2022 retention · District Court · 4th Judicial District
13 percentile · rank 58 of 67
composite 0100
10 percentile · rank 121 of 134
composite 0100
86 93rd percentile among peers · 94th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 15.92 among peers (13.43 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
2.80 of 4 · 5.97 percentile
2.603.80
2.73 of 4 · 5.22 percentile
2.583.82
83.00% 36.57 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 83.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 35.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.00median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 2.50median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 2.90median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 2.80median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 2.70median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 2.50median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards Split vote 5–1
The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted 5-1 with 4 absent that Judge Marla Prudek 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 Prudek’s docket includes 50% civil, 49% domestic relations and 1% criminal. (Prior to April 2022 she had a 50% criminal docket and no civil.) Judge Prudek is described as smart, prepared, professional, consistent, and fair. She is knowledgeable about the law and applies the law appropriately. Judge Prudek’s overall combined performance score on the 2022 Judicial Performance Survey was 2.8 out of 4.0, lower than the average score of 3.4 for all District Court Judges. 83% of attorneys and 35% of non-attorneys stated that Judge Prudek meets judicial performance standards. In most categories Judge Prudek scored 3.2 or above on a 4.0 scale from attorneys. Her scores from attorneys were generally higher than in the 2016 survey. Judge Prudek’s scores from non-attorneys were lower than the average for all district court judges. Several of the non-attorney comments appear to reflect the decisions she made in domestic relations cases. It is noted that these 2022 non-attorney comments are markedly different from her non-attorney scores in 2016, when she received an overall score of 3.79 out of 4.0 from non-attorneys. She did not have a domestic relations docket when the 2016 survey was conducted.
The Commission interviewed Judge Prudek, observed her in Court, and reviewed her self-evaluation, written opinions, and the 2022 survey data. The Commission also spoke with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office. In her interview with the Commission Judge Prudek acknowledged the low scores from non-attorneys. She believes they are likely the result of her domestic relations caseload which has a large number of self-represented parties. Judge Prudek takes these scores seriously and intends to regain the high ratings from non-attorneys that she had in the past. She currently explains the process of trial to self-represented parties at the pre-trial conferences. Judge Prudek will issue oral and written rulings in domestic relations cases that provide more clarity as to her fact finding and her reasoning. She will obtain advice on best practices when dealing with self-represented parties from a mentor judge. These steps will help her identify any implicit biases she may have and allow her the time to use language that is clear and written with the perspective of the losing party in mind.
Judge Prudek was appointed to the District Court in November 2012. She obtained her law degree from the University of Puget Sound School of Law in 1986. She was a Deputy District Attorney in El Paso County from 1989-1991. After she left the district attorney’s office she was in private practice and specialized in criminal defense. She believes community involvement is important. She supports the Pikes Peak Range Riders Foundation that benefits children.
2016 retention · District Court · 4th Judicial District
20 percentile · rank 49 of 61
composite 0100
16 percentile · rank 91 of 108
composite 0100
82 66th percentile among peers · 56th percentile statewide
17164
Composite index 23.50 among peers (20.99 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.42 of 4 · 34.43 percentile
2.793.84
3.29 of 4 · 25.41 percentile
2.813.84
58.00% 10.66 percentile
40.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 2.77
- Say “meets standards”
- 58.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.79
- Say “meets standards”
- 92.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 2.78median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.17median 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Communications | 3.45median 3.53 | 3.53 | |
| Diligence | 3.13median 3.48 | 3.48 | |
| Demeanor | 3.31median 3.47 | 3.47 | |
| Fairness | 3.87median 3.68 | 3.68 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Marla Prudek BE RETAINED.
Judge Prudek was appointed to serve as an El Paso County District Court Judge in November, 2012. In 2009, she was appointed as a County Court Judge, and prior to that, she was an assistant Attorney General in Washington State, a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney in Colorado Springs. She obtained her B.A. degree from Carroll College in Montana in 1982, and graduated from the University of Puget Sound Law School in 1985. Judge Prudek volunteers with the annual high school mock trial competitions and attends various bar association functions. Judge Prudek volunteered in Black Forest after the devastating fire because she believes community service is important, and appreciates interacting with people who are not regularly involved with the judicial system.
As part of the review process, the Commission interviewed Judge Prudek, reviewed several of her written opinions, and reviewed her survey results. She was also observed in Court while she was presiding over cases. The survey results contain information about Judge Prudek that was gathered from many sources, including: jurors who appeared before her, people who represented themselves in her courtroom, people with lawyers who had cases in her courtroom, and lawyers who appear before Judge Prudek. The survey results show that 80% of all who completed the survey recommend that Judge Prudek be retained. Of those results, 92% of non-attorneys recommended that she be retained, 58% of attorneys recommended that she be retained, and 96% of jurors recommended she be retained.
Judge Prudek scored higher than average in every category that was rated by the 53 non-attorneys completing the survey. These categories include: Judge Prudek’s demeanor, fairness, communication, diligence, application of law, neutrality (lack of bias), and fairness in sentencing (for criminal, misdemeanor and traffic cases). The attorney scores rated Judge Prudek lower than average in these same categories. However, only 29 attorneys completed the survey. The combined scores of all participants in the survey result in a score for Judge Prudek of 3.42 out of a scale of 4. Judge Prudek was, until recently, assigned to handle criminal and civil cases. Since her background involved primarily criminal cases, the civil cases required her to learn an entirely new area of law. The Chief Judge recently changed the assignments of the District Court Judges, and Judge Prudek now handles 50% criminal cases and 50% domestic relations cases. The Commission finds Judge Prudek to be a hard-working Judge who is passionate about her work and her desire to always improve herself. Her written work is excellent, as is her relationship with members of the public who have appeared before her. She is motivated to improve the somewhat low survey scores she received from attorneys.