How the Judicial Screening Process
of the King County Bar Association Works
The King County Bar Association Judicial screening
process utilizes a representative body of the King County Bar
Association in its 73-member judicial screening committee. The committee
undertakes a fair and comprehensive rating process designed to create a
high quality bench and assist the public by providing them with
important information on judicial candidates. The King County Bar
Association invites judicial candidates for contested judicial elections
to participate in this thorough, three-part screening process.
Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire
First, candidates complete the Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire
from the Governor's Office. That questionnaire covers:
- Professional history;
- Bar association and professional
society membership;
- Nature and extent of law
practice;
- Trial experience;
- Significant matters handled;
- Judicial interest and
experience;
- Experience as a neutral
decision-maker;
- Significant mediation
experience;
- Educational background;
- Court committees or
administrative positions held;
- Public offices held;
- Professional and bar activities;
- Publications;
- Community and civic activities;
- Business leadership activities;
- Honors received;
- Statements of judicial interest
and philosophy.
Reference Checks
In order to insure full disclosure and candor, the portions of
the questionnaire related to checking references are used only by the
Judicial Screening Committee. Those portions cover questions of a
private or privileged nature regarding disciplinary matters, claims,
suits or complaints filed against the candidate, or other involvement as
a party in legal proceedings. References requested come from the
following categories, most of which cannot be avoided by the applicant,
including:
- Opposing counsel;
- Attorneys appearing before the
candidate as a judge or neutral
decision-maker;
- Non-attorneys;
- Judges and opposing counsel from
the last five trials in which the
candidate participated;
- Additional attorneys familiar
with the candidate's professional
qualifications, skills, experience
or attributes.
In addition, the candidates must complete a Supplemental
Questionnaire that requests additional references from the following
categories of attorneys:
- Past attorney supervisors or
attorneys who have reviewed and are
familiar with the candidate's work;
- Counsel and judges in appellate
matters.
Committee members are assigned to contact the listed
references by telephone. After being promised confidentiality, the
references are encouraged to speak with full candor about their own
knowledge of and experiences with the candidate and to evaluate the
candidate's qualifications, strengths, and weakness for the position
sought.
Candidate Interview
The Committee convenes with a panel of at least 12 members to carefully
review and consider the questionnaire, the information from the listed
references and conduct a twenty-minute personal interview with the
candidate. The interview consists of questions pertaining to
qualifications for the office as well as issues raised by the
questionnaire, reference checks, or other information received. The
candidate is provided an opportunity for closing remarks.
Thereafter, the Committee deliberates and, by secret
ballot, votes to rate the candidate, based upon the written criteria of
the Committee's Rules and Procedures. An adequate rating requires a
majority vote. The higher ratings require a "super-majority" vote of
two-thirds of the members present.
Rating Criteria
The criteria for rating candidates are uniform and objective and
have been used substantially in the same form for the past twenty-five
years. These criteria measure an individual's suitability to serve in a
judicial position. When applying the rating criteria, the screening
committee evaluates each candidate against the same criteria. There is
no ranking of candidates or comparison of one candidate against another.
The criteria are as follows:
- Maturity, integrity, courtesy,
intellectual honesty, fairness, good
judgment, curiosity, and common
sense;
- A demonstrated commitment to
equal justice under the law, and
fairness and open-mindedness with
sensitivity to and respect for all
persons, regardless of race, color,
sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, ancestry, religion,
political ideology, creed, age,
marital status, or physical or
mental handicap, disability, or
impairment. This commitment and
sensitivity can be evidenced by the
individual's involvement in
community affairs and activities,
professional practice, and personal
and professional background.
- The courage and ability to make
difficult decisions under stress.
- The competence, ability and
experience (which may include trial
experience) to manage pretrial and
trial proceedings, including
administrative proceedings,
arbitration, settlement conferences,
and commissioner or magistrate
responsibilities. It should include
an ability to address diverse
issues, weigh conflicting testimony,
apply the law to the facts,
understand the dynamics of the trial
or conflict resolution process, and
command respect from attorneys,
litigants, and other participants in
the process.
- The ability to work with a wide
variety of subject matter.
- Excellent legal ability and
confidence, and demonstrated
excellence in legal work and
practice.
- The energy and capacity for hard
work.
- The potential for ongoing
professional development and
demonstrated leadership in the
profession.
- The ability to communicate
clearly and effectively, orally and
in writing, with attorneys,
litigants, witnesses, and jurors.
- Interest and commitment to
working with other judges and court
administrators to improve the
administration of justice.
Rating Levels
Individual rating levels are: "Exceptionally Well
Qualified"-- "Well Qualified"-- "Qualified" -- "Not Qualified." The
Judicial screening committee also has the discretion to decline rating a
judicial candidate, with statements of reason –"Insufficient Information
to Rate" or "Declined to Participate" or to give a rating with the
notation, "Failed to Cooperate fully with the Judicial Screening
Committee." |
|