Information on Judges for all courts in Arizona are available online: www.azcourts.gov/jpr/judicial-performance-reports. A full bio and decisions can be viewed for each judge.
The categories upon which the Supreme Court are reviewed follows. There are detailed reports for attorney surveys for each of the categories and peer judge surveys only for Legal Ability and Integrity. The ratings are: Superior, Very Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory and Poor. Variations on a theme for the appeals and superior court judges.
This is subjective. To me, the importance of legal ability and integrity outweigh communication and temperament, but it all comes together in how the judge comports him/her self and how they treat people, attorneys and litigants alike. So, that is the stance from which these recommendations are written.
In some cases very few of the surveys distributed are actually returned. The background information I gathered on each judge are available on our website (far too long to print).
- Legal Ability
- Legal reasoning ability
- Knowledge of law
- Decisions based on laws and facts
- Clearly written, legally supported decisions
- Integrity
- Basic fairness and impartiality
- Equal treatment regardless of race
- Equal treatment regardless of gender
- Equal treatment regardless of religion
- Equal treatment regardless of national origin
- Equal treatment regardless of disability
- Equal treatment regardless of age
- Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation
- Equal treatment regardless of economic status
- Communication
- Attentiveness
- Demeanor in communications with counsel
- Appropriate restrictions on counsel during argument
- Relevant questions
- Preparation for oral argument
- Temperament
- Dignified
- Courteous
- Patient
- Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability
- Admin Performance
- Promptness in making rulings and rendering decisions
Unless there is a NO, I will vote yes. No one is perfect.
Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. Robert M. Brutinel
Hon. Andrew W. Gould
Hon. John R. Lopez IV
Hon. Sean Brearcliffe
Court of Appeals
Hon. Jennifer B. Campbell
Hon. Maria Elena Cruz
Hon. Karl C. Eppich
Hon. Randall M. Howe
Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
Hon. James B. Morse Jr.
Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins
Hon. Samuel A. Thumma
Hon. Garye L Vasquez
Hon. David D. Weinzweig
Maricopa County Judges
The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “superior, very good,” or “satisfactory” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories (Integrity, Communication,
Temperament, Admin Performance and Settlement Activities). 90% or below noted.
Hon. Jay Adleman
Hon. Sara Agne
Hon. Justin Beresky:
Temperament 83% and Communication 84%
Hon. Scott Blaney:
All numbers under 90%
Hon. Lori Horn Bustamante
Hon. Rodrick Coffey
Hon. Bruce R. Cohen
NO Hon. Suzanne Cohen
1 Commissioner voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Suzanne Cohen
Hon. Connie Contes
Hon. Christopher A. Coury
NO Hon. Adam Driggs
2 Commissioners voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Adam Driggs
Hon. Ronda Fisk:
Communication 88% Temperament 89%
Hon. Pamela Gates
NO Hon. Jo Lynn Gentry
6 Commissioners voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Jo Lynn Gentry
Hon. Michael D. Gordon
Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.:
Attorney Surveys only two marks above 90%
Hon. Michael W. Kemp
Hon. Daniel J. Kiley
Hon. Margaret LaBianca
Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney:
Integrity 79%, Communication 80%
Hon. Michael Mandell
Hon. Suzanne Marwil
Hon. M. Scott McCoy
Hon. Kathleen Mead
Hon. Joseph Mikitish
Hon. Scott Minder
Hon. Karen A. Mullins:
Communication 86% Temperament 84%
Hon. David J. Palmer
Hon. Adele Ponce:
Attorney Surveys Legal Ability 81% Communication 83%
Hon. Timothy J. Ryan:
Communication 85% Settlement Activities 67%
Hon. Teresa A. Sanders
Hon. Patricia Starr
Hon. Sherry K. Stephens
Hon. Timothy Thomason
Hon. Peter A. Thompson
Hon. David K. Udall
Hon. Lisa Ann Vandenberg:
Attorney Surveys Legal Ability 89% Temperament 87%
Hon. Kevin Wein
Hon. Christopher T Whitten
— Shari Jo Sorchych
Arizona Judges on the ballot
Details in support of recommendations:
Hon. Robert M. Brutinel
Arizona Supreme Court
Poor marks within the Attorney Surveys (219 distributed, 20 returned):
Demeanor in communications with counsel 1
Relevant questions 1
Courteous 1
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 1
Superior Court Judge Survey (6 distributed, 1 returned for 100% Superior)
Hon. Andrew W. Gould
Arizona Supreme Court
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks within the Attorney Surveys (269 sent, 39 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 2P
Knowledge of law 1P
Decisions based on laws and facts 2P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2P
Basic fairness and impartiality 1P
Demeanor in communications with counsel 1P, 1U
Relevant questions 2P, 2U
Preparation for oral argument – 1U
Dignified – 1U
Courteous 1P, 1U
Patient 2P
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 2P, 1U
Superior Court Judge Surveys (11 distributed, 7 returned).
Hon. John R. Lopez IV
Arizona Supreme Court
Unsatisfactory marks within Attorney Surveys (163 distributed, 19 returned)
Preparation for oral argument – 1
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability – 1
Superior Court Judge Survey (6 distributed,1 returned for 100% Superior)
Hon. Sean Brearcliffe
Court of Appeals Division II
Poor marks within Attorney Surveys (152 distributed, 20 returned)
(Legal Ability, Integrity and Admin only)
Legal reasoning ability – 1
Knowledge of law – 1
Decisions based on laws and facts – 1
Clearly written, legally supported decisions – 1
Basic fairness and impartiality – 1
Superior Court Judge Survey (94 distributed, 40 returned)
Poor marks in the following categories:
Legal reasoning ability-3
Knowledge of law-3
Decisions based on laws and facts- 2
Clearly written, legally supported decisions-3
Basic fairness and impartiality-1
Equal treatment regardless of race- 2
Equal treatment regardless of gender-2
Equal treatment regardless of religion-2
Equal treatment regardless of national origin-2
Equal treatment regardless of disability-2
Equal treatment regardless of age- 1
Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation-1
Equal treatment regardless of economic status-1
Hon. Jennifer B. Campbell
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (495 distributed, 39 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks in these categories:
Legal reasoning ability 5P, 1U
Knowledge of law 3P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 4P, 2U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 3P, 1U
Basic fairness and impartiality 3P, 1U
Equal treatment regardless of gender 1P
Equal treatment regardless of disability 1P
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 1U
Attentiveness 1P, 1U
Demeanor in communications with counsel 1P, 1U
Relevant questions 2P, 1U
Preparation for oral argument 2P, 1U
Dignified 1P, 1U
Courteous 1U
Patient 1U
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 1P,1U
Superior Court Judge Survey (113 distributed, 31 returned)
Knowledge of the law 1P
Equal treatment regardless of race 1P
Equal treatment regardless of national origin 1P
Hon. Maria Elena Cruz
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (464 distributed, 49 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 1P, 2U
Knowledge of law 3P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 3P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 3P, 1U
Attentiveness 3P, 1U
Demeanor in communications with counsel 4P, 1U
Relevant questions 5P, 1U
Preparation for oral argument 4P, 1U
Dignified 4P
Courteous 3P
Patient 2P, 2U
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 3P, 2U
Superior Court Judge Surveys (119 distributed, 40 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 1P
Knowledge of law 1P
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1P
Hon. Karl C. Eppich
Court of Appeals Division II
Attorney Surveys (195 distributed, 23 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 2P
Knowledge of law 2P
Decisions based on laws and facts 3P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 3P
Superior Court Judge Surveys (109 distributed, 29 returned)
Hon. Randall M. Howe
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (683 distributed, 101 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 7P, 3U
Knowledge of law 5P, 2U
Decisions based on laws and facts 7P, 3U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 6P, 2U
Basic fairness and impartiality 2P, 3U
Equal treatment regardless of race 1U
Equal treatment regardless of gender 1P, 1U
Equal treatment regardless of religion 1P, 1U
Equal treatment regardless of national origin 1U
Equal treatment regardless of disability 1U
Equal treatment regardless of age 1U
Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation 1U
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 2P, 1U
Demeanor in communications with counsel 1P
Relevant questions 2P, 1U
Preparation for oral argument 1P, 2U
Courteous 2P
Patient 3P
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 1P, 2U
Superior Court Judge Surveys (153 distributed, 61 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks
Legal reasoning ability 1P, 1U
Knowledge of law 1P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1P, 1U
Basic fairness and impartiality 1P
Equal treatment regardless of race 1P
Equal treatment regardless of gender 1P
Equal treatment regardless of religion 1P
Equal treatment regardless of national origin 1P
Equal treatment regardless of disability 1P
Equal treatment regardless of age 1P
Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation 1P
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 1P
Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (675 distributed, 85 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks
Legal reasoning ability 4P, 1U
Knowledge of law 2P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 2P, 3U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 5P, 1U
Basic fairness and impartiality 1P, 1U
Equal treatment regardless of race 1U
Equal treatment regardless of gender 1U
Equal treatment regardless of religion 1U
Equal treatment regardless of national origin 1U
Equal treatment regardless of disability 1U
Equal treatment regardless of age 1U
Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation 1U
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 1U
Demeanor in communications with counsel 2P
Relevant questions 1P
Preparation for oral argument 1P
Dignified 1P
Courteous 1P
Patient 1P
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 2P
Superior Court Judge Surveys (198 distributed, 67 returned)
Unsatisfactory marks
Decisions based on laws and facts 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1U
Hon. James B. Morse Jr.
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (296 distributed, 39 returned)
Poor marks
Attentiveness 1P
Demeanor in communications with counsel 2P
Relevant questions 1P
Preparation for oral argument 1P
Courteous 1P
Superior Court Judge Surveys (73 distributed, 30 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks
Legal reasoning ability 2P, 1U
Knowledge of law 2P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 2P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2P, 1U
Promptness in making rulings and rendering decisions 1P
Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (334 distributed, 34 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks
Legal reasoning ability 2P
Knowledge of law 2P
Decisions based on laws and facts 2P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2P
Basic fairness and impartiality 2P
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 2P
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 1P, 1U
Promptness in making rulings and rendering decisions 2P, 1U
Superior Court Judge Surveys (83 distributed, 38 returned)
Poor and Unsatisfactory marks
Legal reasoning ability 3P, 1U
Knowledge of law 4P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 4P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 4P
Basic fairness and impartiality 2P
Equal treatment regardless of race 1P
Equal treatment regardless of gender 2P
Equal treatment regardless of religion 2P
Equal treatment regardless of national origin 2P
Equal treatment regardless of disability 1P
Equal treatment regardless of age 1P
Equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation 2P
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 1P
Promptness in making rulings and rendering decisions 2P
Hon. Samuel A. Thumma
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (444 distributed, 70 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 1P, 1U
Knowledge of law 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1P, 1U
Basic fairness and impartiality 1U
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 1U
Attentiveness 1P
Demeanor in communications with counsel 1P
Relevant questions 1P
Preparation for oral argument 1P
Courteous 1P
Patient 1P
Conduct that promotes confidence in the court and judge’s ability 1P
Superior Court Judge Surveys (121 distributed, 45 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 2P
Knowledge of law 1P
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2P
Promptness in making rulings and rendering decisions 1P
Hon. Garye L Vasquez
Court of Appeals Division II
Attorney Surveys (362 distributed, 48 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 2U
Knowledge of law 1P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P, 2U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2U
Basic fairness and impartiality 1U
Superior Court Judge Surveys (189 distributed, 46 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 1P
Knowledge of law 1P
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1P
Hon. David D. Weinzweig
Court of Appeals Division I
Attorney Surveys (256 distributed,31 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 3P
Knowledge of law 3P
Decisions based on laws and facts 3P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 2P
Basic fairness and impartiality 4P
Equal treatment regardless of gender 1P
Equal treatment regardless of economic status 3P
Relevant questions 1P
Superior Court Judge Surveys (58 distributed,11 returned)
Legal reasoning ability 1P, 1U
Knowledge of law 1P, 1U
Decisions based on laws and facts 1P, 1U
Clearly written, legally supported decisions 1P, 1U
Basic fairness and impartiality 1P
Maricopa County Judges
Litigant Witness Surveys unless noted otherwise
The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge “superior, very good,” or “satisfactory” in each of the Commission’s evaluation categories (Integrity, Communication,
Temperament, Admin Performance and Settlement Activities).
Hon. Jay Adleman
Hon. Sara Agne
Hon. Justin Beresky Temperament 83 and Communication 84
Hon. Scott Blaney All numbers under 90%
Hon. Lori Horn Bustamante
Hon. Rodrick Coffey
Hon. Bruce R. Cohen
No Hon. Suzanne Cohen
1 Commissioner voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Suzanne Cohen
Hon. Connie Contes
Hon. Christopher A. Coury
Hon. Adam Driggs
2 Commissioners voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Adam Driggs
Hon. Ronda Fisk Communication 88 Temperament 89
Hon. Pamela Gates
Hon. Jo Lynn Gentry
6 Commissioners voted does not meet Judicial Standards for Jo Lynn Gentry
Hon. Michael D. Gordon
Hon. John R. Hannah Jr. Attorney Surveys only two marks above 90%
Hon. Michael W. Kemp
Hon. Daniel J. Kiley
Hon. Margaret LaBianca
Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney Integrity 79%, Communication 80%
Hon. Michael Mandell
Hon. Suzanne Marwil
Hon. M. Scott McCoy
Hon. Kathleen Mead
Hon. Joseph Mikitish
Hon. Scott Minder
Hon. Karen A. Mullins Communication 86% Temperament 84%
Hon. David J. Palmer
Hon. Adele Ponce Attorney Surveys Legal Ability 81% Communication 85%
Hon. Timothy J. Ryan Communication 85% Settlement Activities 67%
Hon. Teresa A. Sanders
Hon. Patricia Starr
Hon. Sherry K. Stephens
Hon. Timothy Thomason
Hon. Peter A. Thompson
Hon. David K. Udall
Hon. Lisa Ann Vandenberg Attorney Surveys Legal Ability 89% Temperament 87%
Hon. Kevin Wein
Hon. Christopher T. Whitten
