The Robing Room

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Ratings

*Temperament:	(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Scholarship:	(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Industriousness:	(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:	(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Punctuality:	(1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:	(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:	(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling	(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:	(1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:	(1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:	(1=10%,10=100%)
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. William M. Conley

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: 33050
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Judge Conley does not appear to hold pro se Plaintiffs to a high standard of proof so much as an impossible one. He's essentially from and for corporate America. He would not allow discovery to proceed in my case, nor did he give me much of any opportunity to rework my complaint with the help of a lawyer I hired, despite what I think must be evidence of misfeasance by defendants' counsel, in obstructing discovery. Nor did he oversee much of any progress, despite what I see as a clear obligation for the judge to be an active leader in that regard.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 20027
Rating:8.7

Comments:
I have had two recent trials before Judge Conley (in 2013). In both, he listened to all arguments and understood all arguments. He seldom made an error. In summary judgment decisions, he is inclined to hold plaintiffs to a high standard of proof, but that is common.