Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2018 Full List Judge Rotolo

Fourth Judicial District - El Paso County Judge


Reports:
2018 Retention Survey Report
2017 Interim Survey Report

Honorable Ann M. Rotolo

Retention year: 2018
Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard

Areas of Evaluation 0 1 2 3 4
Case Management
Application & Knowledge of Law
Communications
Diligence
Demeanor
Fairness
Attorneys
Non Attorneys

The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) agrees that El Paso County Judge Ann M. Rotolo Meets Performance Standards.

Judge Rotolo was appointed to the El Paso County Court in 2008. Judge Rotolo received an undergraduate degree from Ohio University in 1985, and her law degree from the University of Denver Law in 1991. Prior to her appointment, Judge Rotolo served as a Magistrate in the Fourth Judicial District. She has also been an assistant El Paso County attorney, and in private practice. Judge Rotolo sits on the State Personnel Rules Committee and the Disciplinary Review Board. She participates in the Judicially Speaking Program, Our Courts, and Teen Court, and volunteers time to a number of other non-law related non-profit organizations.

The Commission met with Judge Rotolo for a personal interview and observed her in the courtroom. She completed a self-evaluation and submitted examples of her written orders which were reviewed by the Commission. Thirty (30) attorneys and 55 non-attorneys responded to a survey which asked both attorneys and non-attorneys about their personal experience appearing before Judge Rotolo. Among attorneys, 73% stated that they believed that Judge Rotolo met performance standards. Fourteen percent (14%) stated that they did not believe that Judge Rotolo met performance standards and the remainder of those attorneys surveyed did not express an opinion. Of the non-attorneys surveyed, 79% believed that Judge Rotolo met performance standards, 17% responded no, does not meet performance standards. No recommendation was made by the remaining 3% of the non-attorneys’ who responded to the survey.

Judge Rotolo had very high scores among attorneys for her communication skills. Ninety-five percent (95%) stated that they believed that Judge Rotolo makes sure that participants fully understand the proceedings. Attorneys scored Judge Rotolo almost as strong on her courtroom demeanor. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the responding attorneys stated that Judge Rotolo conducted proceedings in her courtroom with dignity, and 86% felt she treated participants with respect. Judge Rotolo received somewhat lower scores from non-attorneys. However, non-attorneys gave her more than a 3.0 on a 4-point scale in all categories rated, and Judge Rotolo received a perfect 4.0 in Application and Knowledge of the Law, Communications, Diligence and Demeanor by all jurors, a subgroup of the non-attorneys. In reporting her strengths recurring themes were fairness, understanding and compassion. At the interview, the Commission was impressed by Judge Rotolo’s commitment to the law and her commitment to treat every person who appears before her individually and with dignity. Overall, the Commission felt Judge Rotolo was an above average judge who runs a fair, compassionate and efficient courtroom.