2022 retention · District Court · 14th Judicial District
8 percentile · rank 62 of 67
composite 0100
6 percentile · rank 126 of 134
composite 0100
62 72nd percentile among peers · 77th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 13.18 among peers (10.20 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.10 of 4 · 14.18 percentile
2.603.80
3.08 of 4 · 13.43 percentile
2.583.82
65.00% 11.94 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 65.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 84.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 2.90median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.10median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.20median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.10median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.20median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.00median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (7–0)
The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 7-0 that Judge Mary C. Hoak MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Hoak presides over all Grand County District Court matters, all probate matters in the 14 th Judicial District, all Routt County domestic relations cases, and other matters throughout the 14 th Judicial District as needed. Judge Hoak’s demeanor is described as being generally fair and compassionate. Judge Hoak is described as being very knowledgeable of the law, diligent, and focused. She has embraced the virtual courtroom throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Hoak’s written decisions are clear, concise, and well researched. Judge Hoak’s caseload is greater than a full-time position. Judge Hoak strives to be fair to all parties and ensure that all applicable parties are heard in her courtroom. Judge Hoak appears very passionate about her work, cases, and the people she serves. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluations and interviews. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Mary Hoak meets performance standards.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hoak, reviewed opinions written by her, observed her in court, and reviewed survey responses from both attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction in Judge Hoak’s court. While Judge Hoak’s survey results, which may be skewed by the low number of returns, did point to a general decline in measured values, the Commission believes that Judge Hoak takes feedback very seriously and has always been dedicated to improve in areas of concern. Specifically, during her interview with the Commission, Judge Hoak freely accepted responsibility for improving her performance without prompting by the Commission. Based on observations, the primary concern of note by the Commission is Judge Hoak’s manner of rapid speech and movement through the docket. While this does not appear to affect courtroom management, it may be intimidating to some parties or lead to confusion as to what is or what will be occurring in the case at hand. The issue regarding her quick speech was virtually universally recognized throughout survey responses of both attorneys and the general public.
Judge Mary Hoak was appointed to County Court in 2002, and District Court in 2007. Prior to her appointment to County Judge, she practiced law in Grand County for 8 years. Additionally, Judge Hoak worked as a prosecutor in Colorado’s Fifth Judicial District. She earned her undergraduate degree from Vassar College and her Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago Law School.
2016 retention · District Court · 14th Judicial District
66 percentile · rank 21 of 61
composite 0100
65 percentile · rank 38 of 108
composite 0100
78 61st percentile among peers · 53rd percentile statewide
17164
Composite index 66.12 among peers (65.74 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.67 of 4 · 81.15 percentile
2.793.84
3.60 of 4 · 71.31 percentile
2.813.84
81.00% 45.90 percentile
40.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.46
- Say “meets standards”
- 81.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.75
- Say “meets standards”
- 93.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.38median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.56median 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Communications | 3.68median 3.53 | 3.53 | |
| Diligence | 3.69median 3.48 | 3.48 | |
| Demeanor | 3.52median 3.47 | 3.47 | |
| Fairness | 3.74median 3.68 | 3.68 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance UNANIMOUSLY recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Mary C. Hoak BE RETAINED.
Background: Mary C. Hoak received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago Law School in 1992. She was appointed judge to the Grand County Court in 2002, and was appointed to the District Court bench in July 2007. Prior to her appointment in 2002, Judge Hoak practiced law in Grand County for nine years with focus on criminal prosecution, criminal defense, social services work, family and juvenile law. In the community, Judge Hoak has volunteered as a Reading Buddy at a local elementary school, organizes Law Day annually for all fifth graders in Grand County and has been a mentor for young lawyers in Colorado.
Evaluation: The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Hoak, which included verbatim comments, from attorneys and non-attorneys. The non-attorney responses were from jurors, law enforcement, social services, courthouse personnel and non-attorney litigants who have appeared in front of the judge. The Commission also considered letters to the Commission concerning Judge Hoak, a self-evaluation by Judge Hoak, written and oral comments of the Office of the District Attorney, and orders and opinions written by Judge Hoak. Members of the Commission personally observed Judge Hoak in her courtroom and conducted a face-to-face interview of her. Of attorneys responding to the written survey, 81% recommended to retain, 14% not to retain, and 5% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 93% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 4% expressed no opinion.
Performance: Survey results show consistently high marks for Judge Hoak across all performance criteria. Judge Hoak rates highest among attorneys for her diligence in the courtroom and highest among non-attorneys in communication. During Judge Hoak’s evaluation it was clear that she provides thorough explanations when addressing parties in the courtroom as well as in her written orders. Many respondents commented on Judge Hoak’s hardworking nature, timeliness of cases, and commitment to being impartial in her rulings. Some responses noted that Judge Hoak can become overly familiar when off the record. Other comments of helpful criticism were that Judge Hoak speaks too quickly, and could be more deliberative in her decision-making. During Judge Hoak’s interview she stated that she appreciates the challenges of the job, always strives to improve her performance, any mistakes she’s made she tries to fix immediately, and she continually tries to be the best judge she can be. Judge Hoak’s high retention recommendations demonstrate that Judge Hoak is a well-regarded and effective judge and that she continues to improve her performance.