Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee (JCEC)
The Detroit Bar Association is pleased to announce its 2022 Evaluation Process for Judicial candidates. We have a long-standing custom of providing this important service. The media and voters look forward to our review, and it is a civic function of the highest calling.
All deliberations are confidential, with judicial ratings announced to the public at the end of the evaluation process. If you are interested in serving on this year’s Committee, please do the following:
- Review the JCEC Bylaws and review and sign the JCEC membership agreement. These documents can be found above on this page. A signed JCEC membership agreement must be submitted by May 27, 2022. Once officially appointed to the Committee, you will receive a document to indicate what time slots you are available during the 3 days of interviews. Judges cannot serve on this Committee.
- We plan to conduct interviews on June 22 and 23 via Zoom. There will be a final in-person (or remote) meeting with all Committee Members on June 28 at 4:00 p.m. to make final candidate recommendations.
- Please plan to participate in a training conference call June 17, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. Call-in details will follow. The purpose of this call will be to review the interview process and answer any questions you may have about Committee service. Panel assignments will be circulated no later than June 13, 2022.
Nobody knows more what qualifications a Judge needs to adequately perform their duties than their fellow lawyers. It is up to us to do this. If you have any questions, please contact Assistant Executive Director Julie Van Hove at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Donn Fresard and David Winter
The Detroit Bar Association is pleased to announce its biennial evaluation of judicial candidates. All deliberations are confidential, with judicial ratings announced to the public at the end of the evaluation process. Judicial ratings are:
- Outstanding: To be rated “outstanding,” an individual must stand at the top of his/her profession; and must rank among the very best qualified judges or lawyers available for judicial service. S/he must have outstanding legal ability and background, and wide experience, wisdom, intellect, insight, and impartiality. To be accorded this highest rating, a candidate should generally also have the breadth of vision and outlook which derives from participation in the civic, charitable, religious or political activities of the community and the work of the organized bar of other professional organizations. In short, s/he should be a person whose preeminence in the law and as a citizen is widely acknowledged and whose qualifications for the position are virtually unanimously hailed by judges and lawyers.
- Well Qualified: To be rated “well qualified,” a candidate must exhibit essentially those qualities indicated for the rating of “outstanding.” Although this is a rating which is lower than outstanding, it is nevertheless a high rating. A “Well Qualified” candidate may have less breadth of experience but shows the promise of all the criteria above.
- Qualified: To be rated “qualified,” a candidate must exhibit a fitness for the judicial office which s/he seeks. A candidate given this rating would be considered average on an overall analysis of the factors set forth in (a) above
- Not Qualified: To be rated “not qualified,” a candidate must be considered well below average on an overall analysis of the factors set forth in (a) above. The “not qualified” rating indicates that a candidate is not qualified for the judicial office which he or she seeks, but the rating should in no way be construed as an adverse reflection on the candidate’s qualifications as an attorney.
- No rating, Did Not Participate: If a candidate does not submit a questionnaire or attend an interview and the Association Secretary certifies, in writing, to the Committee that written notice was provided to the candidate, then the Committee may issue a “No Rating; Did Not Participate”. However, if there is sufficient information available to the Committee on the Candidate’s fitness for the judicial office which s/he seeks, the Committee may rate such candidate, even in absence of a questionnaire or an interview.
The rating given to each candidate or the fact or no rating shall be made public by the Committee.
We plan to conduct interviews on three days June 22, 23 and 24, with a Committee meeting on June 28. If you have any questions about this initiative please contact Assistant Executive Director Julie Van Hove at email@example.com.
Donn Fresard and David Winter