Judicial Evaluations
2026 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducts a Judicial Evaluation Survey every even numbered year in accordance with its bylaws. The survey coincides with the judicial retention elections for judges of the Tenth Judicial District whose terms expire that year.
The purpose of the survey is to provide attorneys with an opportunity to evaluate judges based on their professional experience appearing before them and to provide the public with information about judges appearing on the November retention ballot.
A total of 5,496 survey invitations were distributed, with 387 attorneys participating. Attorneys evaluated only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience to provide an informed assessment. As a result, the number of evaluations varies by judge.
Retention Recommendation Results
The table below summarizes the retention recommendations for judges appearing on the November 2026 retention ballot.
| Judge | Evaluations | Yes Should Be Retained | No Should Not Be Retained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hon. Jenifer J. Ashford | 43 | 81% | 19% |
| Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg | 79 | 99% | 1% |
| Hon. Neil B. Foth | 69 | 91% | 9% |
| Hon. Michael P. Joyce | 76 | 71% | 29% |
| Hon. Rhonda K. Mason | 92 | 86% | 14% |
| Hon. Timothy P. McCarthy | 63 | 89% | 11% |
| Hon. Keven M. P. O'Grady | 78 | 87% | 13% |
| Hon. Jacquelyn E. Rokusek | 80 | 91% | 9% |
| Hon. Thomas Kelly Ryan | 96 | 96% | 4% |
| Hon. Erica K. Schoenig | 67 | 96% | 4% |
| Hon. Kathleen L. Sloan | 29 | 83% | 17% |
These results represent the responses of attorneys who participated in the 2026 Judicial Evaluation Survey. Detailed evaluation results and survey methodology are available in the full report below.
2026 Judicial Evaluation Survey Report
The Johnson County Bar Association conducts a Judicial Evaluation Survey every even numbered year in accordance with its bylaws. The survey coincides with the judicial retention elections for judges of the Tenth Judicial District whose terms expire that year.
The purpose of the survey is to provide attorneys with an opportunity to evaluate judges based on their professional experience appearing before them and to provide the public with information about judges appearing on the November retention ballot.
A total of 5,496 survey invitations were distributed, with 387 attorneys participating. Because there is no available method to identify attorneys who regularly appear before Tenth Judicial District judges, invitations were distributed to a broader attorney pool. Attorneys evaluated only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience to provide an informed assessment. As a result, the number of evaluations varies by judge.
The survey was conducted as a confidential and anonymous evaluation and was independently administered by Brilliant Nonprofit Solutions on behalf of the Johnson County Bar Association.
Evaluations: 43
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 58% | 23% | 7% | 7% | 5% |
| Communication | 55% | 23% | 12% | 5% | 5% |
| Judicial Temperament | 56% | 19% | 16% | 0% | 9% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 53% | 21% | 14% | 7% | 5% |
| Punctuality | 65% | 21% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 67% | 19% | 7% | 2% | 5% |
| Administrative Assistant | 77% | 14% | 7% | 0% | 2% |
| Overall Performance | 56% | 21% | 9% | 9% | 5% |
Evaluations: 91
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 58% | 29% | 10% | 0% | 3% |
| Communication | 61% | 24% | 7% | 5% | 3% |
| Judicial Temperament | 52% | 21% | 10% | 10% | 7% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 60% | 25% | 7% | 4% | 4% |
| Punctuality | 71% | 22% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 63% | 23% | 9% | 1% | 4% |
| Administrative Assistant | 78% | 15% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Overall Performance | 58% | 26% | 9% | 4% | 3% |
Evaluations: 93
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 62% | 24% | 7% | 6% | 1% |
| Communication | 59% | 26% | 5% | 10% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 66% | 25% | 6% | 2% | 1% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 65% | 26% | 9% | 0% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 68% | 23% | 6% | 2% | 1% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 68% | 24% | 5% | 1% | 2% |
| Administrative Assistant | 74% | 25% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 66% | 18% | 10% | 6% | 0% |
Evaluations: 37
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 68% | 22% | 5% | 0% | 5% |
| Communication | 71% | 14% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Judicial Temperament | 62% | 14% | 8% | 8% | 8% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 62% | 14% | 11% | 10% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 73% | 14% | 5% | 0% | 8% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 75% | 14% | 5% | 3% | 3% |
| Administrative Assistant | 78% | 19% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 68% | 8% | 16% | 5% | 3% |
Evaluations: 125
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 61% | 26% | 5% | 4% | 4% |
| Communication | 62% | 28% | 5% | 1% | 4% |
| Judicial Temperament | 69% | 24% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 67% | 21% | 6% | 2% | 4% |
| Punctuality | 73% | 22% | 3% | 0% | 2% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 76% | 18% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Administrative Assistant | 70% | 18% | 7% | 3% | 2% |
| Overall Performance | 67% | 23% | 4% | 2% | 4% |
Evaluations: 90
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 76% | 17% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Communication | 75% | 16% | 6% | 3% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 76% | 16% | 6% | 1% | 1% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 80% | 12% | 4% | 4% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 81% | 13% | 4% | 2% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 83% | 11% | 3% | 3% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 85% | 12% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 79% | 14% | 4% | 4% | 1% |
Evaluations: 79
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 74% | 20% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
| Communication | 74% | 19% | 6% | 1% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 78% | 19% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 74% | 14% | 9% | 3% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 73% | 22% | 4% | 1% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 78% | 19% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 77% | 18% | 4% | 1% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 71% | 23% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
Evaluations: 69
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 55% | 33% | 6% | 6% | 0% |
| Communication | 58% | 30% | 3% | 9% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 60% | 30% | 4% | 6% | 0% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 61% | 32% | 0% | 4% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 61% | 33% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 62% | 33% | 4% | 1% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 61% | 25% | 13% | 1% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 58% | 32% | 3% | 7% | 0% |
Evaluations: 70
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 73% | 16% | 6% | 4% | 1% |
| Communication | 62% | 19% | 6% | 10% | 3% |
| Judicial Temperament | 46% | 26% | 4% | 13% | 11% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 55% | 24% | 9% | 9% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 67% | 26% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 66% | 21% | 9% | 3% | 1% |
| Administrative Assistant | 79% | 19% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
| Overall Performance | 59% | 23% | 7% | 10% | 1% |
Evaluations: 119
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 69% | 17% | 7% | 5% | 2% |
| Communication | 65% | 18% | 8% | 4% | 5% |
| Judicial Temperament | 59% | 21% | 8% | 7% | 5% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 63% | 20% | 6% | 7% | 4% |
| Punctuality | 73% | 22% | 4% | 1% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 73% | 15% | 6% | 4% | 2% |
| Administrative Assistant | 69% | 22% | 7% | 1% | 1% |
| Overall Performance | 64% | 18% | 8% | 5% | 5% |
Evaluations: 76
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 39% | 40% | 12% | 4% | 5% |
| Communication | 38% | 33% | 14% | 11% | 4% |
| Judicial Temperament | 36% | 20% | 17% | 13% | 14% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 42% | 26% | 17% | 12% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 54% | 29% | 14% | 1% | 2% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 47% | 24% | 17% | 8% | 4% |
| Administrative Assistant | 67% | 19% | 13% | 0% | 1% |
| Overall Performance | 34% | 28% | 14% | 16% | 8% |
Evaluations: 92
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 35% | 37% | 12% | 12% | 4% |
| Communication | 39% | 32% | 17% | 8% | 4% |
| Judicial Temperament | 68% | 22% | 7% | 1% | 2% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 59% | 27% | 7% | 4% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 48% | 32% | 11% | 4% | 5% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 54% | 27% | 12% | 3% | 4% |
| Administrative Assistant | 61% | 22% | 11% | 4% | 2% |
| Overall Performance | 47% | 29% | 15% | 5% | 4% |
Evaluations: 63
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 53% | 27% | 5% | 10% | 5% |
| Communication | 60% | 21% | 10% | 9% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 81% | 17% | 0% | 2% | 0% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 62% | 24% | 6% | 8% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 65% | 32% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 67% | 29% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 74% | 19% | 5% | 2% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 59% | 25% | 6% | 10% | 0% |
Evaluations: 109
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 76% | 15% | 3% | 6% | 0% |
| Communication | 75% | 20% | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Judicial Temperament | 75% | 15% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 76% | 13% | 6% | 3% | 2% |
| Punctuality | 78% | 18% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 80% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
| Administrative Assistant | 82% | 14% | 4% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 76% | 15% | 2% | 6% | 1% |
Evaluations: 78
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 71% | 21% | 4% | 1% | 3% |
| Communication | 57% | 29% | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| Judicial Temperament | 51% | 26% | 9% | 6% | 8% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 56% | 21% | 10% | 5% | 8% |
| Punctuality | 68% | 26% | 3% | 0% | 3% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 67% | 24% | 4% | 1% | 4% |
| Administrative Assistant | 68% | 22% | 3% | 4% | 3% |
| Overall Performance | 53% | 29% | 5% | 8% | 5% |
Evaluations: 80
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 67% | 21% | 5% | 6% | 1% |
| Communication | 69% | 15% | 9% | 6% | 1% |
| Judicial Temperament | 69% | 21% | 1% | 6% | 3% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 63% | 23% | 6% | 5% | 3% |
| Punctuality | 72% | 23% | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 74% | 16% | 6% | 4% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 70% | 23% | 6% | 0% | 1% |
| Overall Performance | 68% | 18% | 5% | 8% | 1% |
Evaluations: 96
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 68% | 27% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
| Communication | 66% | 25% | 7% | 1% | 1% |
| Judicial Temperament | 76% | 21% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 70% | 24% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Punctuality | 60% | 23% | 8% | 4% | 5% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 73% | 23% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 74% | 17% | 7% | 2% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 65% | 28% | 4% | 3% | 0% |
Evaluations: 52
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 79% | 13% | 6% | 2% | 0% |
| Communication | 79% | 13% | 6% | 2% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 79% | 13% | 8% | 0% | 0% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 77% | 13% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 77% | 19% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 81% | 15% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 84% | 12% | 4% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 80% | 12% | 6% | 2% | 0% |
Evaluations: 67
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 77% | 21% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
| Communication | 72% | 24% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Judicial Temperament | 72% | 24% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 70% | 25% | 1% | 3% | 1% |
| Punctuality | 60% | 18% | 7% | 6% | 9% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 74% | 24% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
| Administrative Assistant | 70% | 21% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
| Overall Performance | 70% | 27% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Evaluations: 29
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 59% | 28% | 10% | 3% | 0% |
| Communication | 59% | 28% | 3% | 0% | 10% |
| Judicial Temperament | 42% | 24% | 17% | 10% | 7% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 52% | 24% | 10% | 7% | 7% |
| Punctuality | 45% | 14% | 24% | 14% | 3% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 48% | 24% | 21% | 7% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 83% | 7% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 49% | 31% | 7% | 10% | 3% |
Evaluations: 56
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 54% | 25% | 9% | 5% | 7% |
| Communication | 57% | 21% | 13% | 4% | 5% |
| Judicial Temperament | 69% | 23% | 2% | 2% | 4% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 65% | 21% | 7% | 2% | 5% |
| Punctuality | 70% | 23% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 70% | 20% | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| Administrative Assistant | 66% | 21% | 9% | 2% | 2% |
| Overall Performance | 62% | 20% | 9% | 2% | 7% |
Evaluations: 79
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 66% | 19% | 5% | 9% | 1% |
| Communication | 67% | 15% | 14% | 4% | 0% |
| Judicial Temperament | 67% | 18% | 1% | 9% | 5% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 64% | 19% | 8% | 8% | 1% |
| Punctuality | 65% | 28% | 3% | 4% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 71% | 19% | 3% | 6% | 1% |
| Administrative Assistant | 75% | 20% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 66% | 19% | 4% | 10% | 1% |
Evaluations: 66
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 66% | 14% | 12% | 5% | 3% |
| Communication | 66% | 14% | 11% | 6% | 3% |
| Judicial Temperament | 61% | 24% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 63% | 27% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| Punctuality | 70% | 26% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 67% | 26% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Administrative Assistant | 76% | 15% | 5% | 2% | 2% |
| Overall Performance | 68% | 17% | 6% | 6% | 3% |
Evaluations: 91
| Attribute | Very Sat. | Sat. | Neutral | Dissat. | Very Dissat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of the Law | 69% | 24% | 3% | 4% | 0% |
| Communication | 68% | 26% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| Judicial Temperament | 73% | 21% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
| Fairness & Impartiality | 70% | 19% | 7% | 4% | 0% |
| Punctuality | 74% | 20% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Professionalism & Administration | 74% | 23% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Administrative Assistant | 75% | 22% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Overall Performance | 65% | 29% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
Individual responses were submitted anonymously and are presented only in aggregate. No individual attorney or response can be identified from the information contained in these results.
2024 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducted its 2024 Judicial Evaluation Survey to provide feedback regarding the performance of judges serving in the Tenth Judicial District, Johnson County District Court.
Attorneys were asked to evaluate only judges with whom they had direct professional experience. Because participants evaluated only those judges with whom they were familiar, the number of responses varied by judge.
2024 Survey at a Glance
| Court Evaluated | Tenth Judicial District, Johnson County District Court |
| Judges Evaluated | 13 |
| Evaluation Basis | Direct professional experience with each judge |
The percentages below reflect participating attorneys who responded that the judge should be retained. Response totals varied because attorneys evaluated only judges with whom they had direct professional experience.
Johnson County District Court
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Thomas Sutherland | 96.12% | 129 |
| Hon. James F. Vano | 87.29% | 118 |
| Hon. Robert J. Wonnell | 89.71% | 68 |
| Hon. Charles Droege | 93.97% | 116 |
| Hon. JoAnn Woltman | 86.67% | 75 |
| Hon. Brenda Cameron | 91.03% | 78 |
| Hon. Paul W. Burmaster | 90.00% | 90 |
| Hon. Stephanie Goodenow | 92.94% | 85 |
| Hon. Catherine Decena Triplett | 92.24% | 85 |
| Hon. Jason Billam | 91.86% | 86 |
| Hon. Wayne E. Smith | 90.00% | 20 |
| Hon. Curtis Sample | 100.00% | 20 |
| Hon. John McEntee | 92.00% | 25 |
These results represent the opinions of attorneys who participated in the 2024 judicial evaluation survey. They were intended to provide feedback to the judiciary and useful information to the public.
2022 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducted its 2022 Judicial Evaluation Survey to provide confidential feedback regarding judicial performance. Surveys were distributed to 3,818 attorneys with registered offices in Johnson County, and 504 completed surveys were received, representing a 13% response rate.
Attorneys were asked to evaluate only judges and justices with whom they had direct professional experience. Survey responses were collected confidentially and managed by an independent third party.
2022 Survey at a Glance
| Attorneys Invited | 3,818 |
| Responses Received | 504 |
| Response Rate | 13% |
| Survey Administration | Independent third party |
| Courts Evaluated | Johnson County District Court, Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court |
The percentages below reflect the number of participating attorneys who responded that the judge or justice should be retained. The number of responses varied because attorneys evaluated only those with whom they had direct professional experience.
Johnson County District Court
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Jenifer Ashford | 80% | 46 |
| Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg | 96% | 114 |
| Hon. Neil Foth | 90% | 102 |
| Hon. David Hauber | 90% | 157 |
| Hon. K. Christopher Jayaram | 91% | 93 |
| Hon. Michael Joyce | 80% | 124 |
| Hon. Rhonda Mason | 83% | 126 |
| Hon. Timothy McCarthy | 91% | 80 |
| Hon. Keven O'Grady | 92% | 111 |
| Hon. Jacquelyn Rokusek | 97% | 91 |
| Hon. T. Kelly Ryan | 89% | 88 |
| Hon. Erica Schoenig | 95% | 105 |
| Hon. Robert Scott | 70% | 88 |
| Hon. Kathleen Sloan | 78% | 51 |
Kansas Court of Appeals
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Amy Fellows Cline | 67% | 6 |
| Hon. Henry Green | 92% | 12 |
| Hon. Stephen Hill | 88% | 17 |
| Hon. Jacy Hurst | 100% | 6 |
| Hon. Lesley Ann Isherwood | 100% | 6 |
| Hon. Thomas Malone | 71% | 7 |
| Hon. Kim Schroeder | 90% | 10 |
Kansas Supreme Court
| Justice | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Dan Biles | 83% | 23 |
| Chief Justice Marla Luckert | 91% | 23 |
| Justice Melissa Standridge | 91% | 22 |
| Justice Caleb Stegall | 90% | 20 |
| Justice Keynan Wall Jr. | 71% | 14 |
| Justice Evelyn Wilson | 88% | 16 |
These results represent the opinions of attorneys who participated in the 2022 survey. They are intended to provide constructive feedback to the judiciary and useful information to the public.
2020 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducted its 2020 Judicial Evaluation Survey to provide confidential feedback regarding judicial performance. Surveys were distributed to 4,278 attorneys with registered offices in Johnson County, and 415 completed surveys were received.
Attorneys were asked to evaluate only judges and justices with whom they had direct professional experience. Survey responses were collected confidentially and managed by an independent third party.
2020 Survey at a Glance
| Attorneys Invited | 4,278 |
| Responses Received | 415 |
| Survey Administration | Independent third party |
| Courts Evaluated | Johnson County District Court, Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court |
The percentages below reflect participating attorneys who responded that the judge or justice should be retained. The number of responses varied because attorneys evaluated only those with whom they had direct professional experience.
Johnson County District Court
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Jenifer Ashford | 80% | 44 |
| Hon. Paul Burmaster | 92% | 71 |
| Hon. Brenda Cameron | 83% | 77 |
| Hon. J. Charles Droege | 95% | 92 |
| Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg | 98% | 105 |
| Hon. Thomas Foster | 87% | 62 |
| Hon. Neil Foth | 91% | 102 |
| Hon. Paul Gurney | 96% | 138 |
| Hon. David Hauber | 88% | 137 |
| Hon. Michael Joyce | 60% | 127 |
| Hon. Rhonda Mason | 88% | 123 |
| Hon. Timothy McCarthy | 94% | 80 |
| Hon. Keven O'Grady | 89% | 85 |
| Hon. James Phelan | 93% | 58 |
| Hon. Thomas Ryan | 96% | 81 |
| Hon. Erica Schoenig | 95% | 83 |
| Hon. Robert Scott | 77% | 93 |
| Hon. Kathleen Sloan | 80% | 44 |
| Hon. Thomas Sutherland | 97% | 107 |
| Hon. James Vano | 89% | 133 |
| Hon. Daniel Vokins | 90% | 107 |
| Hon. Robert Wonnell | 94% | 118 |
Kansas Court of Appeals
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Karen Arnold-Burger | 89% | 19 |
| Hon. Gordon Atcheson | 86% | 14 |
| Hon. David Bruns | 100% | 9 |
| Hon. Michael Buser | 95% | 21 |
| Hon. Kathryn Gardner | 83% | 12 |
| Hon. Henry Green | 94% | 17 |
| Hon. Stephen Hill | 90% | 21 |
| Hon. Thomas Malone | 82% | 11 |
| Hon. Anthony Powell | 83% | 12 |
| Hon. Kim Schroeder | 90% | 10 |
| Hon. Melissa Standridge | 91% | 22 |
| Hon. Sarah Warner | 100% | 6 |
Kansas Supreme Court
| Justice | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Carol Beier | 78% | 18 |
| Justice Dan Biles | 78% | 18 |
| Chief Justice Marla Luckert | 94% | 17 |
| Justice Eric Rosen | 94% | 16 |
| Justice Caleb Stegall | 71% | 17 |
| Justice Evelyn Wilson | 83% | 7 |
These results represent the opinions of attorneys who participated in the 2020 survey. They were intended to provide constructive feedback to the judiciary and useful information to the public.
2018 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducted its 2018 Judicial Evaluation Survey to provide confidential feedback regarding judicial performance within the Tenth Judicial District. Surveys were mailed to 2,231 attorneys with registered offices in Johnson County, and 303 completed surveys were returned.
Attorneys were asked to evaluate only judges with whom they had direct professional experience. Survey responses were kept confidential and managed by an independent third party.
2018 Survey at a Glance
| Attorneys Invited | 2,231 |
| Responses Received | 303 |
| Survey Administration | Independent third party |
| Court Evaluated | Tenth Judicial District, Johnson County District Court |
The percentages below reflect participating attorneys who responded that the judge should be retained. The number of responses varied because attorneys evaluated only judges with whom they had direct professional experience.
Johnson County District Court
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Jennifer Ashford | 88% | 67 |
| Hon. Brenda Cameron | 96% | 96 |
| Hon. James Charles Droege | 95% | 167 |
| Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg | 98% | 133 |
| Hon. Thomas E. Foster | 80% | 105 |
| Hon. Neil B. Foth | 91% | 115 |
| Hon. Paul C. Gurney | 97% | 148 |
| Hon. David Hauber | 86% | 158 |
| Hon. Michael P. Joyce | 64% | 143 |
| Hon. Rhonda Mason | 91% | 113 |
| Hon. Timothy McCarthy | 96% | 115 |
| Hon. Kevin Moriarty | 90% | 190 |
| Hon. Keven O'Grady | 95% | 114 |
| Hon. James Phelan | 94% | 93 |
| Hon. Thomas Kelly Ryan | 98% | 125 |
| Hon. Erica K. Schoenig | 96% | 112 |
| Hon. Robert Scott | 88% | 96 |
| Hon. Kathleen Sloan | 83% | 82 |
| Hon. Thomas M. Sutherland | 99% | 159 |
| Hon. James F. Vano | 93% | 147 |
| Hon. Daniel Vokins | 97% | 145 |
| Hon. Sara Welch | 94% | 94 |
| Hon. Robert J. Wonnell | 92% | 110 |
These results represent the opinions of attorneys who participated in the 2018 survey. They were intended to provide constructive feedback to the judiciary and useful information to the public.
2016 Judicial Evaluation Summary
The Johnson County Bar Association conducted its 2016 Judicial Evaluation Survey to provide confidential feedback regarding judicial performance within the Tenth Judicial District. Surveys were mailed to 3,759 attorneys registered in Johnson County, and 473 completed surveys were returned.
Attorneys were asked to evaluate only judges with whom they had direct professional experience.
2016 Survey at a Glance
| Attorneys Invited | 3,759 |
| Responses Received | 473 |
| Judges Evaluated | 23 |
| Court Evaluated | Tenth Judicial District, Johnson County District Court |
The percentages below reflect participating attorneys who responded that the judge should be retained. Response totals varied because attorneys evaluated only judges with whom they had direct professional experience.
Johnson County District Court
| Judge | Should Be Retained | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| Hon. Brenda Cameron | 89% | 150 |
| Hon. James Charles Droege | 97% | 276 |
| Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg | 98% | 177 |
| Hon. Gerald Elliott | 87% | 265 |
| Hon. Michael Farley | 98% | 177 |
| Hon. Thomas E. Foster | 85% | 188 |
| Hon. Neil B. Foth | 92% | 147 |
| Hon. Paul C. Gurney | 95% | 196 |
| Hon. David Hauber | 92% | 251 |
| Hon. Michael P. Joyce | 65% | 204 |
| Hon. Timothy McCarthy | 95% | 152 |
| Hon. Kevin Moriarty | 88% | 303 |
| Hon. Keven O'Grady | 92% | 159 |
| Hon. James Phelan | 95% | 141 |
| Hon. Thomas Kelly Ryan | 96% | 182 |
| Hon. Erica K. Schoenig | 95% | 151 |
| Hon. Kathleen Sloan | 78% | 120 |
| Hon. Thomas M. Sutherland | 97% | 273 |
| Hon. Linda Trigg | 72% | 145 |
| Hon. James F. Vano | 92% | 251 |
| Hon. Daniel Vokins | 91% | 211 |
| Hon. Sara Welch | 94% | 133 |
| Hon. Robert J. Wonnell | 92% | 127 |
These results represent the opinions of attorneys who participated in the 2016 judicial evaluation survey. They were intended to provide constructive feedback to the judiciary and useful information to the public.