This paper examined quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii Judiciary. Hawaii utilizes a three panel system for assessing fitness to proceed, where two psychologists and one psychiatrist submit independent reports to the Court. Utilizing a survey instrument based on previous research and nationally-derived quality standards, 150 competency to stand trial (CST) reports were examined. Reports demonstrated pervasive mediocrity with respect to quality (Mean QC = 68.95, SD = 15.21). One quarter ( N = 38) of the reports scored at or above 80% of the maximum possible score. Levels of CST agreement between evaluators and evaluators and judges were high. Report quality did not differ as a function of evaluator professional identity. Full-time employed evaluators submitted a greater number of reports above the quality criterion. For those evaluators who attended the March training, reports demonstrated significantly improved quality. Suggestions for enhancing report quality are offered with a special attention to inclusion of report elements, focus on inclusion of historical elements, and clearly described rationales supporting forensic opinions. (7664 words. Competency to stand trial, inter-rater agreement).