(a) Definitions.
(1) Whenever the word “judge” is used in this rule, it includes only circuit and associate judges.
(2) Whenever the pronoun “he” is used in this rule, it includes the feminine as well as the masculine form.
Rule 58.Judicial Performance Evaluation
Article I. General Rules · Last amended 2023 · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceRule 58 creates a mandatory, confidential program for evaluating circuit and associate judges, using feedback from attorneys and court staff to help judges improve.
Full Text of Ill. S. Ct. R. 58
(b) Preamble. The courts, the public and the bar have a vital interest in a responsive and respected judiciary. In its supervisory role and pursuant to its power over the court system and judges, the court has determined that the periodic evaluation of a judge’s performance is a reliable method to promote judicial excellence and competence. Accordingly, the court has authorized a program of mandatory judicial performance evaluation. The program shall be supervised by the court and shall be implemented and monitored by a committee appointed by the court designated as the Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee, which shall establish procedures to implement this program.
(c) Purpose. There shall be a mandatory program of judicial performance evaluation for the purpose of achieving excellence in the performance of individual judges and the improvement of the judiciary as a whole.
(d) Selection of Evaluators. The selection of evaluators is an important process in ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation. The judges randomly selected to participate in a performance evaluation are evaluated by attorneys who have appeared before the judge as well as court staff that work with the judge on a regular basis. The Clerk of the Circuit Court in which the selected judge sits shall upon request from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts provide a report or reports to that agency that list(s) the following information:
(1) Courtrooms as well as the circuit and associate judges assigned to those courtrooms;
(2) Attorneys who have appeared in those courtrooms in the two (2) years preceding the request; and
(3) Contact information, including e-mail addresses, for those attorneys listed in the report.
(e) Confidentiality. The program must be conducted candidly and in strict confidence so that evaluations may be based on objective criteria and the areas for improvement determined fairly. Except as provided herein, the disclosure of evaluation information would be counterproductive to the goals of the evaluation program, reduce the free flow of comment, and result in the termination of the program. The following rules of confidentiality are essential to the successful implementation of the judicial evaluation program.
(1) Information Obtained. Except as provided herein, all information, questionnaires, notes, memoranda, electronic and computer data, and any other data obtained and used in the course of any judicial performance evaluation shall be privileged and strictly confidential. For the purpose of self-improvement, only the individual judge evaluated and the agents assigned to present the data to the judge will be permitted to know to which judge particular information applies. However, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 21(b)-(d), if a chief judge has reason to believe that a judge’s conduct negatively affects the operations of the court or public confidence in the court and the judge continues to fail to perform his or her judicial duties or to comply with a directive of the chief judge within the prescribed time period under that rule (collectively the alleged unsatisfactory conduct or performance) and if the chief judge documents in writing this alleged unsatisfactory conduct or performance, the chief judge, in his or her discretion, may request the Supreme Court to approve the obtaining of any past judicial performance evaluations of that judge. Thereafter, in its discretion, the Supreme Court can approve or not approve the request. The chief judge’s request and the Supreme Court’s decision shall not be made public. If the Supreme Court approves the request, the chief judge and the judge will receive any such evaluations. The chief judge can only use any such evaluation for the purposes of Rules 21 and 58. Moreover, as part of this process and as part of its administrative and supervisory powers under the Illinois Constitution (article VI, section 16), the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may obtain and review any judicial performance evaluations of the judge. A request by a chief judge or the Supreme Court for access to any judicial performance evaluation applies only to those evaluations created after the effective date of this amendment. The information, in summary form only and without disclosing the names of individual judges, may also be used separately by the Supreme Court and its designated agents for the purposes of improvement of the judiciary, and for use in administering the courts and for the development of judicial education programs. The identity of any person who provides information shall be privileged and held confidential and shall not be made available to any person. In addition, information disclosing a criminal act may be provided to law enforcement authorities at the direction of the Supreme Court. Requests for such information shall be made by written petition setting forth in particularity the need for such information. All information and data provided to law enforcement authorities pursuant to this paragraph shall no longer be deemed privileged and confidential. As to all information and data obtained in the operation of the program for judicial performance evaluation, the members of the Oversight Committee are hereby exempted from the requirements of the following rules of this court: Canon 2, Rule 2.15 (Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct of 2023), and Article VIII, Rule 8.3 (Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct), except as herein provided.
(2) Admissibility as Evidence. Except as disclosed pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) hereof, all information, questionnaires, notes, memoranda or other data declared to be privileged and confidential hereby shall not be admissible as evidence, nor discoverable in any action of any kind in any court or before any tribunal, board, agency or person.
Plain-English Summary
Illinois evaluates its trial judges on a regular basis, and Rule 58 sets the ground rules. Judges are chosen at random for review, and the attorneys who have appeared before them, plus the court staff who work with them, fill out the evaluations. At the Administrative Office's request, the circuit clerk where the judge sits pulls together the list of eligible attorneys from the court's own records to make this possible.
Confidentiality drives the whole program. Evaluation data is privileged, and only the judge being reviewed and the staff delivering the results normally get to see it, so participants can speak candidly without fear of exposure. Evaluations aren't admissible as evidence in any court proceeding.
There's one narrow exception. If a chief judge documents in writing that a judge's conduct is hurting the court's operations or public confidence, and the judge hasn't fixed the problem after the chief judge's directive, the chief judge can ask the Supreme Court for permission to see that judge's past evaluations. The Supreme Court decides whether to allow it, and neither the request nor the decision is made public. This exception only reaches evaluations created after the rule was amended to add it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How are judges chosen for performance evaluation?
Judges are selected at random for the program, and attorneys who have appeared before them, along with court staff, complete the evaluations.
Can the public see a judge's performance evaluation?
No. Evaluation information is privileged and confidential, with only the individual judge and the staff presenting the results normally allowed to know the details.
Can a performance evaluation be used in a lawsuit or a disciplinary case?
No. Rule 58 makes evaluation data inadmissible as evidence and not discoverable in any court or tribunal proceeding, apart from the limited exception below.
When can a chief judge get access to a judge's past evaluations?
Only when the chief judge has documented in writing that the judge's conduct is harming court operations or public confidence and the judge hasn't responded to a directive, and only with the Supreme Court's approval.
What is the point of the evaluation program?
To help individual judges improve and to strengthen the judiciary as a whole, not to punish judges or generate public scorecards.
Committee Comments
(December 6, 2021)
The changes to Rule 58 maintain the essential confidentiality of this evaluation process but add an exception to the rule. Amended Rule 58 allows the chief judges and the Supreme Court in limited circumstances to have access to the judicial performance evaluations of circuit court and associate judges whose conduct allegedly negatively impacts the operations of the courts or the public confidence in the courts or who persistently fail to perform satisfactorily or to comply with the directives of the chief judges.
Paragraph (d)(1) is amended and adopts and summarizes Rule 21(b)-(d). Now, if a chief judge has reason to believe that a judge’s conduct negatively affects the operation of the court or public confidence in the court and the judge continues to fail to perform his or her judicial duties or to comply with a directive of the chief judge within prescribed time periods within that rule, and if the chief judge documents in writing this alleged unsatisfactory conduct or performance, the chief judge, in his or her discretion, may request the Supreme Court to approve the obtaining of any past judicial performance evaluations of that judge. (Previously, judges were subject to one such evaluation in their judicial careers; now they will be subject to more frequent evaluations.) Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may approve or not approve the request. If the request is approved, the chief judge and the judge will receive any such evaluations. A chief judge can only use such evaluations for purposes of Rules 21 and 58. The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may also obtain and review such evaluations. To maintain confidentiality, the chief judge’s request and the Supreme Court’s decision on the request shall not be made public.
Because this limited confidentiality exception is new, a request by a chief judge or the Supreme Court for access to the judicial performance evaluations of a circuit court or associate judge applies only to those judicial performance evaluations initiated after the effective date of this amendment.
Amendment History
Adopted September 30, 1988, effective October 1, 1988; amended April 1, 1992, effective August 1, 1992; amended March 1, 2011, effective immediately; amended Dec. 6, 2021, eff. Jan. 1, 2022; amended Dec. 30, 2022, eff. Jan. 1, 2023; amended Dec. 20, 2023, eff. immediately.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Committee Comments, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Supreme Court Rules,
promulgated by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: judicial performance evaluation Illinoishow are judges evaluatedjudge evaluation confidentialityattorney survey of judgesrate a judge Illinoisjudicial evaluation committee