No, there isn't any evaluation to see if it's been effective. For example, the only one I can think of that this would apply to would be if there were further training or treatment or counselling ordered. Generally, that is assigned through a public order for the chief justice to take steps to ensure that this happens. The chief justice reports back to confirm that those steps were taken. If it's an order of apology, the apology is always communicated in writing through our office, and then we communicate that to the complainant or the person affected by the misconduct, just to ensure that everyone knows what the apology was, that it was appropriate, and that it did take place.
In terms of the other remedies, for example, if it were a suspension for 30 days or less, then I guess the way it's known to be effective is if we get another complaint about the person. For example, there was a former justice of the peace who had a public hearing, after which further counselling and training was ordered, but then we had another complaint, and following the second hearing he was removed from office.