Final Recommendation

The Honorable

Gary L. Clingman

District Court Judge
5th Judicial District --
Chaves, Eddy, and Lea Counties

Year: 2014

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results: Retained

Evaluation: Judge Clingman received generally positive ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys. Among attorneys, he was given favorable ratings for punctuality in commencing proceedings, maintaining proper control over the proceedings, attentiveness to the proceedings, and for his ability to decisively rule on procedural and substantive matters. However, attorneys rated him somewhat lower when it comes to treating all participants equally, being courteous to all participants, and conducting himself in a manner free from arrogance. The court staff and resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) rated Judge Clingman positively in all areas. In his interview, Judge Clingman demonstrated a commitment to improving in his areas of weakness.

Experience & Education: Judge Clingman was appointed as a district judge in 1997. Prior to his appointment, he worked in private practice. He presides over a diversified docket and hears both civil and criminal cases. Judge Clingman served as the Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District from 2006 to 2013. Judge Clingman has also served as an instructor and facilitator at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, and is pursuing his postgraduate degree in Judicial Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas and his law degree from Texas Tech Law School in 1984.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=52, 37% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 67% 19% 13%
Fair and Impartial 50% 27% 23%
Knowledgeable of Law 74% 18% 8%
Communication is Clear 72% 22% 6%
Appropriate Demeanor 52% 22% 26%
Properly Controls Proceedings 90% 8% 2%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=52, 79% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 81% 10% 10%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 86% 5% 10%
Jurors (n=22, 23% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 94% 4% 2%
Fair and Impartial 93% 4% 3%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 94% 4% 2%
Properly Controls Proceedings 94% 6% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, the "Agree" columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the "Disagree" columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Partly Agree/Partly Disagree" for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Back to top