Embattled Judge Birdie Hairston Jamison defended her record on the Richmond General District Court and urged skeptical legislators to re-elect her to a new term.

“I want to be able to continue doing the great job that I have been doing,” the 57-year-old jurist told a panel from the House and Senate Courts of Justice committees considering whether to recommend her for re-election to a fresh six-year term.

During her interview last Friday evening, Judge Jamison pushed back against unfavorable results from a confidential survey of lawyers who have appeared before her in the past 12 months.

The surveys are a new evaluation tool the committees appear to be relying on in making their decisions, despite Judge Jamison and several lawmakers questioning the credibility of results.

“I cannot reconcile these results with what goes on in my courtroom,” Judge Jamison said in decrying the use of a survey of “anonymous lawyers” to justify ending her 23-year tenure.

She said she has heard more than a million cases since her appointment to the bench in 1991 and never had a complaint about her conduct referred to the state’s judicial review commission.

She noted her docket regularly includes hundreds of cases, but she said she does her best to be fair, patient and respectful.

At least 50 people, including several attorneys, packed the hearing room in a show of support for Judge Jamison. It was the largest entourage of support for any of the 32 sitting judges who appeared before the panel last week.

No decisions were made; that will happen when the General Assembly reconvenes Jan. 14. Both the House and Senate committees must endorse a judge in order for the judge’s nomination to go before the full body for re-election.

Judge Jamison is rated a long shot, at best, to win a new term, along with several other circuit and district court judges among the 33 in Virginia whose terms are up in 2015.

Only 20 judges were evaluated through the new survey program. And Judge Jamison, the only Richmond judge facing re-election, ranked at the bottom in the results.

Richmond Delegate G. Manoli Loupassi, who chairs the House judicial selection subcommittee, chaired the interview panel. He was among members who expressed concern about the high percentage of attorneys who rated Judge Jamison as needing improvement in such areas as fairness, consistency and respect.

During the interview, Delegate Loupassi repeatedly said being a “judge is a privilege, not a right.” He stressed over and over the need for judges who “are fair, are patient and show respect” for those who enter their courtroom.

He expressed concern that nearly 45 percent of the attorneys found her unsatisfactory or needing improvement in her overall performance, 42 percent rated her as unfair and 47 percent found her lacking in respect for all court participants.

Judge Jamison said she couldn’t understand how she could receive such evaluations when “more than half the lawyers rate me as good or excellent.”

She said one reason could be that she rejects plea deals in drunken driving cases that do not comply with state law — creating unhappiness.

She said after she received the survey results, she requested a retired judge observe her in court. The judge could find nothing wrong in the way she conducted her courtroom and dealt with participants, she said.

That’s why she questioned whether the evaluations are fair to women, particularly women of color like herself.

Among the seven judges who received the lowest evaluations, five were women, though the top-rated judge also was a woman.

A panel member, Sen. L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, also African-American, took up the bias theme. A 23-year General Assembly veteran, she noted that legislative evaluations consistently rank her near the bottom, yet she repeatedly has been re-elected.

“There’s something wrong here,” Sen. Lucas said.

Two men, both of whom are Caucasian, also expressed concern that the committees could be relying too heavily on the evaluations.

State Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Bedford County, questioned the credibility of survey ratings for Judge Jamison.

He said he found Judge Jamison “eminently fair and eminently qualified” in the four times he brought cases before her. “Politics is not only here,” Sen. Stanley said. “It’s in the bar.”

Kevin Martingayle, president of the Virginia State Bar, the regulatory body for lawyers, also told legislators not to lean on the evaluations too much.

“It appears that the women do face a little different standard,” he told the panel. “I do think there is some perception — men don’t like women telling them what to do in the black robe.”

However, Sen. Janet Howell, D-Reston, was among panel members who called the survey results a useful tool, particularly for non-lawyers trying to evaluate judges.

“Frankly, when I look at this evaluation of you, I’m really concerned,” Sen. Howell told Judge Jamison.

Judge Jamison is not the only judge whose re-election is in jeopardy.

Norfolk Circuit Judge Karen J. Burrell, another African-American who rated low on the evaluations, wasn’t invited to interview, a signal that she is unlikely to be re-elected.

Three other district court judges also were grilled about weak results on the their surveys, including Judge Pamela E. Hutchens, who is white, who sits in Virginia Beach General District Court and also is rated a long shot for re-election.

Judges Colleen K. Killilea and Alfred O. Masters Jr. of the James City County and Newport News General District courts, respectively, also were grilled about receiving below average evaluations.

“It’s a one-sided survey, and I’m not the attorneys’ favorite judge,” Judge Killilea said after being told her evaluation results were “disconcerting.”