Judicial Resources

Judge in Courtroom A key component of KCBA's mission is to work with the judiciary to achieve excellence, equity, and accessibility in the administration of justice. Among our initiatives are the following:

Judicial Candidate Evaluation Ratings. The jewel in the crown of the bar's work with the judiciary is our candidate evaluation rating process. This is the system for publishing ratings for the public about candidates seeking appointment or election to the bench. KCBA commits to issuing ratings in any contested judicial election that appears on the the ballot for King County voters. This means every level of court from limited jurisdictions such as Seattle Municipal Court, King County Superior Court, and the Washington Supreme Court. We also conduct ratings on request for candidates seeking appointment to judicial vacancies.

Before issuing a rating, a panel of at least twelve people is convened to review the candidate's judicial questionnaire, talk confidentially with up to 80 references -- including opposing counsel and judges in the last ten cases in which the candidate was involved. The panel interviews the candidate for a half hour, allowing the candidate to make opening and closing statements before asking for clarification about information in the materials or from references. After the candidate departs, the panel deliberates for up to an hour before issuing a rating. The rating itself is just a couple words: "not qualified" "qualified" "well qualified" or "exceptionally well qualified". An important clarification is often lost in these ratings: "not qualified" is not a judgment as to statutory eligibility, but rather the candidate's skills, temperament, and demeanor.

Judicial Officer Surveys. The next well known area of bar work with the judiciary comes in the form of quadrennial survey results published about the bar's experiences with current judicial officers. These occur in presidential election years for Superior Court judges and commissioners, and in even-numbered non-presidential election years for limited jurisdiction judges. Professionally administered by an independent research firm, these surveys are sent to all attorneys who have appearance records before any judge in King County over the prior four years, with a sixteen percent return rate in 2016 (548 different lawyers). Data is collected via sixteen questions about judges' performance in legal decision making; impartiality; demeanor, and administrative skills. The statistical results are published online. A committee of seventeen members reviews the entire survey process and narrative report release.

Additional Judicial Related Activities. While the two areas just reviewed are very prominent within the bench and bar, KCBA has many other initiatives with the courts. For example, our Judiciary & Litigation Committee meets monthly to consider liaison issues that are brought to all levels of court, with a special emphasis on reviewing, commenting on, and suggesting proposed changes to King County Superior Court local rules. Monthly liaison meetings occur between bar leadership and the presiding judges and senior court personnel. Judges and commissioners at all levels of court, including from the federal bench, participate in KCBA CLE programming year-round.

A few final items to share. Our Judicial Conferencing program involves small panels of 2 or 3 lawyers reviewing colleague feedback and sharing results confidentially with judges (unlike our public surveys and evaluations). Our Fair Campaign Practices Committee stands ready to offer opinions on inappropriate judicial election activities. And our Judicial Candidate Forums provides an opportunity for candidates in contested elections to "face off" in public and talk directly with the voters about their qualifications and judicial philosophies.

Working to improve the administration of justice is an important part of the King County Bar Association’s mission.

KCBA has evaluated and rated judicial performance since 1948 through surveys of current judicial officers, ratings for those seeking appointment or election to the bench, and monitoring of fair campaign practices and hosting of candidate forums.

Most Recent Judicial Officer Survey
Judicial Officer Survey Archives
Judicial Candidate Evaluation Ratings Process
Most Recent (2016) Candidate Ratings
Current Judicial Openings
Fair Campaign Practices Guidelines
Judicial Forum 2016 Videos