2022 retention · District Court · 21st Judicial District
70 percentile · rank 20 of 67
composite 0100
62 percentile · rank 50 of 134
composite 0100
60 69th percentile among peers · 74th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 65.17 among peers (59.20 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.60 of 4 · 81.34 percentile
2.603.80
3.58 of 4 · 73.88 percentile
2.583.82
84.00% 40.30 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 84.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 87.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.40median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.70median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.50median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.80median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.70median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Judge Valerie Jo Robison MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a unanimous vote of 9 - 0
Judge Robison is known for her calm and professional demeanor on the bench. In her judicial performance survey conducted by the State Judicial Department, 84% of attorneys and 87% of non-attorneys found that Judge Robison met performance standards. The Judicial Performance Commission assessed the integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Robison received solid scores in all these areas with communications, demeanor and fairness being her top assets. Comments offered in the judicial performance survey of Judge Robison indicate a consistent theme of exemplary communication, with one comment stating, “Judge Robison has a great judicial temperament.” In her interview with the Performance Commission, Judge Robison discussed her passion for learning and a desire to serve on other courts, which is testament to her desire to improve her practice and be the best Judge she can for the people she serves.
In addition to reviewing the survey results from individuals that are in Judge Robison’s courtroom, the Performance Commission observed her courtroom, reviewed some of her authored orders, and interviewed the Chief Judge of the 21st Judicial District, representatives from the District Attorney’s office and the Public Defender’s office. Judge Robison was observed to be kind, knowledgeable, patient, and treated those before her with respect and dignity. In Judge Robison’s self-evaluation, she notes that she tries to use plain language and speak in a manner that individuals can understand what is happening, and that was evident in the observations conducted by judicial commissioners conducting this judicial performance review.
Judge Robison was the Mesa County Attorney and Interim Executive Director for the Mesa County Department of Human Services and was appointed to the 21 st Judiciary Court on June 15, 2007. Judge Robison has a primarily criminal docket followed by domestic relations and civil cases. The Judicial Commissioners noted that Judge Robison volunteers in many types of community outreach and programming, working tirelessly in both her courtroom and in the community. The Twenty-First Judicial Performance Commission is honored to have Judge Robison serve in Mesa County.
2016 retention · District Court · 21st Judicial District
31 percentile · rank 42 of 61
composite 0100
29 percentile · rank 77 of 108
composite 0100
109 87th percentile among peers · 79th percentile statewide
17164
Composite index 32.79 among peers (31.64 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.56 of 4 · 59.02 percentile
2.793.84
3.29 of 4 · 27.05 percentile
2.813.84
59.00% 12.30 percentile
40.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 2.84
- Say “meets standards”
- 59.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.81
- Say “meets standards”
- 91.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 2.38median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.21median 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Communications | 3.41median 3.53 | 3.53 | |
| Diligence | 3.26median 3.48 | 3.48 | |
| Demeanor | 3.65median 3.47 | 3.47 | |
| Fairness | 3.84median 3.68 | 3.68 |
Commission: meets standards Split vote 8–2
The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a vote of 8 to 2 recommends that Judge Valerie J. Robison BE RETAINED and further recommends that Judge Robison be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
Judge Robison was born and raised in Denver, Colorado. She attended the University of Colorado, graduating with a B.A. in 1986, and received her law degree from the University of Denver in 1991. Judge Robison was appointed as a District Court Judge on June 14, 2007. In addition to her duties on the bench, Judge Robison appropriately participates in community service. She previously worked as Mesa County Assistant Attorney and Interim Executive Director for the Mesa County Department of Human Services.
Judge Robison was evaluated using information from the following sources: attorney surveys; direct information provided by the District Attorney’s Office; non-attorney surveys; Judge Robison’s self-evaluation; courtroom observations by the members of the Commission; review of written decisions issued by Judge Robison; and an interview with Judge Robison by the Commission. From completed surveys fifty-nine percent of attorneys and 91% percent of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Robison be retained in office. Twenty-nine percent of attorneys and 4% of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Robison not be retained. Attorneys graded Judge Robison’s overall performance as below the average of other district court judges statewide. Of particular concern to the attorneys was Judge Robison’s case management, including the issuance of timely rulings and decisions and setting reasonable schedules for cases. Judge Robison was also rated lower than other district court judges in the State on the application and knowledge of the law. Judge Robison’s demeanor was rated higher than district court judges statewide by both attorneys and non-attorneys. Non-attorneys’ grades on Judge Robison’s fairness, diligence, and communication exceeded those of district court judges statewide.
Of concern to the Commission are Judge Robison’s low marks on case management and knowledge of the law. Weaknesses in these areas were also noted in Judge Robison’s Performance Review in 2010, and again in the Interim Review in 2013. Attorneys gave Judge Robison lower grades on making prompt rulings and sentencing decisions than she received in the Interim Review in 2013. Judge Robison’s performance shows little improvement despite her 2010 plan to address areas of weakness and feedback provided in the Interim Review. In her interview with the Commission, Judge Robison lacked insight about these weaknesses identified by attorneys and had not developed a plan to address them. The Commission commends Judge Robison for her demeanor in the courtroom, compassion for litigants and thoughtful manner of dealing with those whom appear before her. However, due to her continued weaknesses in the areas described above, this Commission has recommended that Judge Robison be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan to address these substantive issues that have been previously identified and not satisfactorily addressed.