Frequently Asked Questions: Judicial Nominees Evaluation

The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE; JNE Commission), is an agency of the State Bar created by statute for the express purpose of evaluating judicial candidates nominated by the Governor. The language of the statute, Government Code section 12011.5, is mandatory. It provides that, prior to exercising their constitutional right to make judicial appointments, the Governor shall submit to JNE the names of all potential appointees or nominees for judicial office for evaluation of their judicial qualifications. The commission operates pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the State Bar.

The role of the JNE Commission is to gather information about the candidates and to conduct a confidential evaluation of the judicial qualifications of candidates whose names have been submitted to the commission by the Governor and to report its findings, in absolute confidence, to the Governor.

The commission, in evaluating candidates, functions independently of the Board of Trustees of the State Bar. Board liaison attend the commission meetings periodically but do not participate in discussions, express opinions, or vote, and are bound by the same rules of confidentiality as commission members.

Information received during the investigation process or discussed during the evaluation process cannot be released by the commission. Under the statute, information received by the commission is absolutely confidential and it would be a clear-cut violation of the law to divulge how the commission conducted any part of the investigation or the weight given to evidence of a negative or positive nature.

The commission reports its recommendations, in absolute confidence, to the Governor. The rule ". . . prohibits disclosure of any information of any nature to anyone. . ." except as otherwise provided by the statute. The commission does inform a candidate who has been found not qualified of that fact.

The only other exception is if the Governor appoints a person to a trial court who has been found not qualified, the State Bar may make this fact public after due notice to the appointee of its intention to do so.

When the Governor nominates a person to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, the JNE Commission submits its recommendation, and the reasons for such recommendation, to the Commission on Judicial Appointments, and appears at the public hearing to present its recommendation and reasons.

No, that is entirely a gubernatorial prerogative.

Pursuant to Government Code section 12011.5(b), the commission consists of attorney and public (i.e., nonattorney) members. The commission is to consist of at least twenty-seven and no more than thirty-eight members. The ratio of nonattorney members to attorney members is determined, to the extent practical, by the ratio established in sections 6013.4 and 6013.5 of the Business and Professions Code.

It is the stated intent of the Legislature that the JNE membership "shall be broadly representative of the ethnic, gender, and racial diversity of the population of California and composed in accordance with sections 11140 and 11141 of the Government Code."

Practice areas of the members are representative of the various types of practice in California, and include the public sector as well as private practice, large and small firms and sole practitioners. The actual composition of the commission has tended to reflect the diversity of the legal profession in California.

Individuals interested in serving on the commission apply to the Board of Trustees, and are appointed by the Board following the guidelines set forth in Government Code section 12011.5(b), and upon recommendation of the Board Executive Committee.

JNE was a pilot program in 1979. It was established pursuant to Government Code section 12011.5, effective January 1, 1980. Prior to creation of the commission, the Board of Trustees evaluated candidates.

The commission has to report to the Governor within 90 days from the date of submission of the names of the candidates.

The Government Code (Section 12011.5) sets forth certain evaluation criteria. Thus, in determining the qualifications of a candidate, the JNE Commission shall consider, among other appropriate factors, their industry, judicial temperament, honesty, objectivity, community respect, integrity, health, ability and legal experience. The State Bar shall consider broad legal experience including, but not limited to: litigation and non litigation experience; legal work for a business or nonprofit entity; experience as a law professor or other academic position; legal work in any of the three branches of government and; legal work in dispute resolution.

The definition of the ratings of judicial candidates to be used by the commission in reporting to the Governor's office are:

Definition of Ratings - vary by candidate type :

Candidates for the Superior Court:

Exceptionally Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes of remarkable or extraordinary superiority that enable them to perform the judicial function with distinction.

Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes indicative of a superior fitness to perform the judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.

Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes sufficient to perform the judicial function adequately and satisfactorily.

Not Qualified: Possessing less than the minimum qualities and attributes.

Candidates for the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court:

Exceptionally Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes of remarkable or extraordinary superiority that enable them to perform the appellate judicial function with distinction.

Well Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes indicative of a superior fitness to perform the appellate judicial function with a high degree of skill, effectiveness, and distinction.

Qualified: Possessing qualities and attributes sufficient to perform the appellate judicial function with a high degree of skill and effectiveness.

Not Qualified: Possessing less than the minimum qualities and attributes.

• Superior Court candidates are expected to have the qualities of decisiveness, oral communication skills, and patience.
• Court of Appeal candidates are expected to have the qualities of collegiality, writing ability, and scholarship.
• Supreme Court candidates are expected to have the qualities of collegiality, writing ability, scholarship, distinction in the profession, and breadth and depth of experience.

Yes. If the Governor appoints a person to a trial court who has been found not qualified, the State Bar may make this fact public after due notice to the appointee of its intention to do so.

If the Governor nominates or appoints a person who has been found not qualified to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, the JNE commission submits its recommendation, and the reasons for such recommendation, to the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

1. A candidate rated not qualfied may request rescission within 30 days of being notified of the NQ rating by the JNE director on behalf of the commission.
2. The JNE Review Committee consists of five members who are appointed by the Board of Trustees.
3. This committee's charge is to review all requests for reconsideration. In the event the Review Committee finds certain specified violations of the rules to have occurred, or after review of the candidate's record the commission's rating of not qualified is not supported by substantial evidence, it may, in its absolute discretion, rescind the opinion of the commission.

• 2024: 8.7 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2023: 15.1 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2022: 8.7 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2021: 11.1 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2020: 6.5 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2019: 8.1 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2018: 7.2 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2017: 7.9 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2016: 5.5 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2015: 7.9 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2014: 7.1 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2013: 10.7 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2012: 13.82 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2011: 6.36 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 2010: 9.13 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.

For Trial Court: Two or more commissioners, at least one of whom is an attorney member; for Supreme and Appellate Courts: Three or more commissioners, at least one of whom is a public member.

The commission investigates all statements made in the candidate's Application for Appointment that the candidate submits to the Governor's office. In addition, confidential comment forms are sent to the following:

1. 50 to 75 names of persons provided by the candidate, who are reasonably likely to have knowledge of the candidate's qualifications (personal list);
2. a broad cross-section of the names of attorneys in the counties and the areas of law in which the candidate practices;
3. all judicial officers in each county where a candidate practices and seeks appointment, except for the County of Los Angeles;
4. at least 50 percent of all judicial officers if the candidate practices in the County of Los Angeles, and all judicial officers in any other county where the candidate seeks appointment;
5. all names listed in the candidate's Application for Appointment;
6. all justices of any appellate district where a candidate practices and all justices of the California Supreme Court;
7. all or at least 50 randomly selected prosecutors and criminal defenders, whichever number is less, in any county where a candidate practices criminal law and any other county where the candidate seeks appointment.
8. 75 names selected at random from the commission's mailing list.

The objective is to obtain a return of at least 50 Confidential Comment Forms that provide information that is sufficient and credible for a fair evaluation.

Yes. The investigating commissioners are required by the rules to notify the candidate at least four business days prior to the interview of any criticisms they have preliminarily found to be substantial and credible.

The candidate is given an opportunity to respond to, and present evidence to rebut, all reported criticisms at the interview.

The assigned investigating commissioners personally interview the candidate; the commission as a whole does not.