Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2016 Full List Judge Vriesman

First Judicial District - District Judge


Reports:
2016 Retention Survey Report

Honorable Todd L. Vriesman

Retention year: 2016
Recommendation: Retain

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

The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends retention of Judge Todd L. Vriesman.

Judge Vriesman earned an undergraduate degree from Carthage College and received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Denver College of Law in 1981.  After law school, he clerked for Federal District Judge Alfred A. Arraj.  He practiced for several years at a boutique law firm he founded, and then worked at Kirkland and Ellis before becoming a partner at Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio and Dusbabek.  His civil practice included work in insurance coverage and commercial, real estate, banking, construction, and employment litigation.  Judge Vriesman was appointed to the bench in the First Judicial District in July, 2014.  He currently has a mixed docket of civil, domestic relations, and criminal cases.  He is active in the community and serves on the Advisory Board of the Jefferson County Mediation Services.

Commission members conducted a personal interview with Judge Vriesman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in his courtroom.    Among the survey questions was, “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Vriesman be retained in office, or not be retained in office?”  Of those who completed the survey, 51% of attorneys recommended retaining him in office, and 89% of non-attorneys recommended retention.

As one of the newest judges in the First Judicial District, and with a professional background almost wholly in civil law, Judge Vriesman has worked earnestly to master criminal law and procedure, and to constantly improve as a judge.  While he scored lower than average with attorneys in a number of categories the surveys measured, including case management, application and knowledge of the law, and demeanor, he scored higher than average with non-attorneys.  He told the Commission that regarding criminal cases, he begins his case analysis with a focus on the victim.   When he does not know something, he is not afraid to ask and consult with fellow judges.   Both in the surveys and in the interview, Judge Vriesman came across as conscientious, professional, thorough and well-prepared, patient, and hard-working.