Judicial Candidate Ratings

TABLE DESCRIBING CATEGORIES FOR EVALUATION

Outstanding.  To be rated Outstanding, a candidate must meet all criteria for “Highly Recommended” and demonstrate truly exceptional, field-leading distinction:

• Demonstrates extraordinary legal ability, judgment, and relevant experience 
• Exhibits exceptional integrity and independence, with a reputation that is beyond reproach 
• Reflects a model judicial temperament—consistently patient, impartial, respectful, and able to manage the most complex or sensitive matters with distinction 
• Shows sustained, high-impact leadership in improving the administration of justice or the legal system 
• Maintains a significant and sustained record of service and leadership in community, civic, charitable, and professional organizations 
• Has a demonstrated, measurable impact on advancing access to justice and the advancement of women in the legal profession 

Preferred: At least 10 years of substantial, relevant legal experience

Key distinction: Reserved for candidates who are not just excellent—but stand out at the highest level of the profession and have had a clear, lasting impact.

Highly Recommended.  To be rated Highly Recommended, a candidate must meet all criteria for “Recommended” and demonstrate clear excellence above the norm:

• Demonstrates superior legal ability, judgment, and relevant experience 
• Has a strong, well-established reputation for integrity, professionalism, and fairness 
• Exhibits a consistently sound judicial temperament, including courtesy, impartiality, and respect 
• Shows meaningful and ongoing involvement in community, civic, charitable, and professional organizations 
• Has a demonstrated commitment to advancing access to justice and the advancement of women in the legal profession

Preferred: At least 5 years of substantial, relevant legal experience

Key distinction: Reflects candidates who are clearly above average and well-qualified, but without the level of exceptional distinction or significant and sustained  impact required for “Outstanding.”

Recommended. To be rated Recommended, a candidate must demonstrate the minimum  qualifications and fitness for judicial service:

• Candidate exhibits the essential qualities and fitness for judicial service, including good legal ability, experience, wisdom, intellect, insight, and impartiality;
• Candidate has a reputation for integrity, good character, courtesy, and respect for all persons; and
• Candidate should be seen in the legal community as affirmatively espousing the position of all women in society and a demonstrated record of advancing women in the legal profession.

Key distinction: Meets all essential qualifications for judicial service, but does not rise to the elevated level required for higher ratings.

Not Recommended.  A candidate shall be rated Not Recommended if the candidate:

• Lacks one or more essential qualities for judicial service (e.g., legal ability, judgment, integrity, or impartiality); 
• Is not in good standing with a state bar; 
• Is not viewed as supporting access to justice or the advancement of women in the legal profession; or 
• Fails to meet the criteria for a “Recommended” rating

No Rating.  A candidate shall receive No Rating if:

• The candidate withdraws from the process; or 
• There is insufficient information to assess the candidate’s qualifications