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.

• 2025: 9.9 percent of candidates were rated not qualified.
• 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.