The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is to interview applicants for the bench in future, according to its first annual report.
At the same time the board reports a fall-off in the numbers applying to become judges.
It has also asked the Government to consider amending the legislation so that people being appointed as judges will have to undergo medical examinations.
While this is the first report from the board, it includes figures for applications since the board was set up in 1996. These show a dramatic decline in the number of people applying to become judges, despite all courts being opened up to applications from solicitors during that time.
Previously solicitors could only apply to become judges of the District Court.
The board report for 2002 was sent to the Minister for Justice last week and contains conclusions and recommendations as well as statistics on its work.
Under the legislation setting it up, the board seeks applications, examines them for suitability and then forwards at least seven names to the Government. The number can be fewer if there are not seven applications or if seven do not meet the minimum standards required.
The fact that the number is as high as seven, however, and that the legislation does not ask the board to submit names in any order of preference means that the Government still has wide discretion in recommending appointments to the President.
The Government may also nominate from outside the list supplied by the board, but since its establishment seven years ago it has never done so.
These procedures do not apply if the Government is appointing a serving judge to a higher court.
According to the report's conclusions, the board decided against recommending amending legislation to the Government, allowing the board to specify an order of preference in its recommendations or to submit fewer than seven names.
The fact that it cannot state a preference may "render the recommendations less helpful", it stated.
It also commented that the number of applicants for the High and Supreme Court, for example, was "on occasions, relatively small". In fact, there were only two applicants for a place on the Supreme Court last year.
However, the board decided not to recommend amending legislation for various reasons, including the fear that it would place "unjustifiable restraints" on the Government.
The board has not so far interviewed candidates. However, it stated in its conclusions that it would do so in future and will also avail of its powers to consult with others about a person's suitability.