Previously known as Judicial Nominations Committee
The Virginia State Bar (VSB) Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee (JCEC or
Committee) consists of fifteen active lawyer members, one from each of the bar’s ten
disciplinary districts and five from the state at large, elected to staggered three-year terms. Committee members are not
eligible to serve a second consecutive three-year term, but former members may serve as
members pro tempore. The VSB’s Executive Committee shall assign a representative to
serve as a liaison to the JCEC as a non-voting member. The chair is selected by the
Committee each year.
The fifteen committee members are solicited in December in emails and online; applications are due in March. Applicants send a brief résumé and a short statement of interest to [email protected]. Members can only serve one three-year term.
Upcoming meetings may be found on the Calendar and are subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Agendas and call-in numbers will be provided on the meeting entry on the Calendar.
Judicial Candidate Evaluation Policy
I. Committee Composition
-
The Virginia State Bar (VSB) Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee (JCEC or
Committee) consists of fifteen active lawyer members, one from each of the bar’s ten
disciplinary districts and five from the state at large, elected to staggered three-year terms. Committee members are not
eligible to serve a second consecutive three-year term, but former members may serve as
members pro tempore. The VSB’s Executive Committee shall assign a representative to
serve as a liaison to the JCEC as a non-voting member. The chair is selected by the
Committee each year.
In instances where one or more currently serving members of the Committee are not
available to participate in the process of developing and making recommendations for a
particular judicial vacancy, the chair of the Committee may appoint, as members pro
tempore, a like number of past members of the Committee who are willing and able to serve
during the process of developing and making recommendations for that judicial vacancy.
- The Committee is a neutral, non-partisan, deliberative body.
II. Committee Procedures
- If requested by the appointing authority, when a judicial vacancy occurs on the
Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the federal district courts in
Virginia, or a Virginia seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, it
is the responsibility of the Committee to consider and, where appropriate, seek nominees.
- The chair of the Committee will assign two members of JCEC to investigate each
candidate. A member of the Committee from a particular VSB disciplinary district will
normally be assigned to investigate any and all nominees from that district. The Committee
members conducting the investigation should seek information relating to the experience,
integrity, professional competence, temperament, service to the law and to the effective
administration of justice and communication skills of the candidate.
- Sources will be assured of confidentiality by the investigating Committee member,
who will report orally to the Committee on his or her overall findings and conclusions as
to each nominee without attribution.
- After judicial nominees are investigated by individual members of the Committee, it
will act as a whole to conduct personal interviews with nominees and engage in any other
additional investigation deemed necessary.
- In evaluating candidates, the Committee should consider the following criteria:
- Experience: A candidate for judicial office should be a member of the Virginia
State Bar and have been engaged in the practice or teaching of law, public interest law, or
service in the judicial system. Substantial courtroom and trial experience (as a lawyer or a
trial judge) is important for nominees to both the appellate and the trial courts. Additional
experience that is similar to in-court trial work — such as appearing before or serving on
administrative agencies or arbitration boards, or teaching trial advocacy or other clinical
law school courses — is considered by the Committee in evaluating a nominee's trial
experience. Significant evidence of distinguished accomplishment in the field of law may
compensate for a nominee's lack of substantial courtroom experience. Recognizing that an
appellate judge deals primarily with records, briefs, appellate advocates and colleagues,
the Committee may place somewhat more emphasis on the importance of scholarship and
the ability to write lucidly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law and to give
guidance to the trial courts for future cases in the evaluation of nominees for appellate
courts.
- Integrity: The candidate should be of high moral character and enjoy a general
reputation in the community for honesty, industry, and diligence.
- Professional competence: Professional competence includes intellectual
capacity, professional and personal judgment, writing and analytical ability, knowledge of
the law and a breadth of professional experience, including courtroom and trial experience.
- Temperament: Judicial temperament includes a commitment to equal justice
under law, freedom from bias, ability to decide issues according to law, courtesy and
civility, open-mindedness, and compassion.
- Service to the law and contribution to the effective administration of justice:
Factors in this category include professionalism and a commitment to improving the
availability of providing justice to all. The Committee considers that civic activities and
public service are valuable experiences, but that such activity and service are not a
substitute for significant experience in the practice of law, whether that experience be in
the private or public sector.
- Communication skills: Communication skills include the ability to write and
speak lucidly and persuasively; to present a question, a response, an order, a ruling, a
decision, and a judgment, such that it can be understood not only by the lawyers but the
parties to the litigation and by the public as well. The communications should give
guidance to the trial courts, the members of the bar and the public for future cases.
- Following investigation and personal interviews of the candidates, the Committee
shall vote on the qualifications of all candidates.
- Any candidate who fails to receive an affirmative vote from a simple majority
of those voting shall not be reported by the Committee.
- All candidates who receive an affirmative vote from a simple majority of those
voting shall be deemed and reported as “Qualified.” The Committee shall thereafter
conduct a second vote to determine, by simple majority of those voting, whether any of the
candidates deemed qualified possesses a level of qualification and distinction sufficient to
merit the designation “Highly Qualified.”
- At the conclusion of the Committee’s deliberations and voting, the Committee
shall prepare an executive summary of the Committee’s reasons for its actions with respect
to each candidate being designated as either “Qualified” or “Highly Qualified.” The vote
count for each candidate’s evaluation of “Qualified” or “Highly Qualified” shall be
included in the executive summary of each candidate.
- If a candidate has previously been evaluated by the Committee for the same position
and received a rating of “Qualified” or “Highly Qualified,” there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the candidate merits at least the same rating. In order for the presumption
to be rebutted, the Committee must be presented with information reflecting on the
candidate’s qualifications that warrants a vote to a lower rating.
- The Committee’s designations and executive summaries shall be provided to the
Executive Committee (EC) and shall be deemed approved by the EC unless the EC takes
action otherwise. JCEC’s designations and executive summaries shall thereafter be
forwarded to the appointing authority in writing and, if permitted, presented orally in
person, by the President or his or her designee.
- Following submission of the Virginia State Bar’s designations and executive
summaries, these documents will speak for the organization, and no representative of the
Virginia State Bar is authorized to offer any further statement regarding any person’s
qualifications or suitability for the vacancy, unless the process is re-opened by the
appointing authority and the Virginia State Bar’s evaluations are again requested for the
vacancy utilizing the process outlined in this policy.
Policy Amendments
- Approved by Council on June 17, 1993
- Amended by Council on June 18, 1998
- Amended by Council on June 19, 2003
- Amended by the Executive Committee pursuant to
Council authorization, November 30, 2006
- Amended by Council on March 2, 2007
- Amended by Council on October 19, 2007
- Amended by Council on June 14, 2012
- Amended by Council on February 27, 2016
- Amended by Council on February 26, 2022