Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2002 Full List Judge Kane

Fourth Judicial District - District Judge


Reports:
2002 Retention Survey Report
There is a more recent evaluation available for this judge. You can access the evaluation here.

Honorable Thomas K. Kane

Retention year: 2002
Recommendation: Retain

The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Thomas K. Kane BE RETAINED.

Judge Kane was appointed to the El Paso County District Court bench in September 1994. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Kane was in private practice in Colorado Springs specializing in insurance defense litigation. Judge Kane is currently presiding over both civil and criminal cases. From September 1994 to December 1997, Judge Kane heard civil and domestic relations cases.

Judge Kane speaks to lawyer groups, service clubs and high school and middle school classes regarding the perspective of the judiciary on the various issues. He also presides over mock-trial competitions. Judge Kane views his role as a judge to be community service oriented and he takes this role very seriously.

The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Kane from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Kane and conducted a personal interview with him.

Judge Kane received above-average ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in virtually all categories, particularly in the areas of being courteous; treating all persons equally; maintaining a professional demeanor; communicating verbally in a clear, thorough and well-reasoned manner; explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly; being punctual in commencing proceedings; and being prepared for all court matters. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 79% recommended that Judge Kane be retained, 9% recommended that he not be retained and 12% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding, 95% recommended retention, 1% recommended non-retention and 4% had no opinion.