JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY – PHASE I
SURVEY RESULTSNORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION JANUARY 2014
January 2014 | Page 1
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
Table of conTenTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
table of contents
3 | Preface
5 | suPerior court Judge categorical averages
6 | district court Judge categorical averages
individual suPerior court Judge rePorts
10 | Marvin K. blounT iii (3a)
10 | charles h. henry (4b)
10 | Paul c. ridgeway (10a)
11 | Paul g. gessner (10c)
11 | ThoMas h. locK (11b)
11 | carl r. fox (15b)
12 | allen baddour (15b)
12 | ed wilson (17a)
12 | sTuarT albrighT (18c)
13 | w. erwin sPainhour (19a)
13 | v. bradford long (19b)
13 | MarK e. Klass (22b)
14 | c. ThoMas edwards (25a)
14 | richard boner (26b)
14 | bob bell (26c)
15 | Jesse b. caldwell iii (27a)
15 | MarK e. Powell (29b)
individual district court Judge rePorts
district 1
16 | eula e. reid
16 | roberT P. TriveTTe
district 2
17 | darrell b. cayTon Jr.
17 | regina r. ParKer
district 3a
18 | gwyn hilburn
district 4
19 | Paul a. hardison
19 | sarah c. seaTon
district 5
20 | JaMes henry faison iii
20 | Melinda h. crouch
20 | chad hogsTon
district 6b
21 | ThoMas l. Jones Jr.
district 7
22 | Pell cooPer
district 8
23 | beTh heaTh
district 9a
24 | MarK galloway
district 9b
25 | J. henry banKs
district 10
26 | Kris d. bailey
26 | Michael J. denning
26 | MargareT eagles
27 | KeiTh o’brien gregory
27 | ned w. ManguM
27 | louis Meyer
28 | vince roZier Jr.
district 11
29 | caron h. sTewarT
29 | addie rawls
district 12
30 | TalMage (Tal) baggeTT
30 | george J. franKs
30 | david h. hasTy
31 | Toni s. King
31 | roberT sTiehl
district 13
32 | williaM f. fairley
32 | sherry dew Prince
district 14
33 | PaT evans
33 | nancy e. gordon
33 | JaMes T. (JiM) hill
34 | Marcia h. Morey
34 | doreTTa walKer
34 | brian c. wilKs
district 15a
35 | brad allen
district 15b
36 | JosePh (Joe) Moody bucKner
district 16a
37 | regina M. Joe
January 2014 | Page 2
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
Table of conTenTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
table of contents, conTinued
district 16b
38 | J. sTanley carMical
38 | John b. carTer Jr.
38 | herberT l. richardson
district 17a
39 | sTanley l. (sTan) allen
39 | fred wilKins
district 17b
40 | sPencer g. Key Jr.
40 | charles M. (chucK) neaves Jr.
40 | angela b. PucKeTT
district 18
41 | wendy M. enochs
41 | h. ThoMas (ToM) Jarrell Jr.
district 19a
42 | brenT cloninger
42 | williaM g. haMby Jr.
42 | donna h. Johnson
43 | MarTin b. (MarTy) Mcgee
district 19b
44 | scoTT eTheridge
44 | lee w. gavin
44 | Jayrene russell Maness
district 19c
45 | charlie brown
45 | beTh s. dixon
45 | Kevin eddinger
district 20a
46 | scoTT T. brewer
46 | williaM c. (bill) TucKer
district 21
47 | george a. bedsworTh
47 | denise s. harTsfield
47 | lisa v. Menefee
district 22a
48 | h. ThoMas church
district 22b
49 | Mary fowler covingTon
49 | wayne l. Michael
49 | JiMMy laird Myers
50 | rod Penry
50 | carlTon Terry
50 | aPril c. wood
district 23
51 | david v. byrd
51 | Michael d. duncan
district 24
52 | warren hughes
district 25
53 | bob brady
53 | sherri wilson ellioTT
53 | gregory r. (greg) hayes
54 | MarK Killian
54 | roberT a. Mullinax Jr.
54 | aMy sigMon walKer
district 26
55 | donald cureTon Jr.
55 | ricKye McKoy-MiTchell
55 | Paige b. McThenia
56 | regan a. Miller
56 | Theo nixon
56 | MaTT osMan
57 | sean sMiTh
57 | becKy Thorne Tin
district 27a
58 | ralPh c. gingles Jr.
58 | Michael K. lands
district 27b
59 | ali PaKsoy Jr.
district 28
60 | edwin d. clonTZ
60 | susan M. doTson-sMiTh
60 | Julie M. KePPle
61 | ward d. scoTT
61 | PaTricia KaufMann young
district 29a
62 | roberT K. MarTelle
62 | c. randy Pool
62 | laura anne Powell
district 30
63 | KrisTina l. earwood
63 | donna forga
63 | roy wiJewicKraMa
January 2014 | Page 3
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
Preface
norTh carolina bar associaTion
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
January 2014 | Page 4
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
Preface
norTh carolina bar associaTion
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
January 2014 | Page 5
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
suPerior courT Judge caTegorical averages
norTh carolina bar associaTion
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
January 2014 | Page 6
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
disTricT courT Judge caTegorical averages
norTh carolina bar associaTion
district court Judge categorical averages
district Judge name integrity & imPartiality legal ability Professionalism communication administrative
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
January 2014 | Page 7
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
disTricT courT Judge caTegorical averages
norTh carolina bar associaTion
district court Judge categorical averages, conTinued
district Judge name integrity & imPartiality legal ability Professionalism communication administrative
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
January 2014 | Page 8
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
disTricT courT Judge caTegorical averages
norTh carolina bar associaTion
district court Judge categorical averages, conTinued
district Judge name integrity & imPartiality legal ability Professionalism communication administrative
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
January 2014 | Page 9
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
disTricT courT Judge caTegorical averages
norTh carolina bar associaTion
district court Judge categorical averages, conTinued
district Judge name integrity & imPartiality legal ability Professionalism communication administrative
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
January 2014 | Page 10
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
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
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 239185
(77.4%)32
(13.4%)16
(6.7%)4
(1.7%)2
(0.8%)4.65
legal ability 243162
(66.7%)57
(23.5%)19
(7.8%)4
(1.6%)1
(0.4%)4.54
Professionalism 241197
(81.7%)28
(11.6%)10
(4.1%)4
(1.7%)2
(0.9%)4.72
communication 235161
(68.5%)52
(22.1%)15
(6.4%)6
(2.6%)1
(0.4%)4.56
administrative skills 199127
(63.8%)48
(24.1%)13
(6.5%)7
(3.5%)4
(2.1%)4.44
overall Performance 237167
(70.5%)46
(19.4%)17
(7.2%)5
(2.1%)2
(0.8%)4.57
10A • PAul C. riDGeWAy
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 825670
(81.2%)108
(13.1%)28
(3.4%)9
(1.1%)10
(1.2%)4.72
legal ability 822661
(80.4%)118
(14.4%)33
(4.0%)7
(0.9%)3
(0.3%)4.74
Professionalism 829726
(87.6%)83
(10.0%)13
(1.6%)4
(0.5%)3
(0.3%)4.84
communication 804646
(80.3%)128
(15.9%)25
(3.1%)3
(0.4%)2
(0.3%)4.76
administrative skills 677528
(78.0%)130
(19.2%)16
(2.4%)3
(0.4%)0
(0.0%)4.75
overall Performance 815665
(81.6%)114
(14.0%)26
(3.2%)3
(0.4%)7
(0.8%)4.75
January 2014 | Page 11
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
suPerior court Judges, conTinued
10C • PAul G. Gessner
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 671392
(58.4%)140
(20.9%)73
(10.9%)33
(4.9%)33
(4.9%)4.23
legal ability 671349
(52.0%)193
(28.8%)85
(12.7%)26
(3.9%)18
(2.6%)4.24
Professionalism 669435
(65.0%)138
(20.6%)56
(8.4%)20
(3.0%)20
(3.0%)4.42
communication 656407
(62.0%)168
(25.6%)59
(9.0%)13
(2.0%)9
(1.4%)4.45
administrative skills 552322
(58.3%)162
(29.3%)54
(9.8%)6
(1.1%)8
(1.5%)4.42
overall Performance 665382
(57.4%)166
(25.0%)64
(9.6%)30
(4.5%)23
(3.5%)4.28
11B • thoMAs h. loCK
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 367208
(56.7%)88
(24.0%)31
(8.4%)24
(6.5%)16
(4.4%)4.22
legal ability 366201
(54.9%)110
(30.1%)35
(9.6%)12
(3.3%)8
(2.1%)4.32
Professionalism 366245
(66.9%)71
(19.4%)32
(8.7%)7
(1.9%)11
(3.1%)4.45
communication 357206
(57.7%)101
(28.3%)34
(9.5%)9
(2.5%)7
(2.0%)4.37
administrative skills 306186
(60.8%)71
(23.2%)30
(9.8%)10
(3.3%)9
(2.9%)4.36
overall Performance 363204
(56.2%)101
(27.8%)30
(8.3%)17
(4.7%)11
(3.0%)4.29
15B • CArl r. Fox
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 899645
(71.7%)169
(18.8%)51
(5.7%)27
(3.0%)7
(0.8%)4.58
legal ability 890535
(60.1%)220
(24.7%)95
(10.7%)26
(2.9%)14
(1.6%)4.39
Professionalism 892647
(72.5%)168
(18.8%)50
(5.6%)16
(1.8%)11
(1.3%)4.60
communication 874592
(67.7%)201
(23.0%)61
(7.0%)12
(1.4%)8
(0.9%)4.55
administrative skills 742452
(60.9%)196
(26.4%)67
(9.0%)19
(2.6%)8
(1.1%)4.44
overall Performance 881567
(64.4%)222
(25.2%)62
(7.0%)22
(2.5%)8
(0.9%)4.50
January 2014 | Page 12
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
suPerior court Judges, conTinued
15B • Allen BADDour
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 719359
(49.9%)176
(24.5%)81
(11.3%)58
(8.1%)45
(6.2%)4.04
legal ability 717360
(50.2%)177
(24.7%)99
(13.8%)44
(6.1%)37
(5.2%)4.09
Professionalism 717380
(53.0%)152
(21.2%)71
(9.9%)58
(8.1%)56
(7.8%)4.03
communication 698347
(49.7%)177
(25.4%)96
(13.8%)37
(5.3%)41
(5.8%)4.08
administrative skills 575294
(51.1%)161
(28.0%)71
(12.3%)25
(4.3%)24
(4.3%)4.18
overall Performance 709330
(46.5%)179
(25.2%)91
(12.8%)58
(8.2%)51
(7.3%)3.96
17A • eD Wilson
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 362303
(83.7%)38
(10.5%)18
(5.0%)3
(0.8%)0
(0.0%)4.77
legal ability 356269
(75.6%)64
(18.0%)18
(5.1%)5
(1.3%)0
(0.0%)4.68
Professionalism 359302
(84.1%)40
(11.1%)14
(3.9%)3
(0.9%)0
(0.0%)4.79
communication 349269
(77.1%)61
(17.5%)15
(4.3%)4
(1.1%)0
(0.0%)4.70
administrative skills 296220
(74.3%)62
(20.9%)10
(3.4%)4
(1.4%)0
(0.0%)4.68
overall Performance 356282
(79.2%)55
(15.4%)15
(4.2%)4
(1.2%)0
(0.0%)4.73
18C • stuArt AlBriGht
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 627382
(60.9%)93
(14.8%)51
(8.1%)54
(8.6%)47
(7.6%)4.13
legal ability 624348
(55.8%)153
(24.5%)79
(12.7%)28
(4.5%)16
(2.5%)4.26
Professionalism 622389
(62.5%)111
(17.8%)66
(10.6%)29
(4.7%)27
(4.4%)4.30
communication 618354
(57.3%)148
(23.9%)78
(12.6%)22
(3.6%)16
(2.6%)4.30
administrative skills 512305
(59.6%)132
(25.8%)56
(10.9%)11
(2.1%)8
(1.6%)4.40
overall Performance 616351
(57.0%)125
(20.3%)67
(10.9%)47
(7.6%)26
(4.2%)4.18
January 2014 | Page 13
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
suPerior court Judges, conTinued
19A • W. erWin sPAinhour
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 640502
(78.4%)72
(11.3%)28
(4.4%)20
(3.1%)18
(2.8%)4.59
legal ability 641510
(79.6%)89
(13.9%)33
(5.1%)5
(0.8%)4
(0.6%)4.71
Professionalism 640507
(79.2%)78
(12.2%)33
(5.2%)11
(1.7%)11
(1.7%)4.65
communication 628471
(75.0%)111
(17.7%)32
(5.1%)8
(1.3%)6
(0.9%)4.64
administrative skills 530405
(76.4%)88
(16.6%)25
(4.7%)8
(1.5%)4
(0.8%)4.66
overall Performance 631492
(78.0%)77
(12.2%)39
(6.2%)16
(2.5%)7
(1.1%)4.63
19B • v. BrADForD lonG
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 348262
(75.3%)56
(16.1%)16
(4.6%)12
(3.4%)2
(0.6%)4.62
legal ability 347227
(65.4%)83
(23.9%)27
(7.8%)8
(2.3%)2
(0.6%)4.51
Professionalism 347270
(77.8%)53
(15.3%)18
(5.2%)5
(1.4%)1
(0.3%)4.69
communication 341257
(75.4%)60
(17.6%)21
(6.2%)1
(0.3%)2
(0.5%)4.67
administrative skills 296214
(72.3%)62
(20.9%)19
(6.4%)1
(0.4%)0
(0.0%)4.65
overall Performance 342246
(71.9%)69
(20.2%)18
(5.3%)7
(2.0%)2
(0.6%)4.61
22B • MArK e. KlAss
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 444302
(68.0%)98
(22.1%)24
(5.4%)10
(2.3%)10
(2.2%)4.51
legal ability 441224
(50.8%)140
(31.7%)52
(11.8%)12
(2.7%)13
(3.0%)4.25
Professionalism 441287
(65.1%)111
(25.2%)31
(7.0%)7
(1.6%)5
(1.1%)4.51
communication 435261
(60.0%)128
(29.4%)28
(6.4%)15
(3.4%)3
(0.8%)4.45
administrative skills 379216
(57.0%)116
(30.6%)36
(9.5%)5
(1.3%)6
(1.6%)4.40
overall Performance 439263
(59.9%)122
(27.8%)37
(8.4%)8
(1.8%)9
(2.1%)4.42
January 2014 | Page 14
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
suPerior court Judges, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
25A • C. thoMAs eDWArDs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 13388
(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
Professionalism 13268
(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
administrative skills 11964
(53.8%)32
(26.9%)17
(14.3%)3
(2.5%)3
(2.5%)4.27
overall Performance 13273
(55.3%)37
(28.0%)15
(11.4%)5
(3.8%)2
(1.5%)4.32
26B • riChArD Boner
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 639369
(57.7%)155
(24.3%)66
(10.3%)29
(4.5%)20
(3.2%)4.29
legal ability 639338
(52.9%)188
(29.4%)77
(12.1%)21
(3.3%)15
(2.3%)4.27
Professionalism 640350
(54.7%)147
(23.0%)70
(10.9%)44
(6.9%)29
(4.5%)4.16
communication 633305
(48.2%)185
(29.2%)77
(12.2%)40
(6.3%)26
(4.1%)4.11
administrative skills 550299
(54.4%)150
(27.3%)61
(11.1%)22
(4.0%)18
(3.2%)4.25
overall Performance 633326
(51.5%)185
(29.2%)69
(10.9%)33
(5.2%)20
(3.2%)4.21
26C • BoB Bell
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 348217
(62.4%)78
(22.4%)32
(9.2%)10
(2.9%)11
(3.1%)4.38
legal ability 351177
(50.4%)122
(34.8%)31
(8.8%)12
(3.4%)9
(2.6%)4.27
Professionalism 348198
(56.9%)92
(26.4%)34
(9.8%)11
(3.2%)13
(3.7%)4.30
communication 345170
(49.3%)119
(34.5%)39
(11.3%)6
(1.7%)11
(3.2%)4.25
administrative skills 296147
(49.7%)99
(33.4%)33
(11.1%)7
(2.4%)10
(3.4%)4.24
overall Performance 352179
(50.9%)115
(32.7%)38
(10.8%)8
(2.3%)12
(3.3%)4.25
January 2014 | Page 15
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual suPerior courT Judge rePorTs
suPerior court Judges, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
27A • Jesse B. CAlDWell iii
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 534385
(72.1%)94
(17.6%)30
(5.6%)13
(2.4%)12
(2.3%)4.55
legal ability 531336
(63.3%)138
(26.0%)42
(7.9%)8
(1.5%)7
(1.3%)4.48
Professionalism 530368
(69.4%)93
(17.5%)36
(6.8%)16
(3.0%)17
(3.3%)4.47
communication 522359
(68.8%)103
(19.7%)39
(7.5%)8
(1.5%)13
(2.5%)4.51
administrative skills 440280
(63.6%)99
(22.5%)31
(7.0%)18
(4.1%)12
(2.8%)4.40
overall Performance 524353
(67.4%)111
(21.2%)36
(6.9%)18
(3.4%)6
(1.1%)4.50
29B • MArK e. PoWell
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 200126
(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
Professionalism 198118
(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
administrative skills 15987
(54.7%)52
(32.7%)17
(10.7%)2
(1.3%)1
(0.6%)4.40
overall Performance 20193
(46.3%)73
(36.3%)27
(13.4%)5
(2.5%)3
(1.5%)4.23
January 2014 | Page 16
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
individual district court Judge rePorts
disTricT courT Judges | district 1
norTh carolina bar associaTion
1 • eulA e. reiD
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7746
(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
Professionalism 8053
(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
administrative skills 6436
(56.3%)20
(31.3%)5
(7.8%)2
(3.1%)1
(1.5%)4.38
overall Performance 7736
(46.8%)28
(36.4%)8
(10.4%)4
(5.2%)1
(1.2%)4.22
1 • roBert P. trivette
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8049
(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
Professionalism 7949
(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
administrative skills 6137
(60.7%)13
(21.3%)10
(16.4%)1
(1.6%)0
(0.0%)4.41
overall Performance 7844
(56.4%)22
(28.2%)11
(14.1%)1
(1.3%)0
(0.0%)4.40
January 2014 | Page 17
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 2
norTh carolina bar associaTion
2 • DArrell B. CAyton Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8750
(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
Professionalism 8649
(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
administrative skills 6640
(60.6%)13
(19.7%)9
(13.6%)3
(4.5%)1
(1.6%)4.33
overall Performance 8649
(57.0%)15
(17.4%)11
(12.8%)9
(10.5%)2
(2.3%)4.16
2 • reGinA r. PArKer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9973
(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
Professionalism 9975
(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
administrative skills 8255
(67.1%)19
(23.2%)6
(7.3%)0
(0.0%)2
(2.4%)4.52
overall Performance 9868
(69.4%)23
(23.5%)4
(4.1%)1
(1.0%)2
(2.0%)4.57
January 2014 | Page 18
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 3a
norTh carolina bar associaTion
3A • GWyn hilBurn
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12898
(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
Professionalism 12898
(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
administrative skills 11373
(64.6%)19
(16.8%)12
(10.6%)5
(4.4%)4
(3.6%)4.35
overall Performance 12788
(69.3%)19
(15.0%)11
(8.7%)3
(2.4%)6
(4.6%)4.42
January 2014 | Page 19
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 4
norTh carolina bar associaTion
4 • PAul A. hArDison
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12579
(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
Professionalism 12581
(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
administrative skills 11267
(59.8%)21
(18.8%)12
(10.7%)6
(5.4%)6
(5.3%)4.22
overall Performance 12575
(60.0%)27
(21.6%)12
(9.6%)7
(5.6%)4
(3.2%)4.30
4 • sArAh C. seAton
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9761
(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
Professionalism 9663
(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
administrative skills 8857
(64.8%)17
(19.3%)8
(9.1%)2
(2.3%)4
(4.5%)4.38
overall Performance 9661
(63.5%)17
(17.7%)8
(8.3%)4
(4.2%)6
(6.3%)4.28
January 2014 | Page 20
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 5
norTh carolina bar associaTion
5 • JAMes henry FAison iii
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 150119
(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
Professionalism 150131
(87.3%)14
(9.3%)4
(2.7%)0
(0.0%)1
(0.7%)4.83
communication 148107
(72.3%)31
(20.9%)8
(5.4%)2
(1.4%)0
(0.0%)4.64
administrative skills 12384
(68.3%)30
(24.4%)8
(6.5%)1
(0.8%)0
(0.0%)4.60
overall Performance 149101
(67.8%)39
(26.2%)6
(4.0%)3
(2.0%)0
(0.0%)4.60
5 • MelinDA h. CrouCh
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10952
(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
Professionalism 10952
(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
administrative skills 8436
(42.9%)21
(25.0%)13
(15.5%)7
(8.3%)7
(8.3%)3.86
overall Performance 10844
(40.7%)30
(27.8%)19
(17.6%)7
(6.5%)8
(7.4%)3.88
5 • ChAD hoGston
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10753
(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
Professionalism 10659
(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
administrative skills 8747
(54.0%)28
(32.2%)8
(9.2%)2
(2.3%)2
(2.3%)4.33
overall Performance 10648
(45.3%)41
(38.7%)11
(10.4%)4
(3.8%)2
(1.8%)4.22
January 2014 | Page 21
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 6b
norTh carolina bar associaTion
6B • thoMAs l. Jones Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 4841
(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
Professionalism 4740
(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
administrative skills 4435
(79.5%)7
(15.9%)0
(0.0%)0
(0.0%)2
(4.6%)4.66
overall Performance 4739
(83.0%)5
(10.6%)1
(2.1%)0
(0.0%)2
(4.3%)4.68
January 2014 | Page 22
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 7
7 • Pell CooPer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8463
(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
Professionalism 8564
(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
administrative skills 7645
(59.2%)12
(15.8%)14
(18.4%)3
(3.9%)2
(2.7%)4.25
overall Performance 8552
(61.2%)14
(16.5%)14
(16.4%)5
(5.9%)0
(0.0%)4.33
January 2014 | Page 23
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 8
norTh carolina bar associaTion
8 • Beth heAth
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8462
(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
Professionalism 8564
(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
administrative skills 7646
(60.5%)21
(27.6%)6
(7.9%)1
(1.3%)2
(2.7%)4.42
overall Performance 8456
(66.7%)18
(21.4%)7
(8.3%)3
(3.6%)0
(0.0%)4.51
January 2014 | Page 24
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 9a
norTh carolina bar associaTion
9A • MArK GAlloWAy
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 11480
(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
Professionalism 11383
(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
administrative skills 10567
(63.8%)23
(21.9%)7
(6.7%)4
(3.8%)4
(3.8%)4.38
overall Performance 11477
(67.5%)26
(22.8%)4
(3.5%)4
(3.5%)3
(2.7%)4.49
January 2014 | Page 25
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 9b
norTh carolina bar associaTion
9B • J. henry BAnKs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9152
(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
Professionalism 9056
(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
administrative skills 8344
(53.0%)20
(24.1%)9
(10.8%)5
(6.0%)5
(6.1%)4.12
overall Performance 8949
(55.1%)19
(21.3%)14
(15.7%)3
(3.4%)4
(4.5%)4.19
January 2014 | Page 26
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 10
norTh carolina bar associaTion
10 • Kris D. BAiley
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 25685
(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
Professionalism 25383
(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
administrative skills 20558
(28.3%)68
(33.2%)54
(26.3%)16
(7.8%)9
(4.4%)3.73
overall Performance 24960
(24.1%)87
(34.9%)62
(24.9%)30
(12.0%)10
(4.1%)3.63
10 • MiChAel J. DenninG
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 271133
(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
Professionalism 269150
(55.8%)72
(26.8%)31
(11.5%)12
(4.5%)4
(1.4%)4.31
communication 269119
(44.2%)88
(32.7%)42
(15.6%)15
(5.6%)5
(1.9%)4.12
administrative skills 239104
(43.5%)78
(32.6%)39
(16.3%)11
(4.6%)7
(3.0%)4.09
overall Performance 270110
(40.7%)89
(33.0%)48
(17.8%)17
(6.3%)6
(2.2%)4.04
10 • MArGAret eAGles
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 361217
(60.1%)76
(21.1%)42
(11.6%)17
(4.7%)9
(2.5%)4.32
legal ability 357188
(52.7%)100
(28.0%)43
(12.0%)17
(4.8%)9
(2.5%)4.24
Professionalism 360216
(60.0%)88
(24.4%)34
(9.4%)14
(3.9%)8
(2.3%)4.36
communication 352187
(53.1%)105
(29.8%)39
(11.1%)16
(4.5%)5
(1.5%)4.29
administrative skills 308163
(52.9%)95
(30.8%)32
(10.4%)12
(3.9%)6
(2.0%)4.29
overall Performance 357196
(54.9%)96
(26.9%)42
(11.8%)16
(4.5%)7
(1.9%)4.28
January 2014 | Page 27
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 10, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
10 • Keith o'Brien GreGory
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 312138
(44.2%)63
(20.2%)43
(13.8%)29
(9.3%)39
(12.5%)3.74
legal ability 308116
(37.7%)78
(25.3%)52
(16.9%)29
(9.4%)33
(10.7%)3.70
Professionalism 312133
(42.6%)66
(21.2%)45
(14.4%)29
(9.3%)39
(12.5%)3.72
communication 307134
(43.6%)68
(22.1%)56
(18.2%)23
(7.5%)26
(8.6%)3.85
administrative skills 265120
(45.3%)60
(22.6%)46
(17.4%)16
(6.0%)23
(8.7%)3.90
overall Performance 307123
(40.1%)74
(24.1%)44
(14.3%)31
(10.1%)35
(11.4%)3.71
10 • neD W. MAnGuM
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 364245
(67.3%)84
(23.1%)24
(6.6%)8
(2.2%)3
(0.8%)4.54
legal ability 363233
(64.2%)99
(27.3%)25
(6.9%)3
(0.8%)3
(0.8%)4.53
Professionalism 367258
(70.3%)83
(22.6%)19
(5.2%)5
(1.4%)2
(0.5%)4.61
communication 364240
(65.9%)94
(25.8%)21
(5.8%)5
(1.4%)4
(1.1%)4.54
administrative skills 318195
(61.3%)101
(31.8%)15
(4.7%)5
(1.6%)2
(0.6%)4.52
overall Performance 360236
(65.6%)97
(26.9%)18
(5.0%)6
(1.7%)3
(0.8%)4.55
10 • louis Meyer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 302157
(52.0%)54
(17.9%)40
(13.2%)20
(6.6%)31
(10.3%)3.95
legal ability 302130
(43.0%)53
(17.5%)42
(13.9%)29
(9.6%)48
(16.0%)3.62
Professionalism 301166
(55.1%)61
(20.3%)40
(13.3%)11
(3.7%)23
(7.6%)4.12
communication 294138
(46.9%)69
(23.5%)43
(14.6%)19
(6.5%)25
(8.5%)3.94
administrative skills 258114
(44.2%)54
(20.9%)46
(17.8%)14
(5.4%)30
(11.7%)3.81
overall Performance 297132
(44.4%)60
(20.2%)48
(16.2%)26
(8.8%)31
(10.4%)3.79
January 2014 | Page 28
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 10, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
10 • vinCe rozier Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 422280
(66.4%)86
(20.4%)29
(6.9%)14
(3.3%)13
(3.0%)4.44
legal ability 422234
(55.5%)114
(27.0%)49
(11.6%)10
(2.4%)15
(3.5%)4.28
Professionalism 428287
(67.1%)90
(21.0%)34
(7.9%)5
(1.2%)12
(2.8%)4.48
communication 419265
(63.2%)96
(22.9%)39
(9.3%)9
(2.1%)10
(2.5%)4.42
administrative skills 364221
(60.7%)99
(27.2%)28
(7.7%)7
(1.9%)9
(2.5%)4.42
overall Performance 422259
(61.4%)101
(23.9%)43
(10.2%)8
(1.9%)11
(2.6%)4.40
January 2014 | Page 29
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 11
norTh carolina bar associaTion
11 • CAron h. steWArt
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10750
(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
Professionalism 10755
(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
administrative skills 9840
(40.8%)33
(33.7%)11
(11.2%)7
(7.1%)7
(7.2%)3.94
overall Performance 10643
(40.6%)31
(29.2%)18
(17.0%)6
(5.7%)8
(7.5%)3.90
11 • ADDie rAWls
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 15894
(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
Professionalism 15984
(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
administrative skills 14174
(52.5%)33
(23.4%)21
(14.9%)9
(6.4%)4
(2.8%)4.16
overall Performance 15985
(53.5%)44
(27.7%)20
(12.6%)7
(4.4%)3
(1.8%)4.26
January 2014 | Page 30
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 12
norTh carolina bar associaTion
12 • tAlMAGe (tAl) BAGGett
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8443
(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
Professionalism 8444
(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
administrative skills 7132
(45.1%)25
(35.2%)11
(15.5%)1
(1.4%)2
(2.8%)4.18
overall Performance 8538
(44.7%)29
(34.1%)12
(14.1%)4
(4.7%)2
(2.4%)4.14
12 • GeorGe J. FrAnKs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8253
(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
Professionalism 8250
(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
administrative skills 7341
(56.2%)14
(19.2%)16
(21.9%)1
(1.4%)1
(1.3%)4.27
overall Performance 8344
(53.0%)23
(27.7%)12
(14.5%)4
(4.8%)0
(0.0%)4.29
12 • DAviD h. hAsty
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7535
(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
Professionalism 7536
(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
administrative skills 6324
(38.1%)24
(38.1%)8
(12.7%)4
(6.3%)3
(4.8%)3.98
overall Performance 7631
(40.8%)32
(42.1%)11
(14.5%)1
(1.3%)1
(1.3%)4.20
January 2014 | Page 31
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 12, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
12 • toni s. KinG
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8866
(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
Professionalism 8764
(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
administrative skills 7748
(62.3%)22
(28.6%)4
(5.2%)3
(3.9%)0
(0.0%)4.49
overall Performance 8859
(67.0%)23
(26.1%)3
(3.4%)2
(2.3%)1
(1.2%)4.56
12 • roBert stiehl
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10559
(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
Professionalism 10555
(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
administrative skills 8945
(50.6%)21
(23.6%)12
(13.5%)7
(7.9%)4
(4.4%)4.08
overall Performance 10552
(49.5%)28
(26.7%)14
(13.3%)6
(5.7%)5
(4.8%)4.10
January 2014 | Page 32
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 13
norTh carolina bar associaTion
13 • WilliAM F. FAirley
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7663
(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
Professionalism 7562
(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
administrative skills 6953
(76.8%)13
(18.8%)2
(2.9%)1
(1.5%)0
(0.0%)4.71
overall Performance 7461
(82.4%)11
(14.9%)0
(0.0%)2
(2.7%)0
(0.0%)4.77
13 • sherry DeW PrinCe
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7538
(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
Professionalism 7441
(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
administrative skills 6534
(52.3%)22
(33.8%)4
(6.2%)3
(4.6%)2
(3.1%)4.28
overall Performance 7337
(50.7%)18
(24.7%)6
(8.2%)8
(11.0%)4
(5.4%)4.04
January 2014 | Page 33
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 14
norTh carolina bar associaTion
14 • PAt evAns
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 21263
(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
Professionalism 21566
(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
administrative skills 17552
(29.7%)34
(19.4%)26
(14.9%)19
(10.9%)44
(25.1%)3.18
overall Performance 21164
(30.3%)38
(18.0%)32
(15.2%)28
(13.3%)49
(23.2%)3.19
14 • nAnCy e. GorDon
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 26758
(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
Professionalism 26841
(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
administrative skills 22658
(25.7%)52
(23.0%)43
(19.0%)25
(11.1%)48
(21.2%)3.21
overall Performance 26843
(16.0%)52
(19.4%)44
(16.4%)54
(20.1%)75
(28.1%)2.75
14 • JAMes t. (JiM) hill
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 247141
(57.1%)57
(23.1%)29
(11.7%)7
(2.8%)13
(5.3%)4.24
legal ability 246116
(47.2%)82
(33.3%)30
(12.2%)13
(5.3%)5
(2.0%)4.18
Professionalism 247132
(53.4%)68
(27.5%)26
(10.5%)10
(4.0%)11
(4.6%)4.21
communication 246129
(52.4%)76
(30.9%)26
(10.6%)5
(2.0%)10
(4.1%)4.26
administrative skills 214111
(51.9%)65
(30.4%)25
(11.7%)8
(3.7%)5
(2.3%)4.26
overall Performance 247121
(49.0%)80
(32.4%)27
(10.9%)9
(3.6%)10
(4.1%)4.19
January 2014 | Page 34
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 14, conTinued
norTh carolina bar associaTion
14 • MArCiA h. Morey
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 269153
(56.9%)70
(26.0%)24
(8.9%)13
(4.8%)9
(3.4%)4.28
legal ability 271151
(55.7%)77
(28.4%)30
(11.1%)6
(2.2%)7
(2.6%)4.32
Professionalism 269165
(61.3%)60
(22.3%)25
(9.3%)13
(4.8%)6
(2.3%)4.36
communication 266146
(54.9%)78
(29.3%)29
(10.9%)5
(1.9%)8
(3.0%)4.31
administrative skills 248135
(54.4%)74
(29.8%)25
(10.1%)5
(2.0%)9
(3.7%)4.29
overall Performance 269145
(53.9%)83
(30.9%)25
(9.3%)11
(4.1%)5
(1.8%)4.31
14 • DorettA WAlKer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 23480
(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
Professionalism 23673
(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
administrative skills 19156
(29.3%)48
(25.1%)49
(25.7%)21
(11.0%)17
(8.9%)3.55
overall Performance 23562
(26.4%)53
(22.6%)62
(26.4%)38
(16.2%)20
(8.4%)3.42
14 • BriAn C. WilKs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 199108
(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
Professionalism 201113
(56.2%)48
(23.9%)29
(14.4%)7
(3.5%)4
(2.0%)4.29
communication 196101
(51.5%)60
(30.6%)22
(11.2%)10
(5.1%)3
(1.6%)4.26
administrative skills 17488
(50.6%)51
(29.3%)24
(13.8%)7
(4.0%)4
(2.3%)4.22
overall Performance 19999
(49.7%)54
(27.1%)32
(16.1%)13
(6.5%)1
(0.6%)4.19
January 2014 | Page 35
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 15a
15A • BrAD Allen
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 14773
(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
Professionalism 14866
(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
administrative skills 12968
(52.7%)33
(25.6%)19
(14.7%)4
(3.1%)5
(3.9%)4.20
overall Performance 14763
(42.9%)36
(24.5%)22
(15.0%)15
(10.2%)11
(7.4%)3.85
January 2014 | Page 36
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 15b
15B • JosePh (Joe) MooDy BuCKner
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 308187
(60.7%)54
(17.5%)32
(10.4%)21
(6.8%)14
(4.6%)4.23
legal ability 308180
(58.4%)75
(24.4%)33
(10.7%)13
(4.2%)7
(2.3%)4.32
Professionalism 310178
(57.4%)68
(21.9%)29
(9.4%)23
(7.4%)12
(3.9%)4.22
communication 307188
(61.2%)64
(20.8%)33
(10.7%)12
(3.9%)10
(3.4%)4.33
administrative skills 294188
(63.9%)56
(19.0%)24
(8.2%)12
(4.1%)14
(4.8%)4.33
overall Performance 305179
(58.7%)65
(21.3%)36
(11.8%)18
(5.9%)7
(2.3%)4.28
January 2014 | Page 37
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
disTricT courT Judges | district 16a
norTh carolina bar associaTion
16A • reGinA M. Joe
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7657
(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
Professionalism 7762
(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
administrative skills 7052
(74.3%)10
(14.3%)6
(8.6%)1
(1.4%)1
(1.4%)4.59
overall Performance 7655
(72.4%)15
(19.7%)3
(3.9%)2
(2.6%)1
(1.4%)4.59
January 2014 | Page 38
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 16b
16B • J. stAnley CArMiCAl
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6657
(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
Professionalism 6858
(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
administrative skills 6453
(82.8%)10
(15.6%)1
(1.6%)0
(0.0%)0
(0.0%)4.81
overall Performance 6757
(85.1%)8
(11.9%)2
(3.0%)0
(0.0%)0
(0.0%)4.82
16B • John B. CArter Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 5438
(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
Professionalism 5436
(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
administrative skills 4929
(59.2%)11
(22.4%)4
(8.2%)3
(6.1%)2
(4.1%)4.27
overall Performance 5335
(66.0%)9
(17.0%)7
(13.2%)2
(3.8%)0
(0.0%)4.45
16B • herBert l. riChArDson
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6240
(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
Professionalism 6338
(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
administrative skills 5435
(64.8%)16
(29.6%)1
(1.9%)1
(1.9%)1
(1.8%)4.54
overall Performance 6438
(59.4%)18
(28.1%)4
(6.3%)2
(3.1%)2
(3.1%)4.38
January 2014 | Page 39
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 17a
17A • stAnley l. (stAn) Allen
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6732
(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
Professionalism 6733
(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
administrative skills 6031
(51.7%)18
(30.0%)6
(10.0%)4
(6.7%)1
(1.6%)4.23
overall Performance 6632
(48.5%)20
(30.3%)8
(12.1%)6
(9.1%)0
(0.0%)4.18
17A • FreD WilKins
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6742
(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
Professionalism 6843
(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
administrative skills 6339
(61.9%)14
(22.2%)6
(9.5%)0
(0.0%)4
(6.4%)4.33
overall Performance 6841
(60.3%)17
(25.0%)4
(5.9%)3
(4.4%)3
(4.4%)4.32
January 2014 | Page 40
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 17b
17B • sPenCer G. Key Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7544
(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
Professionalism 7542
(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
administrative skills 6933
(47.8%)19
(27.5%)10
(14.5%)5
(7.2%)2
(3.0%)4.10
overall Performance 7538
(50.7%)25
(33.3%)10
(13.3%)1
(1.3%)1
(1.4%)4.31
17B • ChArles M. (ChuCK) neAves Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9565
(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
Professionalism 9565
(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
administrative skills 8956
(62.9%)25
(28.1%)5
(5.6%)1
(1.1%)2
(2.3%)4.48
overall Performance 9765
(67.0%)22
(22.7%)7
(7.2%)2
(2.1%)1
(1.0%)4.53
17B • AnGelA B. PuCKett
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7428
(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
Professionalism 7428
(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
administrative skills 6723
(34.3%)19
(28.4%)11
(16.4%)4
(6.0%)10
(14.9%)3.61
overall Performance 7423
(31.1%)19
(25.7%)17
(23.0%)8
(10.8%)7
(9.4%)3.58
January 2014 | Page 41
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 18
18 • WenDy M. enoChs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 234131
(56.0%)59
(25.2%)30
(12.8%)6
(2.6%)8
(3.4%)4.28
legal ability 235119
(50.6%)72
(30.6%)29
(12.3%)8
(3.4%)7
(3.1%)4.23
Professionalism 234142
(60.7%)53
(22.6%)24
(10.3%)6
(2.6%)9
(3.8%)4.34
communication 234125
(53.4%)67
(28.6%)30
(12.8%)2
(0.9%)10
(4.3%)4.26
administrative skills 220124
(56.4%)58
(26.4%)21
(9.5%)7
(3.2%)10
(4.5%)4.27
overall Performance 232125
(53.9%)63
(27.2%)31
(13.4%)5
(2.2%)8
(3.3%)4.26
18 • h. thoMAs (toM) JArrell Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 250161
(64.4%)56
(22.4%)16
(6.4%)10
(4.0%)7
(2.8%)4.42
legal ability 250151
(60.4%)70
(28.0%)25
(10.0%)4
(1.6%)0
(0.0%)4.47
Professionalism 250160
(64.0%)58
(23.2%)21
(8.4%)7
(2.8%)4
(1.6%)4.45
communication 248169
(68.1%)58
(23.4%)16
(6.5%)5
(2.0%)0
(0.0%)4.58
administrative skills 226143
(63.3%)56
(24.8%)17
(7.5%)8
(3.5%)2
(0.9%)4.46
overall Performance 247159
(64.4%)59
(23.9%)20
(8.1%)7
(2.8%)2
(0.8%)4.48
January 2014 | Page 42
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 19a
19A • Brent CloninGer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8653
(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
Professionalism 8747
(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
administrative skills 8237
(45.1%)24
(29.3%)11
(13.4%)5
(6.1%)5
(6.1%)4.01
overall Performance 8740
(46.0%)28
(32.2%)9
(10.3%)6
(6.9%)4
(4.6%)4.08
19A • WilliAM G. hAMBy Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 14087
(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
Professionalism 14188
(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
administrative skills 13172
(55.0%)31
(23.7%)14
(10.7%)7
(5.3%)7
(5.3%)4.18
overall Performance 14176
(53.9%)38
(27.0%)9
(6.4%)8
(5.7%)10
(7.0%)4.15
19A • DonnA h. Johnson
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8531
(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
Professionalism 8531
(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
administrative skills 8036
(45.0%)18
(22.5%)13
(16.3%)3
(3.8%)10
(12.4%)3.84
overall Performance 8431
(36.9%)16
(19.0%)11
(13.1%)14
(16.7%)12
(14.3%)3.48
January 2014 | Page 43
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 19a, conTinued
19A • MArtin B. (MArty) Mcgee
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 13287
(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
Professionalism 13481
(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
administrative skills 11964
(53.8%)26
(21.8%)15
(12.6%)8
(6.7%)6
(5.1%)4.13
overall Performance 13373
(54.9%)31
(23.3%)13
(9.8%)9
(6.8%)7
(5.2%)4.16
January 2014 | Page 44
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 19b
19B • sCott etheriDGe
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 11061
(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
Professionalism 11252
(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
administrative skills 10253
(52.0%)31
(30.4%)10
(9.8%)4
(3.9%)4
(3.9%)4.23
overall Performance 10850
(46.3%)35
(32.4%)16
(14.8%)2
(1.9%)5
(4.6%)4.14
19B • lee W. GAvin
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10863
(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
Professionalism 10758
(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
administrative skills 9848
(49.0%)23
(23.5%)15
(15.3%)4
(4.1%)8
(8.1%)4.01
overall Performance 10551
(48.6%)29
(27.6%)14
(13.3%)4
(3.8%)7
(6.7%)4.08
19B • JAyrene russell MAness
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10159
(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
Professionalism 10155
(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
administrative skills 9857
(58.2%)24
(24.5%)10
(10.2%)3
(3.1%)4
(4.0%)4.30
overall Performance 9948
(48.5%)32
(32.3%)11
(11.1%)2
(2.0%)6
(6.1%)4.15
January 2014 | Page 45
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 19c
19C • ChArlie BroWn
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9462
(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
Professionalism 9463
(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
administrative skills 8967
(75.3%)8
(9.0%)8
(9.0%)4
(4.5%)2
(2.2%)4.51
overall Performance 9464
(68.1%)13
(13.8%)5
(5.3%)9
(9.6%)3
(3.2%)4.34
19C • Beth s. Dixon
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8337
(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
Professionalism 8241
(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
administrative skills 7338
(52.1%)15
(20.5%)10
(13.7%)5
(6.8%)5
(6.9%)4.04
overall Performance 8138
(46.9%)17
(21.0%)14
(17.3%)6
(7.4%)6
(7.4%)3.93
19C • Kevin eDDinGer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6237
(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
Professionalism 6234
(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
administrative skills 5727
(47.4%)13
(22.8%)14
(24.6%)1
(1.8%)2
(3.4%)4.09
overall Performance 6234
(54.8%)13
(21.0%)12
(19.4%)1
(1.6%)2
(3.2%)4.23
January 2014 | Page 46
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 20a
20A • sCott t. BreWer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12134
(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
Professionalism 12233
(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
administrative skills 11042
(38.2%)25
(22.7%)17
(15.5%)8
(7.3%)18
(16.3%)3.59
overall Performance 11934
(28.6%)28
(23.5%)17
(14.3%)18
(15.1%)22
(18.5%)3.29
20A • WilliAM C. (Bill) tuCKer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8460
(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
Professionalism 8562
(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
administrative skills 7349
(67.1%)10
(13.7%)7
(9.6%)3
(4.1%)4
(5.5%)4.33
overall Performance 8255
(67.1%)15
(18.3%)5
(6.1%)5
(6.1%)2
(2.4%)4.41
January 2014 | Page 47
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 21
21 • GeorGe A. BeDsWorth
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 229150
(65.5%)47
(20.5%)14
(6.1%)10
(4.4%)8
(3.5%)4.40
legal ability 228120
(52.6%)74
(32.5%)15
(6.6%)9
(3.9%)10
(4.4%)4.25
Professionalism 229156
(68.1%)49
(21.4%)16
(7.0%)2
(0.9%)6
(2.6%)4.52
communication 226128
(56.6%)64
(28.3%)24
(10.6%)3
(1.3%)7
(3.2%)4.34
administrative skills 209104
(49.8%)71
(34.0%)20
(9.6%)8
(3.8%)6
(2.8%)4.24
overall Performance 228131
(57.5%)61
(26.8%)22
(9.6%)7
(3.1%)7
(3.0%)4.32
21 • Denise s. hArtsFielD
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 30194
(31.2%)55
(18.3%)42
(14.0%)48
(15.9%)62
(20.6%)3.24
legal ability 295104
(35.3%)62
(21.0%)69
(23.4%)28
(9.5%)32
(10.8%)3.60
Professionalism 29691
(30.7%)57
(19.3%)51
(17.2%)41
(13.9%)56
(18.9%)3.29
communication 289130
(45.0%)60
(20.8%)46
(15.9%)23
(8.0%)30
(10.3%)3.82
administrative skills 25692
(35.9%)49
(19.1%)49
(19.1%)30
(11.7%)36
(14.2%)3.51
overall Performance 29792
(31.0%)69
(23.2%)53
(17.8%)37
(12.5%)46
(15.5%)3.42
21 • lisA v. MeneFee
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 275182
(66.2%)66
(24.0%)17
(6.2%)4
(1.5%)6
(2.1%)4.51
legal ability 276174
(63.0%)75
(27.2%)13
(4.7%)6
(2.2%)8
(2.9%)4.45
Professionalism 276187
(67.8%)65
(23.6%)12
(4.3%)2
(0.7%)10
(3.6%)4.51
communication 275185
(67.3%)62
(22.5%)19
(6.9%)2
(0.7%)7
(2.6%)4.51
administrative skills 257176
(68.5%)55
(21.4%)13
(5.1%)3
(1.2%)10
(3.8%)4.49
overall Performance 277179
(64.6%)71
(25.6%)13
(4.7%)5
(1.8%)9
(3.3%)4.47
January 2014 | Page 48
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 22a
22A • h. thoMAs ChurCh
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10459
(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
Professionalism 10150
(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
administrative skills 8740
(46.0%)20
(23.0%)11
(12.6%)9
(10.3%)7
(8.1%)3.89
overall Performance 10248
(47.1%)25
(24.5%)17
(16.7%)8
(7.8%)4
(3.9%)4.03
January 2014 | Page 49
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 22b
22B • MAry FoWler CovinGton
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 15253
(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
Professionalism 15238
(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
administrative skills 13242
(31.8%)42
(31.8%)22
(16.7%)11
(8.3%)15
(11.4%)3.64
overall Performance 15344
(28.8%)41
(26.8%)40
(26.1%)12
(7.8%)16
(10.5%)3.56
22B • WAyne l. MiChAel
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 148101
(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
Professionalism 149102
(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
administrative skills 13786
(62.8%)29
(21.2%)16
(11.7%)4
(2.9%)2
(1.4%)4.41
overall Performance 14895
(64.2%)34
(23.0%)12
(8.1%)5
(3.4%)2
(1.3%)4.45
22B • JiMMy lAirD Myers
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 13176
(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
Professionalism 13171
(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
administrative skills 11340
(35.4%)31
(27.4%)26
(23.0%)9
(8.0%)7
(6.2%)3.78
overall Performance 13154
(41.2%)31
(23.7%)27
(20.6%)13
(9.9%)6
(4.6%)3.87
January 2014 | Page 50
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 22b, conTinued
22B • roD Penry
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12778
(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
Professionalism 12780
(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
administrative skills 11567
(58.3%)38
(33.0%)8
(7.0%)0
(0.0%)2
(1.7%)4.46
overall Performance 12775
(59.1%)38
(29.9%)7
(5.5%)5
(3.9%)2
(1.6%)4.41
22B • CArlton terry
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 13161
(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
Professionalism 13361
(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
administrative skills 11646
(39.7%)37
(31.9%)22
(19.0%)7
(6.0%)4
(3.4%)3.98
overall Performance 13352
(39.1%)43
(32.3%)24
(18.0%)11
(8.3%)3
(2.3%)3.98
22B • APril C. WooD
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 13045
(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
Professionalism 13041
(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
administrative skills 11037
(33.6%)22
(20.0%)13
(11.8%)22
(20.0%)16
(14.6%)3.38
overall Performance 13040
(30.8%)30
(23.1%)28
(21.5%)20
(15.4%)12
(9.2%)3.51
January 2014 | Page 51
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 23
23 • DAviD v. ByrD
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6324
(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
Professionalism 6221
(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
administrative skills 5416
(29.6%)16
(29.6%)12
(22.2%)7
(13.0%)3
(5.6%)3.65
overall Performance 6320
(31.7%)25
(39.7%)12
(19.0%)5
(7.9%)1
(1.7%)3.92
23 • MiChAel D. DunCAn
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7053
(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
Professionalism 7156
(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
administrative skills 6648
(72.7%)13
(19.7%)5
(7.6%)0
(0.0%)0
(0.0%)4.65
overall Performance 7054
(77.1%)14
(20.0%)2
(2.9%)0
(0.0%)0
(0.0%)4.74
January 2014 | Page 52
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 24
24 • WArren huGhes
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 5339
(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
Professionalism 5338
(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
administrative skills 4933
(67.3%)13
(26.5%)0
(0.0%)2
(4.1%)1
(2.1%)4.53
overall Performance 5134
(66.7%)10
(19.6%)3
(5.9%)3
(5.9%)1
(1.9%)4.43
January 2014 | Page 53
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 25
25 • BoB BrADy
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8446
(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
Professionalism 8450
(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
administrative skills 7939
(49.4%)20
(25.3%)12
(15.2%)6
(7.6%)2
(2.5%)4.11
overall Performance 8539
(45.9%)32
(37.6%)10
(11.8%)4
(4.7%)0
(0.0%)4.25
25 • sherri Wilson elliott
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8749
(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
Professionalism 8841
(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
administrative skills 8143
(53.1%)24
(29.6%)8
(9.9%)3
(3.7%)3
(3.7%)4.25
overall Performance 8946
(51.7%)28
(31.5%)9
(10.1%)4
(4.5%)2
(2.2%)4.26
25 • GreGory r. (GreG) hAyes
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 11135
(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
Professionalism 11036
(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
administrative skills 9731
(32.0%)30
(30.9%)25
(25.8%)7
(7.2%)4
(4.1%)3.79
overall Performance 11037
(33.6%)25
(22.7%)31
(28.2%)13
(11.8%)4
(3.7%)3.71
January 2014 | Page 54
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 25, conTinued
25 • MArK KilliAn
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8868
(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
Professionalism 8765
(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
administrative skills 7742
(54.5%)24
(31.2%)9
(11.7%)1
(1.3%)1
(1.3%)4.36
overall Performance 8758
(66.7%)20
(23.0%)4
(4.6%)3
(3.4%)2
(2.3%)4.48
25 • roBert A. MullinAx Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10168
(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
Professionalism 10062
(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
administrative skills 9149
(53.8%)32
(35.2%)6
(6.6%)4
(4.4%)0
(0.0%)4.38
overall Performance 10163
(62.4%)24
(23.8%)9
(8.9%)5
(4.9%)0
(0.0%)4.44
25 • AMy siGMon WAlKer
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10351
(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
Professionalism 10239
(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
administrative skills 9035
(38.9%)27
(30.0%)21
(23.3%)2
(2.2%)5
(5.6%)3.94
overall Performance 10138
(37.6%)33
(32.7%)19
(18.8%)8
(7.9%)3
(3.0%)3.94
January 2014 | Page 55
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 26
26 • DonAlD Cureton Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 203142
(70.0%)45
(22.2%)11
(5.4%)3
(1.5%)2
(0.9%)4.59
legal ability 203109
(53.7%)68
(33.5%)18
(8.9%)5
(2.5%)3
(1.4%)4.35
Professionalism 205151
(73.7%)40
(19.5%)9
(4.4%)3
(1.5%)2
(0.9%)4.63
communication 200123
(61.5%)60
(30.0%)11
(5.5%)3
(1.5%)3
(1.5%)4.49
administrative skills 184108
(58.7%)50
(27.2%)18
(9.8%)5
(2.7%)3
(1.6%)4.39
overall Performance 203130
(64.0%)56
(27.6%)11
(5.4%)4
(2.0%)2
(1.0%)4.52
26 • riCKye Mckoy-mitcHell
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 282183
(64.9%)52
(18.4%)35
(12.4%)7
(2.5%)5
(1.8%)4.42
legal ability 281139
(49.5%)65
(23.1%)46
(16.4%)18
(6.4%)13
(4.6%)4.06
Professionalism 286182
(63.6%)65
(22.7%)30
(10.5%)5
(1.7%)4
(1.5%)4.45
communication 280160
(57.1%)61
(21.8%)47
(16.8%)7
(2.5%)5
(1.8%)4.30
administrative skills 250129
(51.6%)62
(24.8%)35
(14.0%)16
(6.4%)8
(3.2%)4.15
overall Performance 282155
(55.0%)63
(22.3%)46
(16.3%)14
(5.0%)4
(1.4%)4.24
26 • PAiGe B. MctHenia
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 221157
(71.0%)30
(13.6%)21
(9.5%)2
(0.9%)11
(5.0%)4.45
legal ability 220144
(65.5%)40
(18.2%)23
(10.5%)4
(1.8%)9
(4.0%)4.39
Professionalism 222157
(70.7%)41
(18.5%)15
(6.8%)0
(0.0%)9
(4.0%)4.52
communication 221146
(66.1%)46
(20.8%)20
(9.0%)1
(0.5%)8
(3.6%)4.45
administrative skills 201127
(63.2%)45
(22.4%)18
(9.0%)1
(0.5%)10
(4.9%)4.38
overall Performance 220146
(66.4%)44
(20.0%)21
(9.5%)1
(0.5%)8
(3.6%)4.45
January 2014 | Page 56
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 26, conTinued
26 • reGAn A. Miller
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 305192
(63.0%)65
(21.3%)26
(8.5%)15
(4.9%)7
(2.3%)4.38
legal ability 303158
(52.1%)80
(26.4%)27
(8.9%)24
(7.9%)14
(4.7%)4.14
Professionalism 303191
(63.0%)67
(22.1%)24
(7.9%)12
(4.0%)9
(3.0%)4.38
communication 301170
(56.5%)77
(25.6%)33
(11.0%)9
(3.0%)12
(3.9%)4.28
administrative skills 276161
(58.3%)56
(20.3%)33
(12.0%)12
(4.3%)14
(5.1%)4.22
overall Performance 304170
(55.9%)81
(26.6%)25
(8.2%)19
(6.3%)9
(3.0%)4.26
26 • theo nixon
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 280134
(47.9%)57
(20.4%)34
(12.1%)29
(10.4%)26
(9.2%)3.87
legal ability 282143
(50.7%)70
(24.8%)28
(9.9%)18
(6.4%)23
(8.2%)4.04
Professionalism 281122
(43.4%)62
(22.1%)43
(15.3%)28
(10.0%)26
(9.2%)3.80
communication 277124
(44.8%)69
(24.9%)40
(14.4%)19
(6.9%)25
(9.0%)3.90
administrative skills 254117
(46.1%)73
(28.7%)24
(9.4%)18
(7.1%)22
(8.7%)3.96
overall Performance 277118
(42.6%)75
(27.1%)36
(13.0%)21
(7.6%)27
(9.7%)3.85
26 • MAtt osMAn
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 233122
(52.4%)53
(22.7%)27
(11.6%)12
(5.2%)19
(8.1%)4.06
legal ability 230118
(51.3%)58
(25.2%)34
(14.8%)4
(1.7%)16
(7.0%)4.12
Professionalism 233116
(49.8%)38
(16.3%)41
(17.6%)12
(5.2%)26
(11.1%)3.88
communication 230107
(46.5%)56
(24.3%)33
(14.3%)10
(4.3%)24
(10.6%)3.92
administrative skills 212108
(50.9%)54
(25.5%)29
(13.7%)5
(2.4%)16
(7.5%)4.10
overall Performance 228114
(50.0%)49
(21.5%)34
(14.9%)12
(5.3%)19
(8.3%)4.00
January 2014 | Page 57
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 26, conTinued
26 • seAn sMith
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 22694
(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
Professionalism 22688
(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
administrative skills 20085
(42.5%)57
(28.5%)29
(14.5%)11
(5.5%)18
(9.0%)3.90
overall Performance 21977
(35.2%)71
(32.4%)36
(16.4%)14
(6.4%)21
(9.6%)3.77
26 • BeCKy thorne tin
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 278172
(61.9%)56
(20.1%)31
(11.2%)4
(1.4%)15
(5.4%)4.32
legal ability 278174
(62.6%)69
(24.8%)17
(6.1%)11
(4.0%)7
(2.5%)4.41
Professionalism 278169
(60.8%)65
(23.4%)24
(8.6%)11
(4.0%)9
(3.2%)4.35
communication 275166
(60.4%)73
(26.5%)22
(8.0%)6
(2.2%)8
(2.9%)4.39
administrative skills 250152
(60.8%)62
(24.8%)20
(8.0%)8
(3.2%)8
(3.2%)4.37
overall Performance 277166
(59.9%)66
(23.8%)28
(10.1%)9
(3.2%)8
(3.0%)4.35
January 2014 | Page 58
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 27a
27A • rAlPh C. GinGles Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 11779
(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
Professionalism 11881
(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
administrative skills 10863
(58.3%)25
(23.1%)14
(13.0%)4
(3.7%)2
(1.9%)4.32
overall Performance 11572
(62.6%)24
(20.9%)12
(10.4%)4
(3.5%)3
(2.6%)4.37
27A • MiChAel K. lAnDs
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9029
(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
Professionalism 9026
(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
administrative skills 7622
(28.9%)18
(23.7%)15
(19.7%)8
(10.5%)13
(17.2%)3.37
overall Performance 9125
(27.5%)19
(20.9%)17
(18.7%)14
(15.4%)16
(17.5%)3.25
January 2014 | Page 59
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 27b
27B • Ali PAKsoy Jr.
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8164
(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
Professionalism 8160
(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
administrative skills 7549
(65.3%)22
(29.3%)1
(1.3%)1
(1.3%)2
(2.8%)4.53
overall Performance 8154
(66.7%)22
(27.2%)1
(1.2%)2
(2.5%)2
(2.4%)4.53
January 2014 | Page 60
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 28
28 • eDWin D. Clontz
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10747
(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
Professionalism 10641
(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
administrative skills 9228
(30.4%)21
(22.8%)20
(21.7%)8
(8.7%)15
(16.4%)3.42
overall Performance 10431
(29.8%)25
(24.0%)18
(17.3%)13
(12.5%)17
(16.4%)3.38
28 • susAn M. Dotson-sMith
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12970
(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
Professionalism 12973
(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
administrative skills 11457
(50.0%)20
(17.5%)20
(17.5%)7
(6.1%)10
(8.9%)3.94
overall Performance 12462
(50.0%)25
(20.2%)22
(17.7%)5
(4.0%)10
(8.1%)4.00
28 • Julie M. KePPle
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10780
(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
Professionalism 10887
(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
administrative skills 9365
(69.9%)21
(22.6%)5
(5.4%)2
(2.1%)0
(0.0%)4.60
overall Performance 10583
(79.0%)15
(14.3%)4
(3.8%)3
(2.9%)0
(0.0%)4.70
January 2014 | Page 61
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 28, conTinued
28 • WArD D. sCott
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 10980
(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
Professionalism 10877
(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
administrative skills 9569
(72.6%)17
(17.9%)4
(4.2%)1
(1.1%)4
(4.2%)4.54
overall Performance 10577
(73.3%)19
(18.1%)3
(2.9%)1
(1.0%)5
(4.7%)4.54
28 • PAtriCiA KAuFMAnn younG
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 12451
(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
Professionalism 12443
(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
administrative skills 10638
(35.8%)29
(27.4%)17
(16.0%)11
(10.4%)11
(10.4%)3.68
overall Performance 11938
(31.9%)37
(31.1%)22
(18.5%)12
(10.1%)10
(8.4%)3.68
January 2014 | Page 62
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 29a
29A • roBert K. MArtelle
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 4023
(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
Professionalism 4123
(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
administrative skills 3719
(51.4%)7
(18.9%)7
(18.9%)1
(2.7%)3
(8.1%)4.03
overall Performance 4120
(48.8%)10
(24.4%)8
(19.5%)0
(0.0%)3
(7.3%)4.07
29A • C. rAnDy Pool
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 7542
(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
Professionalism 7642
(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
administrative skills 6832
(47.1%)18
(26.5%)9
(13.2%)5
(7.4%)4
(5.8%)4.01
overall Performance 7435
(47.3%)21
(28.4%)11
(14.9%)5
(6.8%)2
(2.6%)4.11
29A • lAurA Anne PoWell
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 6045
(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
Professionalism 6044
(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
administrative skills 5738
(66.7%)13
(22.8%)2
(3.5%)2
(3.5%)2
(3.5%)4.46
overall Performance 5738
(66.7%)13
(22.8%)2
(3.5%)3
(5.3%)1
(1.7%)4.47
January 2014 | Page 63
Judicial Performance evaluation survey • PHase i
individual disTricT courT Judge rePorTs
norTh carolina bar associaTion
disTricT courT Judges | district 30
30 • KristinA l. eArWooD
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 8145
(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
Professionalism 8037
(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
administrative skills 7235
(48.6%)22
(30.6%)9
(12.5%)3
(4.2%)3
(4.1%)4.15
overall Performance 8136
(44.4%)26
(32.1%)12
(14.8%)4
(4.9%)3
(3.8%)4.09
30 • DonnA ForGA
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9256
(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
Professionalism 9154
(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
administrative skills 8239
(47.6%)26
(31.7%)11
(13.4%)1
(1.2%)5
(6.1%)4.13
overall Performance 9143
(47.3%)28
(30.8%)12
(13.2%)2
(2.2%)6
(6.5%)4.10
30 • roy WiJeWiCKrAMA
QualiTy number of resPonses
excellent (5)
good (4)
average (3)
below average (2)
Poor (1)
average rating
integrity & impartiality 9757
(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
Professionalism 9662
(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
administrative skills 8748
(55.2%)22
(25.3%)15
(17.2%)0
(0.0%)2
(2.3%)4.31
overall Performance 9656
(58.3%)22
(22.9%)12
(12.5%)5
(5.2%)1
(1.1%)4.32
Top Related