How California Judge Ratings Work and Where to Find Them

California judge ratings come from three separate systems, and which one applies depends on how the judge got to the bench. When the governor fills a vacancy, the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) rates the candidate confidentially. When a superior court seat goes to a contested election, county bar associations publish ratings voters can read. And when someone believes a sitting judge has behaved improperly, the Commission on Judicial Performance investigates. Knowing which system produced a rating tells you what it means and where to find it.

JNE Commission Ratings for Gubernatorial Appointees

Before the governor appoints anyone to a judicial vacancy, Government Code Section 12011.5 requires the candidate’s name to go to the State Bar for review. The JNE Commission investigates the candidate’s background, interviews colleagues and opposing counsel, and delivers a confidential report to the governor within 90 days.¹

The commission uses a four-tier scale:

Exceptionally Well Qualified: remarkable professional stature and ability.
Well Qualified: a high degree of merit for the bench.
Qualified: meets the expected standard.
Not Qualified: lacks necessary qualifications.

The report itself stays confidential. One exception matters for the public: if the governor appoints someone the JNE Commission rated “Not Qualified,” the State Bar may disclose that fact after notifying the appointee.¹ Outside that narrow case, you will not see a JNE rating on a candidate you’re researching.

County Bar Ratings for Contested Elections

When superior court seats appear on the ballot, county bar associations run their own evaluations. Two of the most visible are in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and other counties have similar committees.

The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee contacts every candidate in a contested Los Angeles Superior Court race, sends a detailed background questionnaire, asks for 75 references, researches the candidate, and interviews them before publishing a rating.² LACBA uses the same four tiers as the JNE Commission: Exceptionally Well Qualified, Well Qualified, Qualified, and Not Qualified.³

The Bar Association of San Francisco uses six possible outcomes. Alongside Exceptionally Well Qualified, Well Qualified, and Qualified, BASF also issues “Not Recommended for Appointment/Election At This Time” for candidates whose shortcomings look fixable with more experience, “Not Qualified” for more serious deficiencies, and “No Action” when the committee cannot reach a majority.⁴

The gap between BASF’s “Not Recommended” and “Not Qualified” is worth reading carefully. “Not Recommended” often describes a competent lawyer who needs more courtroom seasoning. “Not Qualified” signals deeper concerns about fitness for the bench. On a voter guide the wording looks similar; the meaning is not.

What the Ratings Actually Measure

Across every California rating body, the criteria cluster around the same qualities even when the labels differ. Legal ability and courtroom skill come first. Evaluators want candidates who can handle complex facts, manage a heavy caseload, and apply legal principles accurately. Years of practice alone will not carry a candidate. A fifteen-year transactional lawyer with no trial experience faces harder questions than a ten-year litigator who has regularly appeared in court.

Judicial temperament weighs just as heavily. Committees look for patience, courtesy, composure under pressure, and a willingness to treat every party in the courtroom with dignity. A brilliant lawyer known for berating opposing counsel or showing impatience with self-represented litigants will struggle to earn a top rating. BASF names temperament explicitly alongside integrity, decisiveness, and the ability to set aside personal biases.⁴

Integrity and ethical history round out the review. Prior discipline from the State Bar or a pattern of professional misconduct is very hard to overcome. The committees verify community reputation and character through extensive reference checks, and candidates who cannot produce colleagues willing to vouch for them do not fare well. The JNE Commission’s own criteria run broader still: legal ability, litigation and non-litigation experience, judicial temperament, honesty, objectivity, integrity, health, community respect, industry, academic experience, and government legal work.

Complaints About Sitting Judges

The systems above evaluate people before they take the bench or while they campaign for it. Once a judge is serving, oversight moves to the Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state agency with constitutional authority to investigate complaints against any California judge from superior court up through the Supreme Court.⁵

Anyone may file a complaint. Judicial misconduct generally involves conduct that conflicts with the Code of Judicial Ethics, such as bias on the bench, improper communications with parties, or abuse of authority. After investigating, the commission can impose sanctions ranging from a private advisory letter up to removal from office.

One boundary matters here. The commission cannot change a decision you disagree with. If you believe a judge ruled incorrectly, the remedy is an appeal, not a misconduct complaint. The commission addresses behavior, not legal conclusions.

Where to Look Up a Rating

For gubernatorial appointees, JNE reports are confidential, so you generally will not find a rating to look up. The one exception is the public disclosure the State Bar may make when the governor appoints someone rated Not Qualified.¹

For contested superior court elections, go to your county bar association’s website. LACBA publishes its ratings ahead of each primary, and the 2026 ratings for Los Angeles Superior Court races are already posted on its site.³ BASF publishes San Francisco evaluations through its newsroom before elections. If your county has its own evaluation committee, check that organization as election day approaches.

For concerns about a sitting judge’s conduct, the Commission on Judicial Performance is at cjp.ca.gov, where you can file a complaint online and review publicly available disciplinary decisions.⁵

A Note on Federal Ratings

If you come across a judicial rating from the American Bar Association while researching California judges, that number is from a different system. The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates nominees to federal district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court on a three-tier scale of Well Qualified, Qualified, and Not Qualified.⁶ Those ratings do not apply to California state judges. Federal nominee ratings are published by congressional session at americanbar.org.⁷

1
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 12011.5
2
Los Angeles County Bar Association. Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee
3
Los Angeles County Bar Association. Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee Announces 2026 Ratings
4
The Bar Association of San Francisco. The Bar Association of San Francisco Releases Evaluations for Candidates for San Francisco Superior Court Judge
5
Commission on Judicial Performance. CJP – Commission on Judicial Performance
6
American Bar Association. Supreme Court Evaluation Process
7
American Bar Association. Ratings of Article III and Article IV Judicial Nominees