Judicial Performance Evaluatio

A well-designed and carefully administered judicial performance 

evaluation ( JPE) program can serve to improve the administration of 

justice and enhance public confidence in the judiciary. A JPE program 

provides feedback to help judges improve their performance and can 

be used to inform the development of appropriate judicial education 

programs. A JPE program can also promote accountability by setting 

forth neutral criteria about the competencies and qualities expected of 

judges. 

Goals of a JPE program

The development of a JPE program should be guided by its intended 

purpose. Is the goal of the program to assess the performance of new 

judges and give them feedback as they learn their judicial role? To 

provide information to individual judges at all experience levels to help 

them improve their performance? To make determinations as to promotion or reappointment? To bolster the accountability of the court to 

the public or another part of the government?

Considerations when creating a JPE Program 

The goal of the program affects many of its features:

• whether judges are required to undergo evaluation or can 

choose not to participate

• how often and when in a judge’s tenure an evaluation is conducted

• who has access to the results of the evaluation

• who is asked to provide feedback

• methods used to obtain feedback

• nature of the feedback that evaluators actually provide

Multiple performance evaluation tools may be needed if the program’s 

goals are multifaceted.

A judiciary should consider developing its own JPE program to 

ensure that the goals and methods of the program are appropriate. The 

program may be administered and developed by individual courts, a 

judicial council, the judiciary’s governing body, or in consultation with 

a judicial education or research institution.

A systemic JPE program is preferable to ad hoc judicial evaluations of judges. A systemic program is the best way to promote 

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance also asks 

about the judge’s service to the legal profession and the public. A number of programs use self-evaluation tools implemented independently 

by judges. Some states conduct evaluations only of first-instance 

judges, while others also have programs for appellate judges. In nine 

states, local bar associations distribute nonofficial judicial performance 

evaluation surveys.

Further Resources

The National Center for State Courts developed a resource guide 

for courts interested in implementing JPE, available at www.

ncsc.org/topics/judicial-officers/judicial-performance-evaluation/

resource-guide.aspx. The American Bar Association has published 

information about JPE programs, Black Letter Guidelines 

for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance (1985), available at www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/jd/

lawyersconf/pdf/jpec_ final.authcheckdam.pdf. The Institute for 

the Advancement of the American Legal System also has helpful 

information about the JPE process, including a complete list of 

state court judicial evaluation programs. See http://iaals.du.edu/

initiatives/quality-judges-initiative.

Federal Judicial Center

International Judicial Relations Office

One Columbus Circle NE

Washington DC 20002-8003

www.fjc.gov
accountability and minimize legitimate concerns about interference 

with judicial independence. In addition, although most judges want 

to know how they are doing and how they can improve, ethical and 

practical considerations may constrain individual judges from obtaining feedback on their own. 

Criteria to assess

It is important that evaluation criteria be based on neutral and quantifiable measures and not the substance of court rulings, thereby minimizing any potential that the program will be politicized or used to 

undermine judicial independence. Judicial attributes to assess include 

legal knowledge, integrity and impartiality, communication skills (oral 

and written), professionalism and temperament, and administrative 

skills (including case management). 

Gathering information about judicial performance

Information about judicial performance can be collected from a

number of sources, such as questionnaires or interviews with attorneys, court staff, law enforcement personnel, or litigants, as well

as observations by other judges or trained court observers. The judge 

being assessed also may complete a self-assessment tool. In addition, a judge’s written decisions and case disposition data may

be reviewed.

In most cases, judicial performance surveys allow for anonymous feedback from respondents and some degree of confidentiality of 

the results. Some court systems release judicial evaluation results only 

to the judge being evaluated; others provide information to the chief 

judge [court president] or judicial council, and in some cases results are 

made public—often permitting the judge to review and

appeal any negative feedback.

Advocates of releasing evaluation results to the public argue 

that such transparency promotes accountability and public confidence 

in the judiciary. Others think that releasing such results undermines 

judicial independence and that providing information about the JPE 

process and about the mechanisms available for dealing with negative 

feedback constitutes adequate accountability.

Judicial performance evaluation in the federal courts

The U.S. federal judiciary does not have a mandatory JPE program, 

although some judges have participated in voluntary evaluation

programs. The Civil Justice Reform Act (1990) mandates publication 

of semiannual reports documenting the rate at which judges dispose

of cases and motions. These reports provide caseload statistics but are 

not evaluations of qualitative performance. (See www.uscourts.gov/

statistics/civiljusticereformactreport.aspx.)

In 2003, at the request of the Judicial Conference Committee 

on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System, the Federal Judicial 

Center developed an evaluation program for bankruptcy judges. An 

individual judge may ask the Center to survey attorneys who have 

practiced before the judge to assess his or her impartiality and integrity, legal ability, and professionalism and work habits. Some courts have 

collectively decided that each judge in the court will undertake such 

an evaluation. Survey responses are anonymous and confidential; they 

are released only to the judge being evaluated. (The standard questionnaire is available at https://fjc.co1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6

zaevuAaSHJnV3.)

In general, federal judges share an expectation that all judges will perform at a high level. Chief judges have a critical role in 

helping judges meet this expectation by routinely monitoring caseload 

statistics, establishing regular communication among the judges in 

the court, helping newly appointed judges learn the intricacies of the 

judicial role, and assisting all judges in resolving matters that might 

interfere with their performance. 

Judicial performance evaluation programs in the state

courts

A number of state court systems have adopted judicial performance 

evaluation programs. These programs differ in their goals and thus in 

the level to which results are publicized, but they are often intended to 

serve as a resource for voters during judicial elections. (In the United 

States, some state court judges are elected or are appointed by the 

governor for a limited term and required to participate in a popular 

election to retain their positions.) Some state JPE programs distribute 

questionnaires to attorneys (including prosecutors and defenders), 

jurors, and litigants. Other JPE initiatives use committees composed 

of attorneys, judges, and citizens to observe and assess performance, 

including courtroom demeanor, written decisions, and case management skills.