Accountability—of government institutions and officials—is an integral component of the rule of law. One tool used to promote judicial branch accountability is judicial performance evaluation. Assessing judicial “quality” is a complex and sensitive undertaking. Those critical of efforts to evaluate judges note that the process is vulnerable to politicization and may compromise judicial independence. However, if implemented transparently with clear objectives, performance evaluation can provide judges with helpful information, improve overall effectiveness of the courts, and enhance public confidence in the judiciary.
The information in this piece describes programs that evaluate individual judges. Many judiciaries also undertake broader court performance evaluations utilizing indicators and benchmarks across the judicial system. A discussion of court performance standards can be found here.
Elements of Judicial Performance
What to Measure?
A judge’s performance can be measured in different ways.The focus can be qualitative:
Professional Integrity
Courtroom Management
Communication Skills
(Verbal & Non-Verbal)
Demeanor
Demonstrated
Legal Knowledge
Ability to Apply
Principles to Facts
Legal Analysis
& Reasoning
Clarity of Writing
The core of the evaluation is judicial competencies: knowledge, skills, and attributes. A balanced assessment includes both qualitative and quantitative data. Some performance evaluations also consider the judge’s engagement in civic activities (teaching, community outreach), commitment to professional development (participation in educational activities), and leadership skills.
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) has undertaken a years-long and extensive assessment of judicial performance evaluation methods. Its Transparent Courthouse Project sets forth recommended criteria for a judicial performance evaluation commission, including a code of conduct for members and the evaluation process, along with sample questions. IAALS is in the process updating its recommendations to address the new complexities and demands of contemporary judging with a new project: Judicial Performance Evaluation 2.0.
Who Should Measure?
Formal evaluation programs may be carried out by the judiciary, an independent evaluation commission, or a judicial inspection office that may be part of a judicial council. These programs should set forth clear objectives, the criteria being applied, and the evaluation process. Transparency enhances the credibility of the evaluation. There are also informal methods of evaluating a judge’s performance, such as when a senior judge is asked to provide feedback about a junior judge. Although less structured, this method could include standard criteria that senior judicial officers use consistently. In some countries, members of the bar conduct informal (and usually unsanctioned) assessments of judges.
How and When to Measure
The evaluation process can be voluntary or mandatory. This will depend upon a country’s judicial culture and the primary objectives for undertaking the assessment. The process should be transparent, providing judges with notice and information about its goals, methods, and the criteria being used. Ideally the evaluation process will use multiple methods of data-collection – sometimes called 360-degree feedback.
Methods include:
- Courtroom Observations
- Mock Trials
- Review of Written Judgments
- Exams
- Feedback (from surveys, interviews, supervising judges, peers, court personnel, attorneys, the public)
- Self-Evaluation
- Caseload Statistics
- Complaints Filed Against Judge
The evaluation process can also include an interview with the judge that provides an opportunity to respond to concerns noted by the evaluation team.
The core of the evaluation is judicial competencies: knowledge, skills, and attributes. A balanced assessment includes both qualitative and quantitative data. Some performance evaluations also consider the judge’s engagement in civic activities (teaching, community outreach), commitment to professional development (participation in educational activities), and leadership skills.
In countries where public confidence in the judiciary is low, civil society may conduct an external evaluation process. A Polish NGO, the Institute for Law and Society, published recommendations for non-governmental organizations engaging in court monitoring efforts.
Many jurisdictions conduct early judicial assessments during a judge’s probationary period. Ongoing, regular cycles of judicial performance evaluation enable judges to make improvements and also provide a broader range of data, enabling a more robust and reliable basis for assessment.
Recommendation of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary on the Evaluation of Judges
Recommendation 1
On the composition of the body in charge of evaluation
An external view may be useful for the evaluation of judges; the participation of lay members in certain parts of the evaluation process could be interesting and may contribute to the accountability of the judiciary.
Recommendation 2
On the link between evaluation and judicial training
Training, and further improvement of judges, should be linked to the results of the evaluation process. This should not only be the case when deficiencies have been established; all judges should be involved in continuous training.
Recommendation 3
On the drawing up of evaluation criteria
The Councils for the Judiciary should be involved in the drawing up of criteria. It is not recommended that all criteria are regulated in the law; there should be ample discretionary authority for the judiciary.
Recommendation 4
On the quality of judgments
The quality of decisions should be taken into account when evaluating the performance of judges. However, quality should be determined not based on the merits of the decision, but on formal elements of the decision such as procedural issues and judicial craftsmanship.
The Report
Quantitative evaluation metrics may be used to manage the assignment of cases. Evaluation data also may be used to inform decisions about judicial promotion and reappointment. If the objective of the judicial performance evaluation is to provide feedback for professional improvement, the report can be confidential and disclosed only to the judge being evaluated. Evaluation results are important tools to guide professional development and judicial education. Judicial performance evaluations may be carried out to educate voters in jurisdictions that elect their judges and hence made public, as is the case in many state court systems in the United States. Some countries may publicize a summary report outlining performance trends in the judiciary in an effort to provide transparency and accountability.
Evaluation criteria—whether quantitative or qualitative—are often used to inform decisions about judicial promotion and reappointment.
The Report
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System has a number of helpful resources about the JPE process, including a complete list of state court judicial evaluation programs. The American Bar Association also has information about JPE programs, Black Letter Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance (1985), available here.
Judicial Performance Evaluation Around the World
Click on a country to learn more:
Australia
Bahrain
China
Ethiopia
Finland
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Panama
Romania
Spain
United States
