8th Judicial Circuit Bar Association

NEWS

Membership Survey Results - 2011

For the first year, the EJCBA board conducted a membership survey to assess the interests and desires of the overall membership and to tailor future planning of the board to better serve the membership.

The survey covered attorneys' opinions on the Jimmy C. Adkins ("Cedar Key") Annual Dinner, the Judicial Poll, EJCBA activities, monthly luncheons, EJCBA service projects, EJCBA sponsored CLE's, the holiday project, and other miscellaneous questions. If an attorney did not wish to given input on a particular topic, they could skip any of the sections of questions and continue on with the survey.

Ninety-one attorneys participated in the survey. We would like to thank those who responded. The 2011-2012 EJCBA board will be working on implementing many of the changes requested by the membership in the upcoming year. We look forward to being better able to serve you and hope to hear from our members again in next year's survey.

Click here to review the results

If you have any suggestions for topics you wish to see addressed in next year's member survey, please contact Judy Padgett at execdir@8jcba.org.

2011 Judicial Poll Results - June 10, 2011

The lawyers of the Eighth Judicial Circuit have a vital interest in attracting and retaining judicial officers with the highest possible qualifications, so that our courts demonstrate trust, respect and honor for our laws. This duty and responsibility of lawyers is recognized in the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers in Florida.

To assist and educate the public about this circuit's judicial officers, the Eighth Judicial Circuit Bar Association surveyed lawyers who practice law in our circuit. Our circuit comprises Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Gilchrist, Levy and Union counties.

The poll is intended to reflect the composite opinion of the local lawyers concerning the judicial abilities demonstrated during the past year for each of the judicial officers listed. Lawyers were instructed to disregard political considerations, and vote their conscience and opinion. If a lawyer did not have knowledge or experience as to a judicial officer's experience or capability in any one area sufficient to form a reasoned opinion, the lawyer was instructed to vote "No Opinion" as to that area.

The poll captured the lawyers' opinions in three broad categories: Legal acumen; communication skills; and professionalism.

Within each of these categories were more specific categories, as follows:

Legal Acumen:
1.	Demonstrates knowledge of the law;
2.	Listens to legal arguments;
3.	Comprehends legal concepts;
4.	Analytically reaches decisions in unsettled areas of the law; and
5.	Willing to make decisions based on established law.

Communication Skills:
1.	Able to articulate question and decisions;
2.	Written decisions are well reasoned;
3.	Written decisions are clear;
4.	Written decisions are concise; and
5.	Written decisions address issues raised.

Professionalism:
1.	Shows courtesy/civility;
2.	Shows patience/temperament;
3.	Shows industry/promptness;
4.	Has integrity/ethics;
5.	Shows impartiality;
6.	Shows preparedness; and
7.	Participates in professional activities.

The scale used by the lawyers to evaluate each judicial officer was as follows:

6 - Strongly agree;
5 - Moderately agree;
4 - Slightly agree;
3 - Slightly disagree;
2 - Moderately disagree;
1 - Strongly disagree.

While the EJCBA is providing you with all of the results, please carefully note that the results become significantly less meaningful as the number of lawyers who responded to any single judicial officer decreases. For example, if only 10 people responded to a judicial officer, one voter has the ability to significantly impact the outcome, making the overall results for that judicial officer less reliable.

The Association included federal area judicial officers and administrative hearing officers, even though these are appointed positions, rather than elected.

In addition to the detailed results, poll summary results are presented for each judicial officer based on averages as well as the most frequent response for each category.