Judicial Evaluations
WWL is proud to produce judicial evaluations for judicial officers statewide. Our Judicial Evaluations Committee (JEC) works diligently to produce meaningful evaluations of judicial candidates.
The evaluation goals of WWL are:
- To sustain and strengthen the judiciary through the appointment and election of excellent judicial candidates; and
- To encourage qualified candidates, sensitive to women’s issues both within the profession and under the law, to seek and obtain positions of responsibility and stature within the legal profession and community in general.
WWL provides a rating for a judicial candidate for election or appointment to an open position as exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified, unqualified, or not rated. The ratings are valid for two years.
Additional general information can be obtained by contacting the current Chair of WWL’s statewide Judicial Evaluation Committee: Marcia M. Meade at m@d-mlaw.com. For specific information for a given court, please contact the JEC Chair for that venue. Contact information for your appropriate JEC Chair can be found here.
If you are in doubt of where or who to contact please e-mail wwl@wwl.org, and place in the subject line Judicial Evaluations.
Recent WWL Judicial Ratings
Division I, Court of Appeals
James Verellen -Exceptionally Well Qualified for a COA Division I.
Judge Susan Cook - Exceptionally Well Qualified for a COA Division I.
Judge Michael Trickey- Exceptionally Well Qualified for a COA Division I.
Judge Linda Lau - Exceptionally Well Qualified for a COA Division I.
Judge Paul Lawrence - Exceptionally Well Qualified for a COA Division I.
Michelle Radosevich Exceptionally Well Qualified COA, Div. I
Seth Fine-Well Qualified, COA, Div. I
San Juan Superior Court
John Linde - Exceptionally Well Qualified
Grays Harbor Superior Court
David Edwards - Exceptionally Well Qualified.
WWL Judicial Evaluation Procedures
Positions for Which WWL May Evaluate
The Committee shall evaluate those candidates seeking election or appointment to:
- The Washington State Supreme Court.
- The Washington State Court of Appeals.
- The United States Federal District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and any other federal court for which a candidate from Washington seeks a rating.
- Any Washington state trial-level position in a county where there is no WWL Chapter Judicial Evaluation Committee.
The Committee may, upon request of WWL’s Board, evaluate candidates for:
- The Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors.
- Executive appointments to State commissions, boards and public agencies. The criteria for such evaluation shall be provided by the Board. The Committee may have the discretion to decline to take such action.
General Process
To be rated by WWL for a judicial position, the Candidate must:
- Complete and submit the Governor’s Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire with applicable attachments.
- Complete and submit the Supplemental WWL Questionnaire and WWL’s waiver form.
- Submit an electronic copy of (a) Governor’s Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire with applicable attachments and (b) Supplemental WWL Questionnaire and WWL’s waiver form to wwl@wwl.org and the current Judicial Chair, Marcia M. Meade, m@d-mlaw.org.
If you are unable to provide an electronic version of the same, please, contact Marcia M. Meade at (509) 328-4266 or by e-mail m@d-mlaw.com to specify alternative arrangements. Please indicate “Judicial Evaluation Request” in the subject line if contacting via e-mail.
- Submit by mail a hard copy of (a) Governor’s Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire with applicable attachments and (b) Supplemental WWL Questionnaire and WWL’s waiver form to
Washington Women Lawyers
Attn: Judicial Affairs Committee
P.O. Box 2026
Seattle, WA 98111-2026
Interviews by the statewide WWL Judicial Evaluation Committee and the local WWL Judicial Evaluation Committees are conducted regularly throughout the year. Once a request for judicial evaluation is made, the WWL Chair of Judicial Affairs will contact you to coordinate the evaluation process. As the committee is comprised of volunteers, the candidate is encouraged to submit all application materials as early as possible.
Upon completing the interviews, the Committee recommends a rating to the WWL Executive Board. The WWL State Board votes on the final rating. The final rating is then provided to the Washington State Governor. All deliberations, except for the final rating, are confidential.
WWL’s Criteria for Judicial Ratings
WWL uses the following criteria for rating candidates for judicial office:
A. No Rating. A candidate shall be given No Rating if:
- Insufficient information is available for the Committee evaluation at the time the candidate is being considered for rating;
- The candidate has not submitted a timely application for a rating, including timely submission of materials requested by the Committee; or
- The candidate has served as a member of the WWL Evaluation Committee or parallel chapter committee within one year of application for rating.
B. Unqualified. A candidate shall be rated Unqualified if:
- The candidate is not a member in good standing of the Washington State Bar or not a member in good standing of any other state’s Bar Association to which he or she has been admitted;
- The candidate is currently a member of the judiciary and, during his or her current term of office, has been reprimanded or disciplined by the State Judicial Conduct Commission; or
- The candidate has failed to meet the mandatory criteria for a Qualified rating.
C. Qualified. A candidate shall be rated Qualified if:
- The candidate is a member in good standing of the Washington State Bar and every Bar in which the candidate is an active member.
- The candidate has a reputation for integrity, good character, courtesy, common sense, and respect for all persons.
- The candidate demonstrates respect for the law, for the judicial process, and for the dignity of the court.
- The candidate is fair and has a reputation for fairness and freedom from bias against any group or class of citizens.
- The candidate possesses the ability to make difficult decisions under stress.
- The candidate has good legal ability and good writing skills.
- The candidate has the temperament and courtroom practice appropriate to the judicial position for which the candidate is being considered.
- The candidate has the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with attorneys, litigants, and other participants in the courtroom.
- The candidate has the ability to command respect from attorneys, litigants, and other participants in the courtroom, and has the energy and capacity for hard work.
If the Candidate seeks a trial court position:
- The candidate has the ability to manage pretrial and trial proceedings. This includes the ability to weigh conflicting testimony, to make factual determinations, to handle a wide variety of issues and situations likely to be presented at court, and the ability to handle the demands of trial and motions calendars.
D. Well Qualified. A candidate shall be rated as Well Qualified if:
- The candidate meets the criteria for Qualified.
- The candidate has demonstrated a commitment to equal justice under the law and is sensitive to issues important to women both within the profession and under the law. Such commitment and sensitivity may be evidenced by the candidate’s courtroom practice, personal and professional background, professional and community activities including pro bono work, professional employment practices, mentoring and other support of women in the profession, or advocacy of legal issues important to women, including active participation in efforts to protect the rights of minorities.
- The candidate either has judicial experience or experience as a neutral decision-maker or a demonstrated commitment to serving in the role of neutral decision-maker.
E. Exceptionally Well Qualified. A candidate shall meet the criteria for Exceptionally Well Qualified if:
- The candidate meets the criteria for Qualified and Well Qualified.
- The candidate has demonstrated excellent legal ability and writing skills, which may be evidenced by excellent legal analysis and an excellent ability to deal with legal problems, by proven legal scholarship and writing, or by a reputation for excellence in legal work and practice.
- The candidate has demonstrated exceptional litigation, judicial or administrative experience.
- The candidate also has a reputation for outstanding personal and professional integrity, personal and professional independence, personal courage, and an excellent ability to make difficult decisions in demanding situations.
- The candidate has consistently demonstrated commitment to equality and to access to justice.
All candidates shall have demonstrated some or all of the following:
- Significant public service.
- Potential for leadership on the bench.
- An interest in and commitment to working with other judges and court administrators to improve the administration of justice.