The 2006 survey is the eighth conducted by the Review-Journal to assess attitudes of lawyers toward judges' performance. It is the first survey conducted solely by the newspaper. Earlier efforts were jointly sponsored by the Review-Journal and the Clark County Bar Association. It is the second survey to be conducted online.

The survey asked lawyers to evaluate judges on 12 characteristics that are part of judicial performance. In addition to rating the adequacy of each judge on each characteristic, respondents also gave a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether the judge should be retained. They were permitted to write comments to explain their ratings.

Downey Research Associates executed the survey for the Review-Journal. Today's newspaper coverage contains a summary of each judge's numerical scoring for adequacy as well as the percentage of lawyers who "voted" to retain him or her. For a complete breakdown of individual scores, go to the newspaper's Web site at reviewjournal.com/news/judgingjudges.

The latest survey netted responses from 719 lawyers, who represent 19 percent of eligible participants. The State Bar of Nevada provided a list of 3,797 members who have primary business addresses in Clark County, to whom survey instructions were mailed.

Mailed instructions incorporated a security procedure to prevent any member of the bar from filing a survey form more than once, which prevented "stuffing" campaigns. Then, survey recipients were asked to police themselves by scoring only those judges with whom they have had firsthand experience that is recent enough and extensive enough to be fair. Judges were asked not to vote. Survey participation in 2006 was slightly less than in 2004, when 764 lawyers took part.

There is no objective way to assess how many of the 3,797 parties on the 2006 mailing list were qualified to take part in the survey, that is, having firsthand experience with judges that is both recent and extensive. Downey Research Associates estimates that if half the people on the original mailing list were qualified to participate in the survey, the participation by 719 lawyers would equate to a response rate of 38 percent of those truly eligible.

By comparison, judges in Nevada are elected by varying percentages of eligible voters. For example, the North Las Vegas municipal judge who won his seat in the general election in June 2005, did so with a voter turnout of slightly over 14 percent of registered voters, according to the Clark County Election Department. The Henderson judge who won in June 2005 did so with a voter turnout of just under 7 percent. But candidates for seats on District Court 's criminal/civil divisions who ran opposed and won in the general election of November 2002 did so with voter turnouts that varied by race from 44.9 percent to 48.1 percent.

Male lawyers accounted for almost 71 percent of survey respondents this time around. Civil litigation was the most common type of law practice cited by participants -- 64 percent do civil litigation, followed by 29 percent who do criminal work, and 23 percent who do personal injury work. Many respondents indicated they practice in more than one area of law, including also lesser percentages who work in family, probate, commercial or government law.

Of respondents, almost 41 percent said they did not rate judges in the 2004 survey. Respondents were permitted to rate judges in all the layers of court covered in the survey, as long as they had had adequate contact.

Almost 96 percent of respondents rated judges in the civil and criminal divisions of Clark County District Court. Slightly more than 54 percent rated judges on the Nevada Supreme Court. Just over 50 percent rated judges in justice courts. Just under 38 percent rated judges in the family division of District Court. Thirty percent rated judges in the municipal courts of Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.

The Clark County Bar Association's executive director, Eric Mann, declined to comment on why the group had pulled its sponsorship for the 2006 evaluation. He said, "I covered everything I needed to cover" in a column he wrote about the evaluation project in the February issue of the Communique, which is the organization's newsletter.

In the column, Mann said it was in the best interest of members for the bar association to withdraw support because the Review-Journal had, in recent editions of the evaluation, used anonymous comments submitted by attorneys in a way that he claimed was "heavy-handed" and "tabloid-like." Judges' adequacy ratings sometimes did not correspond with the published comments, according to Mann's column. "It's not fair, and it's hurtful," he wrote.

The Review-Journal this year dropped the practice, used in 2004, of printing one positive and one negative comment for every judge and seeking a response from each judge.

Some scores for individual judges may not add up to exactly 100 percent due to mathematical rounding.

Filing begins Monday for candidates for any judicial seats that are up for election in the fall.

These are the criteria that qualified lawyers were asked to use in rating each judge. For the first 12, the lawyer could decide that the judge was "More than adequate," "Adequate" or "Less than adequate" in meeting it. If a respondent had no opinion on a given question, he or she was instructed to skip to the next. Three of the questions do not apply to the work of Supreme Court justices and were not asked in their cases.

1. The judge demonstrates familiarity with the case record and documents, and fairly weighs all evidence and arguments before rendering a decision.

2. The judge's rulings, whether regarding civil issues, criminal sentencing, or contempt, are appropriate.

3. The judge properly applies the law, rules of procedure, and rules of evidence.

4. The judge clearly explains the basis for his or her decisions.

5. The judge's professional conduct is free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

6. The judge's conduct is free from bias on the basis of race or ethnic origin.

7. The judge's conduct is free from bias on the basis of gender.

8. The judge's conduct is free from bias on the basis of religion.

9. The judge's conduct is free from bias on the basis of parties or attorneys involved in the action.

10. The judge issues orders, judgments, decrees or opinions without unnecessary delay.

11. The judge is punctual in convening court, keeps business moving and does an amount of work fair to taxpayers and to other judges.

12. The judge is courteous.

The questionnaire also included these points:

13. Taking everything into account, would you recommend retaining this judge on the bench? (Yes or No)

14. If you have any additional comments concerning this judge you may (add) them here: