June 17, 2026 Webinar Evaluation – Everything Old is New Again: Quasi-judicial Immunity for Mental Health Professionals in California

Presented by Judge Mark Juhas | Moderated by Merlyn Hernandez, JD

Responses are confidential and your name/answers are not published. By entering your name below you are certifying that you personally attended the session. A copy of Judge Juhas’s presentation is available to download here.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Required for Credit/Optional otherwise

Email - Only used for tracking; responses are confidential *

Professional Designation, e.g. JD, LCSW, PH.D. LMFT, etc.)

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following: After completing this session, I am able to:

	1-= Strongly Disagree	2	3	4	5 - Strongly Agree
Identify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals	1-= Strongly DisagreeIdentify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Identify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals 2	3Identify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals 3	4Identify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals 4	5 - Strongly AgreeIdentify the basic facts of the Vergara v. Ouse case as it relates to mentral health professionals 5 - Strongly Agree
Differentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity	1-= Strongly DisagreeDifferentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Differentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity 2	3Differentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity 3	4Differentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity 4	5 - Strongly AgreeDifferentiate between judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity 5 - Strongly Agree
Identify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice	1-= Strongly DisagreeIdentify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Identify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice 2	3Identify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice 3	4Identify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice 4	5 - Strongly AgreeIdentify situations in which the immunity standards presented may require further consideration in my practice 5 - Strongly Agree

With #1 Rated as POOR and # 5 Rated EXCELLENT please evaluate Judge Juhas as to:

	1-=Poor	2	3	4	5 - Excellent
Level of Knowledge & expertise	1-=PoorLevel of Knowledge & expertise 1-=Poor	2Level of Knowledge & expertise 2	3Level of Knowledge & expertise 3	4Level of Knowledge & expertise 4	5 - ExcellentLevel of Knowledge & expertise 5 - Excellent
Teaching Ability	1-=PoorTeaching Ability 1-=Poor	2Teaching Ability 2	3Teaching Ability 3	4Teaching Ability 4	5 - ExcellentTeaching Ability 5 - Excellent
Ability to Maintain interest	1-=PoorAbility to Maintain interest 1-=Poor	2Ability to Maintain interest 2	3Ability to Maintain interest 3	4Ability to Maintain interest 4	5 - ExcellentAbility to Maintain interest 5 - Excellent
Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions	1-=PoorResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 1-=Poor	2Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 2	3Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 3	4Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 4	5 - ExcellentResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 5 - Excellent

Attorneys, please answer the following (required by State Bar):

	YES	NO
Did this program meet your educational objectives?	YESDid this program meet your educational objectives? YES	NODid this program meet your educational objectives? NO
Did the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities?	YESDid the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities? YES	NODid the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities? NO
Did the activity contain significant professional content?	YESDid the activity contain significant professional content? YES	NODid the activity contain significant professional content? NO
Were you provided with substantive written materials?	YESWere you provided with substantive written materials? YES	NOWere you provided with substantive written materials? NO

Please rate the written/visual materials presented, with #1 being POOR and #5 EXCELLENT

	1-=Poor	2	3	4	5 - Excellent
The materials were:	1-=PoorThe materials were: 1-=Poor	2The materials were: 2	3The materials were: 3	4The materials were: 4	5 - ExcellentThe materials were: 5 - Excellent

Please provide any comments about any part of the program, and ideas for improvement.

By typing my name in the box below, I certify that I did attend the sessions for which this evaluation form applies: *

First

Last

Submit