Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez is one of three judges who earned the top retention score in the 2006 Judicial Performance Evaluation. She also received glowing remarks and high ratings in every category except punctuality. Photo by Gary Thompson.

The verdict is in: Our best judge and our worst judge both preside in Clark County's emotionally charged Family Court.

So say local attorneys, who in the 2006 Judicial Performance Evaluation portray Gloria Sanchez and Lisa Brown as polar opposites in understanding and fairly applying the law, among other things. The stark contrast extends to their retention scores. They rank the highest and lowest among the 64 judges evaluated in the survey.

An impressive 94 percent of participating attorneys who evaluated Sanchez said she should stay on the bench. Only two other judges, both in other courts, attained ratings that high.

Meanwhile, only 29 percent said the same about Brown, who also scored the lowest in her court division in the previous evaluation.

"It's unfair and unwarranted," Brown said, "but everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Sanchez said she is gratified by her high retention score and takes seriously attorneys' comments, such as complaints that she starts court sessions late and allows litigants and attorneys to ramble on.

"I think the lawyers are very generous. I'm thrilled," she said. "I think it's a fair critique, and I will work on the negatives."

The purpose of the biennial survey is to give readers an insider's look at judges during election years. However, none of the 12 sitting Family Court judges faces an election until 2008, though a new seat will be on the fall ballot.

In addition to the question about whether a judge should be retained, judges are graded on adequacy in a dozen areas, such as being familiar with cases before them, making appropriate and informed rulings, showing no bias or impropriety and being courteous.

More than half the attorneys found Judges T. Arthur Ritchie Jr. and Steven Jones more than adequate in every area.

Fewer than half found Brown and fellow judges Gerald Hardcastle, Cheryl Moss, Sandra Pomrenze and Cynthia Dianne Steel more than adequate in any area.

The issues attorneys take with Brown are comprehensive, starting before she even enters the courtroom. Their biggest gripe is that she fails to start on time, keep business moving and do an amount of work that is fair to taxpayers and other judges. They also said she comes up short in performing various aspects of her job, from being prepared on cases to issuing orders and opinions without delay.

Brown, whose retention score had slipped from 64 percent in 2002 to 44 percent in 2004, said the recent findings should be taken in context.

Attorneys are supposed to rate only those judges with whom they have had recent and direct professional experience. Evaluating Brown were 116 lawyers, a small sample, she asserted, considering she has dealt with hundreds during the 17,000 cases she has heard during her five-plus years on the bench.

Thus, her 29 percent retention score means 82 attorneys don't think she should seek another term.

"I'm not happy about the numbers, and I always strive to do better, but it's 82 anonymous attorneys," Brown said. "I can't even verify that everyone that filled out the survey appeared in front of me. You can't even write a letter to the editor without signing your name."

Likewise, she disagrees with attorneys' written comments that broadly characterize her as unprepared, indecisive and overwhelmed. It would have been more helpful, she said, if attorneys had cited specific cases in which they thought she had erred.

One attorney who did just that complained that Brown had given "express service" to pop star Britney Spears in getting her marriage annulled while local citizens must wait weeks for the judge to sign their orders.

Brown said she did that because she was told the media trailing Spears were crowding corridors and spilling into courtrooms. The annulment was uncontested; Brown took care of it to quell the disruption.

Family Court is a specialized division in which judges decide divorce and child custody and support cases. The sessions can become volatile -- some judges say it isn't unusual for family members to cry and attorneys to snipe at each other.

One heated custody battle turned tragic last year, and it appears the memory is still fresh to some attorneys who rated Moss, the judge who ruled in that case.

Moss had granted joint custody of three children, the oldest of whom fatally shot himself last August with his father's shotgun. The mother blamed the judge for failing to heed her warnings that the father kept unsecured firearms in his Henderson home. But Moss had repeatedly ordered the father to lock up the guns.

Mention of the 12-year-old's suicide surfaced in some comments, both sympathetic and critical. Others revisited allegations made earlier last year that Moss had favored attorneys who contribute to her campaign.

"I've always maintained that those accusations are nonsense. I've never given any preferential treatment to attorneys who have contributed to my campaign," she said.

Moss, whose retention score is 46 percent, said attorneys may have an incomplete picture of the few events that generated heightened media attention.

More than half the attorneys evaluating her said she was less than adequate in making appropriate rulings, properly applying the law and showing no bias on the basis of parties or attorneys.

A common sentiment expressed about many Family Court judges is that they linger too long on some cases, creating a backlog and adding to litigation costs.

"For the mothers and fathers going through custody cases, this is the most important thing in their lives," said Moss. "They deserve the time and attention from a judge."

Hardcastle, whose retention score is 60 percent, is perceived by a few attorneys as decisive and efficient and by most as rude and bullying. Forty-five percent of attorneys rated him less than adequate in courtesy, worse than any other Family Court judge.

Hardcastle said he didn't intend to read what attorneys wrote about him.

"I might be curious, but not enough to look at the results," he said. "The poll is not valid and you know it. ... If I'm as bad as the thing suggests, then I can't understand why the (Review-Journal) keeps endorsing me."

But other judges say they use their results as guidelines for improvement.

Judge N. Anthony Del Vecchio, who got a 77 retention score, said the main thing he learned is attorneys want their day in court after settlement conferences prove unsuccessful.

Sanchez said she already was working on minimizing waits in her courtroom before learning of her survey results. Starting sessions on time was the only category in which most attorneys didn't find her more than adequate.

In a few months, her staff will begin staggering hearings at short intervals rather than booking multiple hearings at the same time.

"Their criticism is well-taken, and every poll I try to do better," Sanchez said. "I'm very flattered this time around, and I have to keep working even harder, is the way I feel."