King County judges get high marks

Most King County Superior Court judges are doing their jobs skillfully, respectively and impartially, according to the most comprehensive survey ever of attorneys who practice before them.

The results of the survey, conducted by the King County Bar Association and released this week, show that, overall, judges received positive ratings about 90 percent of the time.

It was the first time that the bar association, which conducts the survey every four years, structured it so that only attorneys who had appeared in front of a particular judge could review that judge's performance.

The new approach made the responses, which rated 51 judges on four aspects of their jobs, the most targeted of any previous survey, said Michael Ricketts, chair of the judicial evaluation committee.

The association decided to refine the survey method in part because the responses fill an important gap in judicial review.

"They are elected officials, but there aren't issues for them to talk about," Ricketts said. "And they aren't allowed to take a stance on issues that might come in front of them. So this is a service to [voters], and to the lawyers who may end up in front of the judge. It's also a service for the judges themselves — a self-improvement tool."

Some of those at the top of the list don't appear to need much self-improvement. Though the survey didn't compare the judges against one another, a calculation of the average rank shows that Michael Trickey, the presiding judge at the time the survey was taken, received the highest rating.

"I try to do a good job every day," Trickey said. "But sometimes there is a natural conflict between the bench and the bar ... My goal is to treat everyone, the lawyers and the parties, with respect."

The survey attempted to boil down judges' management of high emotions, legal conflicts and a complex annual schedule of cases and hearings into four categories: Legal Decision Making (Did they capably apply rules of evidence and procedure?); Demeanor, Temperament and Communication (Did they act with patience and control?); Administrative Skills (Did they enforce court rules and deadlines?); and Integrity and Impartiality (Did they avoid impropriety and display a neutral presence?).

They were evaluated based on ratings of 1 to 5, from unacceptable to excellent.

Other judges who ranked near the top of the list include John Erlick, Michael Fox, former judge Richard Jones — now a federal court judge in Seattle — Palmer Robinson, Sharon Armstrong and William Downing.

Attorneys were asked to complete a survey for each judge they practiced before and were familiar with. The survey included nearly 5,000 responses from 1,500 lawyers.

The responses indicate some obvious conflict among judges and those arguing cases before them.

One of those judges is Patricia Clark. She ranked lowest on an average list, with a score of 3.05. It was the second time in a row that Clark, previously the court's chief juvenile judge, received the lowest ranking. Clark did not return a call for comment on the survey. Four years ago, she said she was surprised by her showing and would evaluate the results she received to consider any improvements she might make.

Other judges at the bottom of the list include Michael Heavey, Carol Schapira, Laura Middaugh and Mary Roberts.

Trickey, whose average score was 4.78, said that although the survey is a useful tool, one should be careful about drawing conclusions about individual judges based on the results.

"Judge Clark has made tremendous strides in attacking racial disproportionality, and I think she's an outstanding judge," Trickey said.

Natalie Singer: 206-464-2704 or nsinger@seattletimes.com