Judicial Evaluation Commission

The Judicial Evaluation Commission performs a variety of evaluations, including periodic evaluations, which are conducted every three years for superior court and municipal court judges, end-of-term evaluations, evaluations in the event of an application renomination or promotion, and evaluations performed at the request of the Supreme Court.

• Integrity
• Good repute or public image
• Intellectual integrity
• Professional skills
• Analytical capacity
• Industriousness
• Administrative capabilities
• Temperament
• Academic competence
• Ability to perform and handle assigned cases
• Experience
• Commitment to public service
• Interest in pursuing a career in the judiciary

The Judicial Evaluation Commission performs a variety of evaluations, including periodic evaluations, which are conducted every three years for superior court and municipal court judges, end-of-term evaluations, evaluations in the event of an application renomination or promotion, and evaluations performed at the request of the Supreme Court.

• Integrity
• Good repute or public image
• Intellectual integrity
• Professional skills
• Analytical capacity
• Industriousness
• Administrative capabilities
• Temperament
• Academic competence
• Ability to perform and handle assigned cases
• Experience
• Commitment to public service
• Interest in pursuing a career in the judiciary

The Judicial Evaluation Commission analyzes different aspects related to the  performance of the judge under evaluation:

• The judge’s academic preparation and professional experience and continuing legal education courses taken during the evaluation period
• In the case of municipal court judges, designations to hear superior court cases during the evaluation period and information about the work performed
• Existence of complaints
• Compliance with the Canons of Judicial Ethics regarding financial disclosure reports
• Surveys of attorneys, prosecutors, advocates and solicitors, and social workers who have appeared before the judge
• Surveys of other court officers
• Assessment of the performance in court and temperament of the judge being evaluated
• Performance during the interview with the Judicial Evaluation Commission

The information collected in the forms is entered into an Excel worksheet. This is used to calculate the average values for each criteria surveyed. The scores obtained are then analyzed to determine the level of performance of the judge under evaluation. This information is used to prepare the which will be used by the Commissioners during the plenary meeting with the judge under evaluation.

The purpose of this interview is for participating commissioners and Supreme Court justices to exchange impressions with the judge regarding the evaluation that is being conducted. These are informal interviews that are held once all the required information for the evaluation has been obtained.

Following the informal meeting, the Judicial Evaluation Commission meets in a plenary session to set a preliminary score for the judge’s performance and to request that the Executive Director prepare a Preliminary Findings Report. This report is sent to the judge under evaluation.

If a judge disagrees with the evaluation, the judge has ten days from the date of notice to request a second appearance before the Judicial Evaluation Commission, either in person or in writing, to present arguments in support of a motion to reconsider the preliminary scores.

The information collected during the evaluation process is for the exclusive use of the Judicial Evaluation Commission. Therefore, the strictest security measures are implemented to guarantee the confidentiality of the participants’ individual opinions. The evaluation record is kept in secured files and destroyed after the meeting. The judges under evaluation do not have access to this information.  The attorneys and officers surveyed are guaranteed that their comments will not be accessible to those under evaluation and that their identities will not be disclosed. It is a misdemeanor for any employee or commissioner to disclose the identity of participants.

If you have information regarding the performance of a judge that may be useful in the evaluation process, you may submit it confidentially to the Executive Director of the Judicial Evaluation Commission, Alexander G. Reynoso Vázquez, Esq., at the following emails: alexander.reynoso@poderjudial.pror ComisionEvaluacionJudicial@poderjudicial.pr. You may also send it by mail to P.O. Box 364362, San Juan, PR 00936-4362, or you may call (787) 641-6600; ext. 5886.

If you are an attorney that has appeared before a judge under evaluation during the last three years and have not received an evaluation form, you may contact the Judicial Evaluation Office by email at ComisionEvaluacionJudicial@poderjudicial.pr or call (787) 641-6600,  ext.  5886 or 5888, so that an evaluation form may be sent to you as soon as possible. If you wish to download the form and submit it electronically, you may do so by clicking here.

When submitting the electronic form, please remember to provide your name and Supreme Court (RUA) number in order to confirm that the form has not been previously submitted. The RUA number will never be used to identify the attorney filling out the form, as Law No.  91 of 1991, as amended, provides strict confidentiality standards.

Once you have filled out the form, you may send it to the Executive Director of the Judicial Evaluation Commission by email to ComisionEvaluacionJudicial@poderjudicial.pr or by mail to P.O. Box 364362, San Juan, PR 00936-4362.

We invite you to participate in the evaluation of judges of the Court of First Instance. Your assistance and contributions will allow us to keep developing an outstanding judiciary.