Hon. Katherine Bolan Forrest (S.D.N.Y.) Judge Forrest is committed to her view of the law, and will do whatever she needs to in order to reach the conclusions she supports. She is a thorough statist, with no respect for 4th Amendment rights, and little or no understanding of 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. She totally disrespects the role of juries in criminal trials - she is condescending and totally controlling towards jurors and relegates them to a useless role as rubber-stamps for the government and herself. She misleads them as to their proper role, insults them as to their intelligence. She does not understand the purpose or proper scope of cross-examination of government witnesses, has no appreciation of the meaning of confrontation. She does not understand the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. She does not understand the criminal rules regarding expert witness testimony and related disclosures. She does not understand the law re character witnesses. She is punitive and vindictive and viciously judgmental, which she demonstrates in sentencing. In many ways, she epitomizes the worst traits of many federal judges. Criminal Defense Lawyer - (7/24/2015 4:36:26 PM)

Hon. Claude M. Hilton (E.D.Va.) Judge Hilton is the bottom of the judicial barrel. He refuses to give defense counsel a full hearing of issues, he steamrolls through the process. He is not thoughtful or intelligent or in any way curious, he's just doing the job for a paycheck even though he's already in his mid 70s. There were four blatantly reversible errors in the one day trial we had before him - most egregiously, refusing counsel the right to make a record - and he issued summary denials of all pretrial motions without argument. He fell asleep six times in the one-day trial. He has no business on the federal bench. Criminal Defense Lawyer - (7/24/2015 10:23:00 AM)

Hon. T. Michael Putnam (N.D.Ala.) Truly a credit to the bench. No nonsense, sees through gamesmanship. Extremely thoughtful and practically minded. An academic with an abundance of common sense. Was a pleasure litigating in his court. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/23/2015 8:25:17 PM)

Hon. Joseph E. Irenas (D.N.J.) Smart guy. Definitely biased against plaintiffs attorneys. Has his mind made up before you get into the court room. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/23/2015 4:58:48 PM)

Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti (S.D.N.Y.) Excellent judge. Great demeanor. Fair and civil. He knows the law but does not flaunt that fact. A genuine pleasure. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/22/2015 4:20:40 PM)

Hon. Beryl A. Howell (D.D.C.) As someone who has never been involved in a court case before, I was rather expecting someone along the lines of the type of judge you see on TV: smart, calm, wise, even-tempered, knowledgable about the law, above all trying to serve justice. This image could not be farther from Judge Howell's. She has a violent temper, of which she has no real control, is incredibly rude, and has no interest in justice. Her lack of knowledge about law and judicial process is appalling. Her inability to hide her bias is shocking. Her unwillingness to recuse herself appropriately -- or even disclose that she should have recused herself -- is beyond belief. Perhaps saddest of all is her lack of interest in justice; she doesn't really seem to care if justice prevails, so long as she can pretend she "went through the motions" and can have her lunch on time. Other - (7/22/2015 7:50:09 AM)

Hon. Richard J. Leon (D.D.C.) Will take the government's account of everything at face value; very conservative. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/21/2015 5:41:32 PM)

Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez (C.D.Cal.) Biased against employees in employment cases, admits to taking the easy way out of opinions, not concerned about getting the law right. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/21/2015 5:39:26 PM)

Hon. Dolly M. Gee (C.D.Cal.) Listens to all sides and allows as much time for oral argument as necessary; conscientious on getting her opinions right, can sometimes take a little time to get them; great judicial temperament; very fair. Civil Litigation - Private - (7/21/2015 5:36:41 PM)

Hon. Joan M. Azrack (E.D.N.Y.) Recently had a white-collar telemarketing fraud sentencing in front of her, where the client entered a plea to 37-46 range. She had read the papers and gave us as much time as we needed. She is new to district court having been elevated from her long-time USMJ duties. She has been honed well during her many years as a MJ and unqualifiedly appears ready and fit for battle. In the end, she gave a one-third reduction from the minimum guideline range based upon a host of extraordinary 3553(a) circumstances besetting my 69-year old client. She Understood the law and her sentencing powers. Not afraid to exercise her Article III powers, despite being relatively new to the DJ bench. Gave a similar -- but greater -- variance to a co-defendant sentenced later in the day. It's so refreshing to appear before a court that understands that the government's unbridled quest for justice (retribution) must be tempered with compassion, humanity and common sense. Criminal Defense Lawyer - (7/20/2015 8:56:52 AM)