VALLEY — Performance evaluations of Colorado judges standing for retention in the 2018 general election were released this week.

The performance evaluations also will be included in the “Colorado Voter Information Guide,” commonly referred to as the Blue Book, to be mailed this fall to every active registered voter household in Colorado.

Standing for retention and listed as meeting performance standards in the San Luis Valley were Chief District Judge Pattie Swift for the 12^th judicial district (the Valley) and Alamosa County Court Judge Daniel Walzl, Costilla County Judge Kimberly Wood, Rio Grande County Judge Barbara Zollars and Saguache County Judge Anna Ulrich.

The evaluations were conducted by the State Commission on Judicial Performance and 22 local judicial district performance commissions, each of which consists of six non-attorney members and four attorney members. These volunteer commissions are charged with providing voters fair, responsible and constructive evaluations of individual judges seeking retention.

Judicial performance commissions evaluate judges’ integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and administrative performance. Commissions consider responses to surveys on judicial performance, a judge’s self-evaluation, decisions authored by the judge, courtroom observations, case information, and any other written or oral information received. 

The commissions produced a narrative for each judge with a statement of whether the judge “meets performance standards,” or “does not meet performance standards.”

All of the Valley judges who are up for retention this year met performance standards.

Following are the reports on the local judges up for retention:

Honorable Pattie P. Swift

The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0 vote) agreed that Chief Judge Pattie P. Swift meets performance standards.

Judge Swift has been the Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District and Water Judge of Water Division 3 since October 1, 2011. Judge Swift was appointed to the District Court in February 2003.

She is a graduate of the University of New Mexico School of Law graduating with academic honors. Judge Swift has been involved with many community service activities and organizations, including services for families, dependency and neglect drug treatment, primary, secondary and college students, social service organizations, and the arts.

She has served as the chair of the Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board. She has been very active with the Colorado Panel on Multi-District Litigation and Judicial Education. She has been a parent volunteer and active with the public schools. Judge Swift was the recipient of the 2017 Colorado Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates Judicial Excellence Award. Prior to her appointment to the District Court, Judge Swift was a County Judge for Costilla County from 1989 to 2003.

The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Swift, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Swift. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Swift meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 100 percent answered, yes, meets performance standards. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 92 percent answered yes, meets performance standards, 4 percent answered does not meet performance standards, and 4 percent had no opinion. A total of 26 attorneys and 24 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Swift’s performance.

Judge Swift presided over several case types this term to include water trials, family, juvenile, criminal, and civil cases. Based on the commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Swift has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. Non-attorneys responding to the surveys were more critical of Judge Swift’s overall performance and the survey results reflect a slightly lower rating when compared to attorney responses. Non-attorneys rated Judge Swift’s performance in “Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time” and “Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings” lower than all other categories. The commission did not observe this trait during courtroom observations or in interviews with interested parties. Judge Swift received high marks in case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, fairness, and demeanor. Judge Swift is often described as being very knowledgeable about the law, smart, fair, and treating all participants in the courtroom with respect and dignity. Judge Swift’s opinions reflect her knowledge of the law and her logical and understandable communication style. Based on these findings, the commission unanimously agreed that Judge Swift meets judicial performance standards.

Honorable Daniel A. Walzl

The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a unanimous vote (9-0) agreed that Judge Daniel A. Walzl meets performance standards.

Judge Walzl was appointed to the Alamosa County Court in November of 2011. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Walzl was the managing deputy of the Alamosa regional office for the Colorado State Public Defender. He had been with the Public Defender’s Office for 10 years.

Judge Walzl received his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia, and in 1999, his law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law.

The commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Walzl, reviewed the self-assessment report completed by Judge Walzl, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, conducted courtroom observations, and reviewed survey responses from non-attorneys and attorneys who had experience with Judge Walzl. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Walzl meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 80 percent answered yes, meets performance standards 13 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards and 7 percent had no opinion regarding whether Judge Walzl meets or does not meet performance standards. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 98 percent answered yes, meets performance standards, 2 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards. A total of 17 attorneys and 60 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Walzl’s performance.

Judge Walzl presides over criminal cases, civil cases of less than $25,000, small claims cases of less than $7,500, civil protection orders, landlord/tenant cases, name changes, and traffic infractions. Judge Walzl was instrumental in the development of the DUI Court, which has been successful for the Twelfth Judicial District. He states that the DUI court “is a different approach that fits me well.” Judge Walzl received high marks from attorneys responding to the survey for his communication, specifically ensuring all participants understand the proceedings.

Survey respondents expressed some concern over Judge Walzl’s efforts to stay on schedule with the docket, but overall, he is effective in managing his caseload while being diligent in his preparation and impartial in his judgments. Judge Walzl successfully completed an improvement plan addressing judicial demeanor issues arising out of the prior round of performance reviews, and the Commission has determined that the issues of judicial demeanor raised in that plan have been satisfactorily addressed.

Honorable Kimberly Lynn Wood

The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance agreed by a vote of 7-2 that Judge Kimberly Lynn Wood meets performance standards.

Judge Wood earned her undergraduate degree from Baylor University and graduated from Washington & Lee School of Law. Judge Wood was appointed to the Costilla County bench in January of 2003.

Prior to her appointment, Judge Wood served as the Twelfth Judicial District’s Juvenile Magistrate for two years.  She also served as Deputy District Attorney for one year and was in private practice for eight years, in the areas of family law, criminal defense (juvenile and adult), dependency and neglect matters, and general civil litigation.

The Costilla County judgeship is a part-time position. Judge Wood also serves as the Twelfth Judicial District’s Domestic Relations Magistrate and presides over the Family Treatment Court.  The Judicial Performance Commission does not evaluate Judge Wood’s performance as the Domestic Relations Magistrate or her work with the Family Treatment Court.

Judge Wood serves her community focusing her attention on programs dedicated to breast cancer including the Process Improvement Team at the SLV Regional Medical Center and Casting for Recovery, a program that organizes fly fishing retreats for breast cancer survivors.

The commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Wood, reviewed the self-assessment report completed by Judge Wood, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, conducted courtroom observations, and reviewed survey responses from non-attorneys and attorneys who had experience with Judge Wood. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Wood meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 71 percent answered yes, meets performance standards, 18 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards and 12 percent had no opinion regarding whether Judge Wood meets or does not meet performance standards. (These percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding). Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 74 percent answered yes, meets performance standards, 22 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards and 4 percent had no opinion regarding whether Judge Wood meets or does not meet performance standards.  A total of 17 attorneys and 26 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Wood’s performance.

Judge Wood presides over criminal cases, civil cases under $15,000, traffic cases, and small claims cases. Survey results revealed verbal communication as a strength of Judge Wood by both attorneys and non-attorneys. Survey results from attorneys indicate lower scores in “providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well-reasoned”, as compared to all county judges evaluated.

During the last judicial performance cycle, Judge Wood was put on a performance plan to address concerns with legal reasoning and the application of law. Although the Chief Judge verified to the commission that Judge Wood has successfully completed the performance plan, survey results and courtroom observations reveal the concerns continue to exist.

Honorable Barbara A. Zollars

The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) agreed that Judge Barbara A. Zollars meets performance standards.

Judge Zollars was appointed to the Rio Grande County Court on August 13, 2015. She is a graduate of the Seattle University School of Law.

Judge Zollars is active in local mock trial activities for high school students in addition to her work as the Rio Grande County Judge. Previously, she was in private practice as a partner in the San Luis Valley Law Firm. Prior to entering private practice, Judge Zollars was the Office Head for the Colorado State Public Defender regional offices in Alamosa, Fort Collins, and Silverthorne, and was a Deputy Colorado State Public Defender in the regional offices of Greeley and La Junta.

Prior to moving to Colorado, Judge Zollars was the founder and director of the Legal Action Center at the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and was an employment rights commissioner for the City of Seattle.

The commission conducted an interview with Judge Zollars, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, and reviewed survey responses from individuals who had experience with Judge Zollars. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Zollars meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 88 percent answered, yes, meets performance standards, 6 percent answered no, and 6 percent had no opinion. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 79 percent answered yes, meets performance standards, 14 percent answered no, and 7 percent had no opinion.  A total of 18 attorneys, and 27 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys evaluating Judge Zollars’ performance.

Judge Zollars presided over several case types including traffic offenses, misdemeanor criminal cases, civil protection order requests, landlord-tenant matters, and small claims actions. Based on the commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Zollars has demonstrated that she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. Judge Zollars scored above the average for all county court judges on each survey question answered by attorneys.

Non- attorneys responding to the surveys were more critical of Judge Zollars’ overall performance and she scored slightly below or at the same level as the average for all county court judges. Several comments from individuals responding to surveys addressed a lack of patience with individuals appearing before Judge Zollars. The commission did not observe this trait during courtroom observations and was satisfied during the interview that Judge Zollars is aware of the criticism and working to address this concern.

Judge Zollars received high marks in case management, application and knowledge of the law, and communications. Judge Zollars was described as an excellent communicator, and a judge who is unafraid to rule against either side if the law supports her ruling. The commission noted that Judge Zollars expressed humility and willingness to grow and to continue to hone her skills as a judge. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Zollars meets judicial performance standards.

Honorable Anna Ulrich

The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) agreed that Judge Anna Ulrich meets performance standards.

Judge Ulrich was appointed to the Saguache County Court in November 2016. Prior to her appointment to the Bench, Judge Ulrich was a sole practitioner focusing on domestic relations cases and advocating on behalf of the best interests of children in various types of cases. Because the Saguache County Court position is part time, Judge Ulrich has continued in her private practice since her appointment.

She has previously served as the assistant county attorney for Chaffee County, a research attorney for the Twelfth Judicial District, and as an associate attorney for two private law firms.

Judge Ulrich received her undergraduate degree from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas in 1997 and her Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado in 2001.

The commission read opinions written by Judge Ulrich, performed courtroom observations, conducted an interview, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Ulrich. Among the questions asked of those who had experience with Judge Ulrich was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Ulrich meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 67 percent answered yes, meets performance standards and 33 percent answered no, does not meet performance standards. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 86 percent answered yes, meets performance standards and 14 percent had no opinion regarding whether Judge Ulrich meets or does not meet performance standards. A total of nine attorneys and seven non-attorneys responded to the surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Ulrich’s performance.

Judge Ulrich presides over criminal cases, traffic infractions, protection orders, civil cases of $25,000 or less, landlord-tenant cases, and small claims cases of $7,500 or less. Judge Ulrich received praise from attorneys for her patience and demeanor in the courtroom and her willingness to handle strange or complicated matters. Attorneys were concerned, however, about her knowledge of criminal law and procedure.

Judge Ulrich was applauded by non-attorneys for her kind and patient treatment of everyone who appeared before her. Specifically, several survey respondents noted that Judge Ulrich consistently gives people the time they need to speak and feel heard in the courtroom.

The commission felt that Judge Ulrich should work to improve her written orders and shared the concern regarding Judge Ulrich’s knowledge of criminal law; however, the commission acknowledges that Judge Ulrich has only been on the Bench for about 18 months.

Caption: Chief District Judge Pattie Swift/Courtesy photo