The King County Bar Association Judicial Screening Committee is in the process of rating candidates for three Washington State Supreme Court positions, one Court of Appeals position, one King County Superior Court position, and four King County District Court positions. The first election will be the Primary Election, to be held on September 14, for all positions. As ratings are completed, they will be posted at www.kcba.org. Partial ratings information can be found on the back page of this Bar Bulletin

Getting the Word Out is Critical
Voters often receive very little information about candidates for judicial positions. This year there is more information available to the public about how the Bar Association rates the candidates and how these ratings are determined. The applicants’ questionnaires are now divided into a public portion and a confidential portion, with the former available to media and the public. Those are also posted on the KCBA website at www.kcba.org.

Some Candidates Choose Not to Participate in the Process
This year there were three candidates who declined to participate in the Bar Association’s screening process. In light of the Committee’s commitment to inform the public about candidates in contested judicial races, the Committee is obligated under its rules to “make every reasonable effort to obtain sufficient information to credibly evaluate” the candidates who decline to participate in the screening process and to rate these candidates if the Committee determines by majority vote that it has sufficient information to do so.

The Committee gathers extensive information about the candidates who decline to participate in the screening process. Databases of published and unpublished appellate decisions are reviewed and participating parties are contacted. Washington State Bar Association records as to discipline and standing are reviewed, to the extent records were available to the public. Internet searches are conducted. E-mail inquiries are sent to local judges and attorneys seeking relevant information about the candidates. For those candidates who practice outside of King County, inquiry is made of judges and attorneys in the county where the candidate is known to practice.

Based on the information before it, the Committee will determined whether there is sufficient information to rate each of the three candidates who declined to participate in the process and the results will be posted on those candidates on or around September 10.

Judicial Screening Process
The 70-member committee, with staggered three-year terms, undertakes an arduous, comprehensive and time-consuming rating process designed to create a high quality bench. The purpose of the Committee is to be accomplished in a manner that is justifiable, fair, and perceived to be so. KCBA invites candidates for contested judicial elections to participate in a very thorough, three-part screening process.

First, candidates complete a nine page, detailed questionnaire which covers current and past employment, nature and extent of law practice or judicial experience, trial experience, education, experience as a neutral decision-maker, significant mediation experience, court committees or administrative positions held, public offices held, professional and bar activities, publications, community or civic activities, honors received, significant matters handled, and a statement why the candidates should be elected to the judicial position. All of above information in the questionnaire is now publicly available.

In order to insure full disclosure and candor, the remaining portions of the questionnaire are used only by the Judicial Screening Committee. That portion covers 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 any other legal proceedings. Most particularly it requests a listing of 40-60 references, with categories most of which cannot be selected 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, and additional attorneys familiar with the candidate’s professional qualifications, skills, experience or attributes.

Second, Committee members are assigned references to attempt to contact the listed references by telephone. After being promised confidentiality, the references are encouraged to speak with full candor about their own knowledge and/or experiences with the candidate and their evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, strengths and weakness for the position sought.

Third, the Committee convenes with a quorum of at least 12 members to carefully review and consider the questionnaire, the information from the listed references and conduct a personal interview with the candidate. The interview consists of and opening statement by the candidate, questions pertaining to qualifications for the office as well as issues raised by the questionnaire, reference checks, or other information received. The candidate is also 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, well qualified and extremely well qualified, require a “super-majority” vote of two-thirds of the members present.

Rating Criteria
The criteria for rating candidates are uniform and objective. 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:

• 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, arbitrations, settlement conferences, and commissioner or magistrate responsibilities. It should include a 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; and
• 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,” “Adequate,” and “Not Qualified.” The screening committee also has the discretion to decline to rate, with a statement of the reason “Insufficient Information to Rate” or “Refused to Cooperate in the Judicial Screening Process.”

For further information, please contact John Cary, King County Bar Associ-ation President, at (206) 224-8254 or Caryj@Att.Net.