Utah law sets time benchmarks for reviewing appellate judges

The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission must set benchmarks for how quickly appellate judges share written decisions with other judges. The benchmarks cover decisions written during the calendar year and shared with other Supreme Court justices or judges on the Court of Appeals panel. To meet the Supreme Court benchmarks, justices must share all decisions within one year. No more than 25% may take more than 150 days, and no more than 10% may take more than 210 days. To meet the Court of Appeals benchmarks, judges must share all decisions within 270 days. No more than 25% may take more than 120 days, and no more than 10% may take more than 180 days. Time runs from the latest applicable submission date, based on receipt by the judge, completion of a hearing, or the listed steps involving further written arguments. Failing a benchmark does not automatically settle the overall review. Substantial evidence pointing the other way can overcome the assumed result. The timing benchmarks apply only to matters submitted on or after May 6, 2026, the law's effective date.

A contractor must survey people about judges who face elections in which voters decide whether they stay in office. Surveys cover lawyers, jurors, court staff, and case parties. Questions cover legal skill, fairness, clear communication, courtroom conduct, and case management. Surveys must include a sample of case parties where practical. Only Utah lawyers in good standing who appeared before the judge may rate legal skill. Responses and comments are confidential. The commission may omit questions that do not fit a respondent group. Jurors must receive surveys within 30 days after the verdict. Case parties must receive them, where practical, within 90 days after case closure, excluding appeal time. Lawyers and staff may be surveyed during the survey period.

The commission must vote on whether a judge meets performance standards at a meeting open to the public. These rules cover commission decisions about whether judges meet minimum performance standards. The commission may discuss a judge's review privately if it follows Utah's open meetings law. Only the final commission vote may be disclosed. Records of individual members' votes are protected from public disclosure.

The commission must give a judge who fails a required review benchmark time to appear and speak at a meeting considering that review. The opportunity applies to a judge whose performance evaluation the commission is considering. The judge must have failed at least one certification standard, meaning a required benchmark used in the performance review.

The commission must study whether certain appeal reversals belong in judges' performance reviews and report its findings to lawmakers. The written report goes to the Legislature's Judiciary Interim Committee. The study concerns reversals for abuse of discretion, when an appeals court finds that a judge went beyond the allowed range of judgment. The study requirement does not itself require these reversals to be counted in judges' reviews. The law requires the study before October 1, 2026, and the written report no later than November 1, 2026.