1. Home
  2. judicial ratings

Judicial Ratings

Since 1995, the Judiciary Committee of the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York has conducted rigorous evaluations and independent interviews of judicial candidates across New York City and New York State to ensure equal justice under law for LGBTQ+ communities.

Evaluation & Vetting Process

The Judiciary Committee conducts comprehensive candidate interviews and background reviews for state and municipal judicial candidates. Through detailed assessments of legal acumen, courtroom temperament, and dedication to constitutional equality, the committee helps voters, screening panels, and appointing authorities identify jurists of distinction.

Judicial Recusal Policy: In accordance with strict judicial ethics and bar governance rules, all affairs of the Judiciary Committee—including candidate interviews, panel deliberations, evaluations, and ratings determinations—are conducted with no involvement of Association President, the Honorable Eric J. Wursthorn.
2025 Annual Judiciary Reception
2025 Annual Judiciary Reception graciously hosted by Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek
2025 Annual Judiciary Reception graciously hosted by Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek

Candidate Rating Standards

Judicial candidates evaluated by the committee are eligible to receive one of four formal determinations based on rigorous, non-partisan evaluation standards:

  • Highly Approved

    Conferred upon candidates who possess all qualifications for an "Approved" rating to an outstanding degree, paired with an exemplary record of advancing equal rights.

  • Approved

    Demonstrates the integrity, intellect, legal experience, and temperament demanded of judicial office, with an affirmed commitment to impartial, bias-free adjudication.

  • Not Approved

    Assigned when the screening panel finds that the candidate does not adequately meet the required standards of judicial temperament, experience, or commitment to equal justice.

  • Failed to Appear

    Designated for invited candidates on the general or primary ballot who declined or failed to attend their scheduled interview and vetting evaluation with the panel.

Core Standards for an "Approved" Determination

  • Commitment to Equality: Demonstrated commitment to the equal rights and dignified treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals.
  • Professional Temperament: Unquestioned intellect, personal and judicial integrity, legal knowledge, and the calm demeanor required of judicial office.
  • Impartiality & Fairness: A demonstrated dedication to administering justice without bias, prejudice, or favoritism, and ensuring minorities are protected from discrimination in their courtroom.

View Sample General Election Ratings

Review candidate evaluations, ratings methodology, and committee determinations from the general election.