WASHINGTON STATE VETERANS BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES
as of June 29, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2. EVALUATION COMMITTEE.......................................................................................... 2
4. RATING CATEGORIES, CRITERIA, AND PROCEDURES.................................. 2-4
6. RECORDS........................................................................................................................ 5
GUIDELINES
1. General.
The Washington State Veterans Bar Association (WSVBA) has delegated to its Evaluation Committee the duty to evaluate and rate those who apply to the association for judicial ratings. These guidelines set forth the procedures by which the committee performs these functions. Ratings are intended to maintain or improve the quality of the bench of the position the applicant seeks.
2. Evaluation Committee. WSVBA ratings are limited to those seeking judicial positions on state courts of record: the state supreme court, the court of appeals, and the superior courts of the various counties. The association does not rate those who seek positions on district or municipal courts. Likewise, the association does not rate those who seek positions on federal courts.
Members of the committee are selected from among the membership of the WSVBA and are selected to fairly represent the geographical and practice diversity of the membership.
Members of the committee shall maintain confidentiality of all matters that come before the committee. They shall exercise good judgment in deciding whether to participate in the evaluation of an applicant. Notwithstanding this admonition, a member is free to decide whether to provide background information about any applicant.
3. Applicants. An applicant seeking a judicial rating shall submit to the persons
designated on the WSVBA website (wsvba.org) the materials designated there. Ratings are primarily based on the written materials submitted by the applicant. An applicant need not be a veteran to apply for a rating.
There are no interviews of applicants seeking positions on the superior courts of the various counties or the state court of appeals. However, applicants seeking a position on the state supreme court will be interviewed after receipt and review of the materials designated on the website.
4. Rating Categories and Criteria.
4.1 Rating Categories. The rating categories for applicants are: “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Not Qualified.”
4.2 Rating Criteria.
4.2.1 “Qualified.” An applicant may be rated “Qualified” if the applicant has satisfied the basic criteria—consisting of the following factors, which are not listed in any order of priority—to a degree sufficient to consider the applicant minimally qualified for the judicial position sought:
(a) maturity, integrity, courtesy, intellectual honesty, fairness, good judgment, curiosity, and common sense;
(b) a demonstrated commitment to equal justice under the law, and fairness and open-mindedness with sensitivity to and respect for all persons, regardless of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, religion, political ideology, creed, age, marital status, or physical or mental handicap, disability, or impairment. This commitment and sensitivity can be evidenced by the individual's involvement in community affairs and activities, professional practice, and personal and professional background;
(c) the courage and ability to make difficult decisions under stress;
(d) the competence, ability, and experience to manage pretrial and trial proceedings, including administrative proceedings, arbitrations, settlement conferences, and commissioner or magistrate responsibilities. It should include an ability to address diverse issues, weigh conflicting testimony, apply the law to the facts, understand the dynamics of the trial or conflict resolution process, and command respect from attorneys, litigants, and other participants in the process;
(e) the ability to work with a wide variety of subject matters;
(f) demonstrated excellence in legal ability and practice;
(g) demonstrated capacity for hard work;
(h) the potential for ongoing professional development and demonstrated leadership in the profession;
(i) the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, orally and in writing, with all participants in the judicial process and other branches of government;
(j) interest and commitment to working with other judges, court administrators, and other branches of government to improve the administration of justice; and
(k) a demeanor conducive to all participants in legal proceedings before the applicant being treated with fairness and respect and receiving an opportunity to be heard fairly and without prejudice.
4.2.2 “Well Qualified.” An applicant may be rated “Well Qualified” if the applicant demonstrates a level of skill, experience, sound judgment, and excellence in his or her professional or judicial career, or both, that will sustain or improve the quality of the bench of the judicial position sought. These qualifications may be demonstrated by satisfying some or all of the criteria used to support a “Qualified” rating.
4.2.3 “Exceptionally Well Qualified.” An applicant may be rated “Exceptionally Well Qualified” if the applicant fulfills the requirements necessary for a “Well Qualified” rating and, in addition, demonstrates outstanding accomplishments as reflected by some or all of the following:
(a) singular accomplishments in professional practice, academic training, judicial career, or contributions to the profession;
(b) exceptional litigation, judicial, or administrative experience;
(c) outstanding personal and professional integrity and commitment to fairness in the administration of justice;
(d) significant public service; and
(e) excellence in the criteria which support a “Well Qualified” rating.
4.2.4 “Not Qualified.” An applicant may be rated “Not Qualified” if the applicant does not demonstrate qualifications sufficient to receive a rating of “Qualified”. An applicant not in good standing with the state bar shall be rated "Not Qualified" without need for any committee to review the request for a rating.
5. Notification of Rating.
5.1. No Rationale for Rating to Be Provided. The rating process employed by the committee is necessarily a subjective one. Individual committee members may have different reasons for voting in a particular way with respect to an applicant. With respect to some applicants, there may be one or more reasons justifying a particular rating that can be clearly articulated. In many cases, however, the reasons justifying an applicant's rating are either many in number or cannot be clearly articulated on behalf of all committee members. For these reasons and to preserve the confidentiality of the rating process, no disclosure is to be made of the votes taken by the committee or the substance of discussions by the committee.
5.2. Manner of Notification. The committee will inform an applicant of the rating by letter. The rating shall expire three years after the date of the letter notice. The applicant has the responsibility for sharing the letter rating with appropriate persons.
6 Records.
6.1. Records to Be Maintained. The chair of the committee shall maintain copies of the following for a period of four years:
(a) A copy of the materials an applicant submits for the purpose of obtaining a rating;
(b) A copy of the letter advising an applicant of the rating by the WSVBA.