Supreme Court Rules Table of Contents
(I)
Administration and Implementation of a Performance Evaluation Program
(A)
The supreme court shall be responsible for the overall administration of
a judicial performance evaluation program. On or before June 30 of each year, it
shall prepare an annual report on the implementation and operation of the
judicial performance evaluation program for public distribution and filing with
the governor, the speaker of the house, the president of the senate and the
chairpersons of the house and senate judiciary committees. The
report shall include a summary of the number of evaluations performed by each
court, the number of questionnaires distributed and returned, and, a summary of the overall evaluation results for each judge evaluated and
all actions taken to correct inadequacies and deficiencies.
(B) A judicial performance
evaluation advisory committee is established to advise the supreme court on the
design and implementation of the judicial performance evaluation program. The members of the judicial performance evaluation advisory committee
shall include: a supreme court
justice designated by the supreme court,
the chief justice of the superior court and the administrative judge of the circuit court, the chairpersons of the house and senate judiciary committees, the chair of the judicial council or his or her designee, the deputy attorney general, the chairperson of the New Hampshire Bar Association's committee on cooperation with the courts, the executive director of New Hampshire Public Defender, and a judicial branch employee designated by the supreme court who is involved in administering the judicial performance evaluation program. The judicial performance evaluation advisory committee shall meet periodically for the purpose of making recommendations to the supreme court on the following subjects:
(1) the design of questionnaires to be completed by attorneys, parties,
witnesses, jurors, court personnel and others who have appeared before the judge
being evaluated;
(2) consult with the supreme court about the development or identification of suitable programs to assist judges who have not met the applicable judicial performance standards to do so;
(3) consult with the supreme court about the advisability of other administrative action to address the performance problems of any judge that are identified through the evaluation process or otherwise;
(4) conduct the evaluation of the judges serving on those courts; and
(5) determine the steps that the judge must take to improve his or her performance if his or her performance does not meet a performance standard or his or her overall performance is not satisfactory.
(II) Evaluation of Trial Court Judges
(A) Persons Performing Evaluations; Frequency of Evaluations
The chief justice of the
superior court, or the chief justice's designee, shall evaluate each
justice of the superior court a minimum of once every three
years.
The administrative judge of the circuit
court, or the administrative judge's designee, shall evaluate each full-time
and part-time circuit court judge a minimum of once every three years.
A panel consisting of the chief
justice of the supreme court and two associate justices of the supreme court
shall evaluate the chief justice of the superior court
and the administrative judge of the circuit court a minimum of once every three years.
(B) Conduct of Evaluation
(1) The
judicial evaluation process is intended to evaluate a judge's performance in relation to the applicable judicial performance
standards. The
person performing the evaluation (the evaluator) shall determine whether the
judge has met the applicable judicial performance standards.
The evaluator shall also determine whether the judge's overall performance is satisfactory. If the judge has not met an applicable judicial
performance standard, the evaluator shall identify the steps that the judge must take to improve his or her performance.
(2) The evaluator shall attempt to obtain
comprehensive
and balanced information from multiple sources to accurately assess the
judge's performance during the evaluation period. The
evaluation process of an individual judge shall include, but
not be limited to, the following steps:
(1) review of
complaints about the judge that have been docketed by the
supreme court's committee on judicial conduct and that are public records under
Rule 40;
(2) review of the
results of the completed questionnaires of persons who appeared before the judge
during the evaluation period;
(3) review of the
self-evaluation form completed by the judge; and
(4) review of any
complaints or inquiries about the judge received by the
administrative judge or chief justice.
(C) Results of Evaluation and
Meeting with Judge Who Has Been Evaluated
(1) The evaluator shall prepare a summary of the results of the evaluation, which describes the judge's performance in relation to the judicial performance standards and the judge’s overall performance, and which identifies any judicial performance standard that has not been met and sets forth the steps the judge must take to improve his or her performance.
(2) The evaluator
shall meet with the judge who has been evaluated to
discuss the results of the evaluation and
to advise the judge of
his or her overall performance. The
evaluator shall also advise the judge whether he
or she has met the applicable judicial performance standards, and, if not,
identify the steps that the judge must take to improve his or
her performance.
(3) At the
conclusion of the meeting, the judge who has been evaluated
shall sign the evaluation summary, indicating that he or she has been informed
of the results of the evaluation and has been given a copy of the evaluation
summary.
(4) Within 30
days of the meeting, the judge who has been evaluated may
submit a written response to the evaluation. The response shall be kept with the
evaluation summary.
(D) Failure to Meet Judicial
Performance Standards
(1) If the evaluator
concludes that a judge has failed to meet a judicial
performance standard, he or she shall prepare a written summary identifying the
performance standard that has not been met and specifying the steps that the
judge must take to improve his or her performance and the time
in which the steps must be taken. The
chief justice or the administrative judge of the court on which the evaluated
judge serves shall, to the extent possible, assist the judge
to comply with the steps set forth in the evaluation summary
for improving the judge’s performance.
(2) If the overall performance of
a judge has been
determined not to be satisfactory, the
judge shall be reevaluated within 18 months.
(3) If a judge
has failed to take the steps to improve his or her performance
specified in the evaluation summary, the chief justice or the administrative
judge of the court on which the judge serves may take steps to
correct the non-compliance, including administrative discipline, and may take
whatever other steps are necessary to ensure compliance and/or may report the
failure to the committee on judicial conduct.
(III) Evaluation of Supreme Court Justices
The supreme court shall design a
questionnaire to be distributed every three years to a representative selection
of attorneys and parties who appeared before the court to assess the performance
of the court during this period.
The court will adopt relevant
objective appellate court performance standards and regularly evaluate its
performance according to such standards.
Each justice shall complete a
self-evaluation form designed to assess whether the justice has met the
applicable judicial performance standards during the evaluation period.
The justices shall meet annually
to evaluate each other's performance.
(IV) Confidentiality
(A) General Rule. Except as
otherwise provided in this section, all records and information obtained and
maintained during the judicial performance evaluation process shall be
confidential and shall not be disclosed. The
identity of persons who furnished information concerning judges under the
program shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.
(B) Exceptions to
Confidentiality Requirement.
(1) Disclosure
to Judge Being Evaluated. Information about the results of
the questionnaires or other components of the evaluation process of an
individual judge may be disclosed to the judge for the purpose of improving his or her judicial performance, except that
the identity of persons furnishing information about the judge
shall not be disclosed.
(2) Disclosure
to Other Judges Assisting in Evaluation Process. The person performing the
evaluation may share the results of the evaluation with other judges for the
purpose of assisting in the evaluation process.
(3) If A
Judge Fails to Meet Judicial Evaluation Standards or Purposely
Fails to Complete Improvement Programs. If a judge fails
to achieve an overall satisfactory level
of performance on two consecutive performance evaluations, or if a judge purposely fails to complete the steps for improving his or her
performance specified in the evaluation summary, the judge
shall be deemed to have waived any right to confidentiality provided for by this
rule, and the results of the judge's evaluations shall
become public, with the exception of the identity of persons furnishing
information about the judge.
(4) If
A Judge is Being Considered or is Nominated for Another
Judicial Position. If a judge is being considered for another judicial position, the judge may authorize the release of the results of his or her judicial
performance evaluations to the governor and to any agency or commission
authorized to investigate the qualifications of judicial candidates, provided
that they shall be required to keep the contents of the evaluations in strict
confidence. Upon nomination of a
judge, the results of his or her judicial performance
evaluations shall be made available to the governor and executive council upon
request. The contents of such
evaluations shall be kept in strict confidence by the governor and executive
council.
(5) Report of Overall Evaluation Results. The supreme court shall report the results of the judical performance evaluation program in the annual report described in paragraph I above. This report shall include a summary of the overall evaluation results for each judge evaluated and all actions taken to correct inadequacies and deficiencies.
(V) Retention of Records of Judicial Performance
Evaluations
The judicial performance evaluation summaries of a judge shall be retained while the judge remains in state judicial service.