.6%)3

(1.3%)7

(3.2%)4.34


(49.8%)71

(34.0%)20

(9.6%)8

(3.8%)6

(2.8%)4.24


(57.5%)61

(26.8%)22

(9.6%)7

(3.1%)7

(3.0%)4.32

21 • Denise s. hArtsFielD


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(31.2%)55

(18.3%)42

(14.0%)48

(15.9%)62

(20.6%)3.24


(35.3%)62

(21.0%)69

(23.4%)28

(9.5%)32

(10.8%)3.60


(30.7%)57

(19.3%)51

(17.2%)41

(13.9%)56

(18.9%)3.29


(45.0%)60

(20.8%)46

(15.9%)23

(8.0%)30

(10.3%)3.82


(35.9%)49

(19.1%)49

(19.1%)30

(11.7%)36

(14.2%)3.51


(31.0%)69

(23.2%)53

(17.8%)37

(12.5%)46

(15.5%)3.42

21 • lisA v. MeneFee


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(66.2%)66

(24.0%)17

(6.2%)4

(1.5%)6

(2.1%)4.51


(63.0%)75

(27.2%)13

(4.7%)6

(2.2%)8

(2.9%)4.45


(67.8%)65

(23.6%)12

(4.3%)2

(0.7%)10

(3.6%)4.51


(67.3%)62

(22.5%)19

(6.9%)2

(0.7%)7

(2.6%)4.51


(68.5%)55

(21.4%)13

(5.1%)3

(1.2%)10

(3.8%)4.49


(64.6%)71

(25.6%)13

(4.7%)5

(1.8%)9

(3.3%)4.47






22A • h. thoMAs ChurCh


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.7%)21

(20.2%)16

(15.4%)2

(1.9%)6

(5.8%)4.20

legal ability 10149

(48.5%)28

(27.7%)16

(15.8%)5

(5.0%)3

(3.0%)4.14


(49.5%)20

(19.8%)16

(15.8%)8

(7.9%)7

(7.0%)3.97

communication 10048

(48.0%)24

(24.0%)18

(18.0%)5

(5.0%)5

(5.0%)4.05


(46.0%)20

(23.0%)11

(12.6%)9

(10.3%)7

(8.1%)3.89


(47.1%)25

(24.5%)17

(16.7%)8

(7.8%)4

(3.9%)4.03






22B • MAry FoWler CovinGton


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(34.9%)35

(23.0%)31

(20.4%)15

(9.9%)18

(11.8%)3.59

legal ability 15248

(31.6%)41

(27.0%)36

(23.7%)15

(9.9%)12

(7.8%)3.64


(25.0%)32

(21.1%)31

(20.4%)27

(17.8%)24

(15.7%)3.22

communication 15248

(31.6%)50

(32.9%)25

(16.4%)10

(6.6%)19

(12.5%)3.64


(31.8%)42

(31.8%)22

(16.7%)11

(8.3%)15

(11.4%)3.64


(28.8%)41

(26.8%)40

(26.1%)12

(7.8%)16

(10.5%)3.56

22B • WAyne l. MiChAel


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(68.2%)27

(18.2%)8

(5.4%)8

(5.4%)4

(2.8%)4.44

legal ability 15095

(63.3%)35

(23.3%)13

(8.7%)5

(3.3%)2

(1.4%)4.44


(68.5%)30

(20.1%)10

(6.7%)6

(4.0%)1

(0.7%)4.52

communication 15095

(63.3%)31

(20.7%)18

(12.0%)5

(3.3%)1

(0.7%)4.43


(62.8%)29

(21.2%)16

(11.7%)4

(2.9%)2

(1.4%)4.41


(64.2%)34

(23.0%)12

(8.1%)5

(3.4%)2

(1.3%)4.45

22B • JiMMy lAirD Myers


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.0%)25

(19.1%)17

(13.0%)9

(6.9%)4

(3.0%)4.22

legal ability 13140

(30.5%)32

(24.4%)24

(18.3%)22

(16.8%)13

(10.0%)3.49


(54.2%)29

(22.1%)20

(15.3%)6

(4.6%)5

(3.8%)4.18

communication 12953

(41.1%)34

(26.4%)25

(19.4%)12

(9.3%)5

(3.8%)3.91


(35.4%)31

(27.4%)26

(23.0%)9

(8.0%)7

(6.2%)3.78


(41.2%)31

(23.7%)27

(20.6%)13

(9.9%)6

(4.6%)3.87





disTricT courT Judges | district 22b, conTinued

22B • roD Penry


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(61.4%)38

(29.9%)4

(3.1%)4

(3.1%)3

(2.5%)4.45

legal ability 12865

(50.8%)40

(31.3%)16

(12.5%)3

(2.3%)4

(3.1%)4.24


(63.0%)33

(26.0%)9

(7.1%)3

(2.4%)2

(1.5%)4.46

communication 12777

(60.6%)35

(27.6%)9

(7.1%)4

(3.1%)2

(1.6%)4.43


(58.3%)38

(33.0%)8

(7.0%)0

(0.0%)2

(1.7%)4.46


(59.1%)38

(29.9%)7

(5.5%)5

(3.9%)2

(1.6%)4.41

22B • CArlton terry


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(46.6%)29

(22.1%)19

(14.5%)14

(10.7%)8

(6.1%)3.92

legal ability 13258

(43.9%)44

(33.3%)20

(15.2%)7

(5.3%)3

(2.3%)4.11


(45.9%)32

(24.1%)22

(16.5%)12

(9.0%)6

(4.5%)3.98

communication 13364

(48.1%)30

(22.6%)25

(18.8%)9

(6.8%)5

(3.7%)4.05


(39.7%)37

(31.9%)22

(19.0%)7

(6.0%)4

(3.4%)3.98


(39.1%)43

(32.3%)24

(18.0%)11

(8.3%)3

(2.3%)3.98

22B • APril C. WooD


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(34.6%)26

(20.0%)26

(20.0%)21

(16.2%)12

(9.2%)3.55

legal ability 13040

(30.8%)35

(26.9%)24

(18.5%)19

(14.6%)12

(9.2%)3.55


(31.5%)26

(20.0%)25

(19.2%)23

(17.7%)15

(11.6%)3.42

communication 12748

(37.8%)30

(23.6%)22

(17.3%)14

(11.0%)13

(10.3%)3.68


(33.6%)22

(20.0%)13

(11.8%)22

(20.0%)16

(14.6%)3.38


(30.8%)30

(23.1%)28

(21.5%)20

(15.4%)12

(9.2%)3.51






23 • DAviD v. ByrD


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(38.1%)22

(34.9%)11

(17.5%)5

(7.9%)1

(1.6%)4.00

legal ability 6225

(40.3%)22

(35.5%)9

(14.5%)5

(8.1%)1

(1.6%)4.05


(33.9%)24

(38.7%)10

(16.1%)5

(8.1%)2

(3.2%)3.92

communication 6121

(34.4%)21

(34.4%)11

(18.0%)6

(9.8%)2

(3.4%)3.87


(29.6%)16

(29.6%)12

(22.2%)7

(13.0%)3

(5.6%)3.65


(31.7%)25

(39.7%)12

(19.0%)5

(7.9%)1

(1.7%)3.92

23 • MiChAel D. DunCAn


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.7%)15

(21.4%)2

(2.9%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.73

legal ability 7048

(68.6%)17

(24.3%)5

(7.1%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.61


(78.9%)13

(18.3%)2

(2.8%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.76

communication 7154

(76.1%)15

(21.1%)2

(2.8%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.73


(72.7%)13

(19.7%)5

(7.6%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.65


(77.1%)14

(20.0%)2

(2.9%)0

(0.0%)0

(0.0%)4.74






24 • WArren huGhes


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(73.6%)6

(11.3%)3

(5.7%)4

(7.5%)1

(1.9%)4.47

legal ability 5329

(54.7%)16

(30.2%)4

(7.5%)3

(5.7%)1

(1.9%)4.30


(71.7%)12

(22.6%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.9%)4.60

communication 5336

(67.9%)14

(26.4%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.9%)1

(1.9%)4.57


(67.3%)13

(26.5%)0

(0.0%)2

(4.1%)1

(2.1%)4.53


(66.7%)10

(19.6%)3

(5.9%)3

(5.9%)1

(1.9%)4.43






25 • BoB BrADy


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(54.8%)28

(33.3%)7

(8.3%)3

(3.6%)0

(0.0%)4.39

legal ability 8441

(48.8%)29

(34.5%)12

(14.3%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.30


(59.5%)24

(28.6%)8

(9.5%)2

(2.4%)0

(0.0%)4.45

communication 8440

(47.6%)30

(35.7%)7

(8.3%)6

(7.1%)1

(1.3%)4.21


(49.4%)20

(25.3%)12

(15.2%)6

(7.6%)2

(2.5%)4.11


(45.9%)32

(37.6%)10

(11.8%)4

(4.7%)0

(0.0%)4.25

25 • sherri Wilson elliott


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.3%)21

(24.1%)10

(11.5%)5

(5.7%)2

(2.4%)4.26

legal ability 8743

(49.4%)26

(29.9%)11

(12.6%)5

(5.7%)2

(2.4%)4.18


(46.6%)34

(38.6%)7

(8.0%)4

(4.5%)2

(2.3%)4.23

communication 8646

(53.5%)24

(27.9%)10

(11.6%)4

(4.7%)2

(2.3%)4.26


(53.1%)24

(29.6%)8

(9.9%)3

(3.7%)3

(3.7%)4.25


(51.7%)28

(31.5%)9

(10.1%)4

(4.5%)2

(2.2%)4.26

25 • GreGory r. (GreG) hAyes


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(31.5%)29

(26.1%)24

(21.6%)14

(12.6%)9

(8.2%)3.60

legal ability 10836

(33.3%)31

(28.7%)29

(26.9%)7

(6.5%)5

(4.6%)3.80


(32.7%)26

(23.6%)26

(23.6%)13

(11.8%)9

(8.3%)3.61

communication 10944

(40.4%)33

(30.3%)23

(21.1%)6

(5.5%)3

(2.7%)4.00


(32.0%)30

(30.9%)25

(25.8%)7

(7.2%)4

(4.1%)3.79


(33.6%)25

(22.7%)31

(28.2%)13

(11.8%)4

(3.7%)3.71






25 • MArK KilliAn


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(77.3%)9

(10.2%)6

(6.8%)3

(3.4%)2

(2.3%)4.57

legal ability 8855

(62.5%)20

(22.7%)8

(9.1%)3

(3.4%)2

(2.3%)4.40


(74.7%)14

(16.1%)5

(5.7%)2

(2.3%)1

(1.2%)4.61

communication 8553

(62.4%)24

(28.2%)6

(7.1%)1

(1.2%)1

(1.1%)4.49


(54.5%)24

(31.2%)9

(11.7%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)4.36


(66.7%)20

(23.0%)4

(4.6%)3

(3.4%)2

(2.3%)4.48

25 • roBert A. MullinAx Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(67.3%)17

(16.8%)9

(8.9%)7

(7.0%)0

(0.0%)4.45

legal ability 10057

(57.0%)28

(28.0%)9

(9.0%)6

(6.0%)0

(0.0%)4.36


(62.0%)26

(26.0%)6

(6.0%)6

(6.0%)0

(0.0%)4.44

communication 10061

(61.0%)27

(27.0%)7

(7.0%)5

(5.0%)0

(0.0%)4.44


(53.8%)32

(35.2%)6

(6.6%)4

(4.4%)0

(0.0%)4.38


(62.4%)24

(23.8%)9

(8.9%)5

(4.9%)0

(0.0%)4.44

25 • AMy siGMon WAlKer


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(49.5%)25

(24.3%)18

(17.5%)6

(5.8%)3

(2.9%)4.12

legal ability 10242

(41.2%)29

(28.4%)20

(19.6%)7

(6.9%)4

(3.9%)3.96


(38.2%)36

(35.3%)16

(15.7%)8

(7.8%)3

(3.0%)3.98

communication 10242

(41.2%)39

(38.2%)12

(11.8%)5

(4.9%)4

(3.9%)4.08


(38.9%)27

(30.0%)21

(23.3%)2

(2.2%)5

(5.6%)3.94


(37.6%)33

(32.7%)19

(18.8%)8

(7.9%)3

(3.0%)3.94






26 • DonAlD Cureton Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(70.0%)45

(22.2%)11

(5.4%)3

(1.5%)2

(0.9%)4.59


(53.7%)68

(33.5%)18

(8.9%)5

(2.5%)3

(1.4%)4.35


(73.7%)40

(19.5%)9

(4.4%)3

(1.5%)2

(0.9%)4.63


(61.5%)60

(30.0%)11

(5.5%)3

(1.5%)3

(1.5%)4.49


(58.7%)50

(27.2%)18

(9.8%)5

(2.7%)3

(1.6%)4.39


(64.0%)56

(27.6%)11

(5.4%)4

(2.0%)2

(1.0%)4.52

26 • riCKye Mckoy-mitcHell


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(64.9%)52

(18.4%)35

(12.4%)7

(2.5%)5

(1.8%)4.42


(49.5%)65

(23.1%)46

(16.4%)18

(6.4%)13

(4.6%)4.06


(63.6%)65

(22.7%)30

(10.5%)5

(1.7%)4

(1.5%)4.45


(57.1%)61

(21.8%)47

(16.8%)7

(2.5%)5

(1.8%)4.30


(51.6%)62

(24.8%)35

(14.0%)16

(6.4%)8

(3.2%)4.15


(55.0%)63

(22.3%)46

(16.3%)14

(5.0%)4

(1.4%)4.24

26 • PAiGe B. MctHenia


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(71.0%)30

(13.6%)21

(9.5%)2

(0.9%)11

(5.0%)4.45


(65.5%)40

(18.2%)23

(10.5%)4

(1.8%)9

(4.0%)4.39


(70.7%)41

(18.5%)15

(6.8%)0

(0.0%)9

(4.0%)4.52


(66.1%)46

(20.8%)20

(9.0%)1

(0.5%)8

(3.6%)4.45


(63.2%)45

(22.4%)18

(9.0%)1

(0.5%)10

(4.9%)4.38


(66.4%)44

(20.0%)21

(9.5%)1

(0.5%)8

(3.6%)4.45






26 • reGAn A. Miller


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(63.0%)65

(21.3%)26

(8.5%)15

(4.9%)7

(2.3%)4.38


(52.1%)80

(26.4%)27

(8.9%)24

(7.9%)14

(4.7%)4.14


(63.0%)67

(22.1%)24

(7.9%)12

(4.0%)9

(3.0%)4.38


(56.5%)77

(25.6%)33

(11.0%)9

(3.0%)12

(3.9%)4.28


(58.3%)56

(20.3%)33

(12.0%)12

(4.3%)14

(5.1%)4.22


(55.9%)81

(26.6%)25

(8.2%)19

(6.3%)9

(3.0%)4.26

26 • theo nixon


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(47.9%)57

(20.4%)34

(12.1%)29

(10.4%)26

(9.2%)3.87


(50.7%)70

(24.8%)28

(9.9%)18

(6.4%)23

(8.2%)4.04


(43.4%)62

(22.1%)43

(15.3%)28

(10.0%)26

(9.2%)3.80


(44.8%)69

(24.9%)40

(14.4%)19

(6.9%)25

(9.0%)3.90


(46.1%)73

(28.7%)24

(9.4%)18

(7.1%)22

(8.7%)3.96


(42.6%)75

(27.1%)36

(13.0%)21

(7.6%)27

(9.7%)3.85

26 • MAtt osMAn


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(52.4%)53

(22.7%)27

(11.6%)12

(5.2%)19

(8.1%)4.06


(51.3%)58

(25.2%)34

(14.8%)4

(1.7%)16

(7.0%)4.12


(49.8%)38

(16.3%)41

(17.6%)12

(5.2%)26

(11.1%)3.88


(46.5%)56

(24.3%)33

(14.3%)10

(4.3%)24

(10.6%)3.92


(50.9%)54

(25.5%)29

(13.7%)5

(2.4%)16

(7.5%)4.10


(50.0%)49

(21.5%)34

(14.9%)12

(5.3%)19

(8.3%)4.00






26 • seAn sMith


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(41.6%)56

(24.8%)41

(18.1%)16

(7.1%)19

(8.4%)3.84

legal ability 22196

(43.4%)62

(28.1%)33

(14.9%)15

(6.8%)15

(6.8%)3.95


(38.9%)52

(23.0%)39

(17.3%)22

(9.7%)25

(11.1%)3.69

communication 22380

(35.9%)65

(29.1%)40

(17.9%)16

(7.2%)22

(9.9%)3.74


(42.5%)57

(28.5%)29

(14.5%)11

(5.5%)18

(9.0%)3.90


(35.2%)71

(32.4%)36

(16.4%)14

(6.4%)21

(9.6%)3.77

26 • BeCKy thorne tin


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(61.9%)56

(20.1%)31

(11.2%)4

(1.4%)15

(5.4%)4.32


(62.6%)69

(24.8%)17

(6.1%)11

(4.0%)7

(2.5%)4.41


(60.8%)65

(23.4%)24

(8.6%)11

(4.0%)9

(3.2%)4.35


(60.4%)73

(26.5%)22

(8.0%)6

(2.2%)8

(2.9%)4.39


(60.8%)62

(24.8%)20

(8.0%)8

(3.2%)8

(3.2%)4.37


(59.9%)66

(23.8%)28

(10.1%)9

(3.2%)8

(3.0%)4.35






27A • rAlPh C. GinGles Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(67.5%)16

(13.7%)13

(11.1%)5

(4.3%)4

(3.4%)4.38

legal ability 11664

(55.2%)28

(24.1%)18

(15.5%)3

(2.6%)3

(2.6%)4.27


(68.6%)20

(16.9%)11

(9.3%)3

(2.5%)3

(2.7%)4.47

communication 11669

(59.5%)27

(23.3%)15

(12.9%)3

(2.6%)2

(1.7%)4.36


(58.3%)25

(23.1%)14

(13.0%)4

(3.7%)2

(1.9%)4.32


(62.6%)24

(20.9%)12

(10.4%)4

(3.5%)3

(2.6%)4.37

27A • MiChAel K. lAnDs


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(32.2%)22

(24.4%)14

(15.6%)8

(8.9%)17

(18.9%)3.42

legal ability 9123

(25.3%)28

(30.8%)17

(18.7%)10

(11.0%)13

(14.2%)3.42


(28.9%)18

(20.0%)14

(15.6%)13

(14.4%)19

(21.1%)3.21

communication 9020

(22.2%)24

(26.7%)17

(18.9%)11

(12.2%)18

(20.0%)3.19


(28.9%)18

(23.7%)15

(19.7%)8

(10.5%)13

(17.2%)3.37


(27.5%)19

(20.9%)17

(18.7%)14

(15.4%)16

(17.5%)3.25






27B • Ali PAKsoy Jr.


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(79.0%)12

(14.8%)2

(2.5%)0

(0.0%)3

(3.7%)4.65

legal ability 8147

(58.0%)25

(30.9%)6

(7.4%)1

(1.2%)2

(2.5%)4.41


(74.1%)16

(19.8%)2

(2.5%)1

(1.2%)2

(2.4%)4.62

communication 8153

(65.4%)22

(27.2%)4

(4.9%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.5%)4.53


(65.3%)22

(29.3%)1

(1.3%)1

(1.3%)2

(2.8%)4.53


(66.7%)22

(27.2%)1

(1.2%)2

(2.5%)2

(2.4%)4.53






28 • eDWin D. Clontz


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(43.9%)24

(22.4%)14

(13.1%)7

(6.5%)15

(14.1%)3.76

legal ability 10431

(29.8%)22

(21.2%)18

(17.3%)17

(16.3%)16

(15.4%)3.34


(38.7%)29

(27.4%)13

(12.3%)9

(8.5%)14

(13.1%)3.70

communication 10629

(27.4%)24

(22.6%)17

(16.0%)17

(16.0%)19

(18.0%)3.25


(30.4%)21

(22.8%)20

(21.7%)8

(8.7%)15

(16.4%)3.42


(29.8%)25

(24.0%)18

(17.3%)13

(12.5%)17

(16.4%)3.38

28 • susAn M. Dotson-sMith


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(54.3%)30

(23.3%)18

(14.0%)2

(1.6%)9

(6.8%)4.16

legal ability 12661

(48.4%)26

(20.6%)16

(12.7%)10

(7.9%)13

(10.4%)3.89


(56.6%)19

(14.7%)20

(15.5%)7

(5.4%)10

(7.8%)4.07

communication 12561

(48.8%)30

(24.0%)17

(13.6%)5

(4.0%)12

(9.6%)3.98


(50.0%)20

(17.5%)20

(17.5%)7

(6.1%)10

(8.9%)3.94


(50.0%)25

(20.2%)22

(17.7%)5

(4.0%)10

(8.1%)4.00

28 • Julie M. KePPle


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(74.8%)20

(18.7%)4

(3.7%)2

(1.9%)1

(0.9%)4.64

legal ability 10873

(67.6%)23

(21.3%)10

(9.3%)1

(0.9%)1

(0.9%)4.54


(80.6%)15

(13.9%)4

(3.7%)2

(1.8%)0

(0.0%)4.73

communication 10687

(82.1%)14

(13.2%)3

(2.8%)2

(1.9%)0

(0.0%)4.75


(69.9%)21

(22.6%)5

(5.4%)2

(2.1%)0

(0.0%)4.60


(79.0%)15

(14.3%)4

(3.8%)3

(2.9%)0

(0.0%)4.70






28 • WArD D. sCott


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(73.4%)21

(19.3%)3

(2.8%)1

(0.9%)4

(3.6%)4.58

legal ability 10883

(76.9%)18

(16.7%)3

(2.8%)1

(0.9%)3

(2.7%)4.64


(71.3%)21

(19.4%)4

(3.7%)1

(0.9%)5

(4.7%)4.52

communication 10879

(73.1%)18

(16.7%)4

(3.7%)1

(0.9%)6

(5.6%)4.51


(72.6%)17

(17.9%)4

(4.2%)1

(1.1%)4

(4.2%)4.54


(73.3%)19

(18.1%)3

(2.9%)1

(1.0%)5

(4.7%)4.54

28 • PAtriCiA KAuFMAnn younG


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(41.1%)30

(24.2%)20

(16.1%)12

(9.7%)11

(8.9%)3.79

legal ability 12247

(38.5%)41

(33.6%)20

(16.4%)7

(5.7%)7

(5.8%)3.93


(34.7%)30

(24.2%)22

(17.7%)14

(11.3%)15

(12.1%)3.58

communication 12241

(33.6%)33

(27.0%)27

(22.1%)5

(4.1%)16

(13.2%)3.64


(35.8%)29

(27.4%)17

(16.0%)11

(10.4%)11

(10.4%)3.68


(31.9%)37

(31.1%)22

(18.5%)12

(10.1%)10

(8.4%)3.68






29A • roBert K. MArtelle


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(57.5%)8

(20.0%)6

(15.0%)1

(2.5%)2

(5.0%)4.23

legal ability 4122

(53.7%)9

(22.0%)7

(17.1%)2

(4.9%)1

(2.3%)4.20


(56.1%)8

(19.5%)6

(14.6%)2

(4.9%)2

(4.9%)4.17

communication 4123

(56.1%)8

(19.5%)8

(19.5%)1

(2.4%)1

(2.5%)4.24


(51.4%)7

(18.9%)7

(18.9%)1

(2.7%)3

(8.1%)4.03


(48.8%)10

(24.4%)8

(19.5%)0

(0.0%)3

(7.3%)4.07

29A • C. rAnDy Pool


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(56.0%)11

(14.7%)13

(17.3%)7

(9.3%)2

(2.7%)4.12

legal ability 7437

(50.0%)20

(27.0%)10

(13.5%)4

(5.4%)3

(4.1%)4.14


(55.3%)14

(18.4%)9

(11.8%)7

(9.2%)4

(5.3%)4.09

communication 7435

(47.3%)21

(28.4%)10

(13.5%)5

(6.8%)3

(4.0%)4.08


(47.1%)18

(26.5%)9

(13.2%)5

(7.4%)4

(5.8%)4.01


(47.3%)21

(28.4%)11

(14.9%)5

(6.8%)2

(2.6%)4.11

29A • lAurA Anne PoWell


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(75.0%)10

(16.7%)2

(3.3%)2

(3.3%)1

(1.7%)4.60

legal ability 5941

(69.5%)12

(20.3%)4

(6.8%)2

(3.4%)0

(0.0%)4.56


(73.3%)10

(16.7%)2

(3.3%)2

(3.3%)2

(3.4%)4.53

communication 5939

(66.1%)15

(25.4%)2

(3.4%)3

(5.1%)0

(0.0%)4.53


(66.7%)13

(22.8%)2

(3.5%)2

(3.5%)2

(3.5%)4.46


(66.7%)13

(22.8%)2

(3.5%)3

(5.3%)1

(1.7%)4.47






30 • KristinA l. eArWooD


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(55.6%)20

(24.7%)11

(13.6%)1

(1.2%)4

(4.9%)4.25

legal ability 8032

(40.0%)25

(31.3%)16

(20.0%)2

(2.5%)5

(6.2%)3.96


(46.3%)20

(25.0%)12

(15.0%)4

(5.0%)7

(8.7%)3.95

communication 8043

(53.8%)19

(23.8%)11

(13.8%)3

(3.8%)4

(4.8%)4.18


(48.6%)22

(30.6%)9

(12.5%)3

(4.2%)3

(4.1%)4.15


(44.4%)26

(32.1%)12

(14.8%)4

(4.9%)3

(3.8%)4.09

30 • DonnA ForGA


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(60.9%)21

(22.8%)8

(8.7%)1

(1.1%)6

(6.5%)4.30

legal ability 9039

(43.3%)29

(32.2%)13

(14.4%)2

(2.2%)7

(7.9%)4.01


(59.3%)17

(18.7%)9

(9.9%)3

(3.3%)8

(8.8%)4.16

communication 9049

(54.4%)22

(24.4%)12

(13.3%)1

(1.1%)6

(6.8%)4.19


(47.6%)26

(31.7%)11

(13.4%)1

(1.2%)5

(6.1%)4.13


(47.3%)28

(30.8%)12

(13.2%)2

(2.2%)6

(6.5%)4.10

30 • roy WiJeWiCKrAMA


excellent (5)

good (4)

average (3)

below average (2)

Poor (1)

average rating


(58.8%)25

(25.8%)8

(8.2%)4

(4.1%)3

(3.1%)4.33

legal ability 9647

(49.0%)30

(31.3%)14

(14.6%)4

(4.2%)1

(0.9%)4.23


(64.6%)19

(19.8%)11

(11.5%)2

(2.1%)2

(2.0%)4.43

communication 9658

(60.4%)26

(27.1%)10

(10.4%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.1%)4.44


(55.2%)22

(25.3%)15

(17.2%)0

(0.0%)2

(2.3%)4.31


(58.3%)22

(22.9%)12

(12.5%)5

(5.2%)1

(1.1%)4.32

SURVEY RESULTS - North Carolina Bar Association · SURVEY RESULTS NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION...

Documents

Transcript of SURVEY RESULTS - North Carolina Bar Association · SURVEY RESULTS NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION...