Hon. John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.)
One of the intellectual giants of the SDNY, he knows the case before him (and the authorities) better than the lawyers. Argument on motions with him are marathons and he will cover every issue raised by the parties and otherwise. In one sense, the best judge around; in another, I feel he relishes showing that he knows more than the lawyers do, that he is playing "gotcha" and is looking for the lawyers to concede he's right rather than looking for guidance or information. But with so many other judges being superficial or unprepared, it's nice to have one who considers, understands and resolves every argument in a thorough and well-reasoned manner, even if he's ruling against you.
Hon. Kevin Nathaniel Fox (S.D.N.Y.)
I appeared before Judge Fox pro hac. My case was referred by stipulation for a settlement conference. The litigation was very contentious. Judge Fox had the patience of Job and stayed with us through the evening to effect a settlement. He has an excellent demeanor, is intelligent and is comfortably firm. He was better than many private mediators.
Hon. Vanessa Lynne Bryant (D.Conn.)
An horrific calamity of a judge. She is arrogant, stupid, incompetent, abusive, petty and lazy. On top of that, she is going blind - the only thing she can see is the clock because she is careful not to work after 4:00pm. She has no grasp whatsoever of the rules of evidence. This embarrassment to the judiciary should never have been appointed to the bench, but when the ABA committee rated her unfit and incompetent the politicos replaced the committee. The only category where she rates above a 1 is evenhandedness - she treats everyone with equal disrespect and disdain.
Hon. Gene Carter (D.Me.)
He is a scary guy -- quite prone to viciousness. You'd better have your ducks in a straight row when you appear before him -- the man is not patient and does not abide fools. Also, I think he picks sides somewhat based on his personal impression of you (and/or your clients and witnesses). All that being said, I found him to be rather sharp on the issues. During the course of a week-long trial, he jumped in several times with fairly incisive questions, which indicated to me that he was paying close attention and had done his homework. If you can find ways to stroke his ego (e.g., by making him the "hero" of the case), more the better.
Hon. Jan E. Dubois (E.D.Pa.)
3rd Circuit reversed Judge Dubois after he granted a new trial based on flaky testimony that didn’t have merit. Case no: 06-4080 US vs Kelly. The District Court abused its discretion in granting Kelly’s motion. Specifically, the government contends that the District Court erred in concluding that (1) Kelly had exercised sufficient diligence in regard to the discovery of the new evidence and (2) the newly discovered evidence would “probably produce an acquittal” at a new trial. The Government urged the District Court to conclude that the testimony was not credible and that, accordingly, Kelly could not satisfy the fifth prong of Iannelli. The Court declared, at the outset of its discussion, that “Jones’s prospective testimony, if believed, would probably produce an acquittal, and the jury is the appropriate fact-finder.” The testimony of a drunk and two that were never present at the bar in the first place. For the foregoing reasons, we will REVERSE the order of the District Court granting Kelly’s motion for a new trial and REMAND for the entry of a judgment of conviction and for sentencing.
Hon. Paul W. Grimm (D.Md.)
A generally good judge, with the following caveats: his knowledge of the law is limited to discovery and in that realm he's scholarly and thorough. His knowledge of substantive law outside of that area is limited. Thus within the confines of the rules themselves, he's fairly good but suffers a bit from the specialist's desire to "overprotect" their field without looking at anything beyond it (like common sense). He has the same tendency to divorce discovery from reality that the federal circuit does with patent law (which is why they have been getting reversed so much). Unfortunately, the standard of review for magistrates in discovery is pretty forgiving, so it's unlikely that he'll see much correction from above. He's fairly unique in that he has his own set of rules and page limits that apply to all motions filed in his court. This is in addition to the federal rules of civil procedure and the local rules of the District of Maryland. As the FRCP is an act of Congress, and the local court has authority from that act to make certain changes (which it has used) I simply don't know where he believes the authority for such generally applicable rules come from. It's a rather presumptuous thing for a magistrate judge to do in all cases. After promulgating them, he does not follow them consistently (even when they are pointed out to him) -- so be warned. He demonstrates little or no knowledge about the underlying technology of electronic data storage, which is surprising given the plaudits he receives for his discovery work. (He may know a lot and just feel that he can't bring it to bear in a case without witnesses, but that means that there's little advantage to having him have this expertise in terms of limiting expense). At oral argument, he also displays little or no innate skepticism about legal positions. Good judges are skeptical of both sides and humble at the core; they will probe both sides if for no other reason than to test their own inclination about how to resolve a dispute and the logical limits of each side's position. He takes whatever each side tells him without questioning either, which allows for argument by adjective. In general, this does not happen when written motions are submitted to him and he has a chance to pull the citations behind each one. He is very thorough and far more balanced in his written work, if a little pedantic at times. On purely oral motions, however, whoever throws the most mud first wins -- he then becomes terse, short-tempered, incurious and can be easily manipulated.
Hon. Andre M. Davis (D.Md.)
His tenure on the bench seems to have caused arrogance and a lack of interest in listening to the parties. He seems to jump to conclusions and is difficult to sway, though he does give an even consideration to both sides of the dispute. Most of all, be very careful about showing great deference to him, because he definitely treats his courtroom as a place where he expects humility and full deference to him.
Hon. Robert Holmes Bell (W.D.Mich.)
6th Circuit reversed Judge Bell's sentencing of a child molester. The case is US vs Christopher Brattain 07-1594. He failed to apply a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. §4B1.5(b), stating that the enhancement applied only to offenders who had abused multiple victims, and Brattain had abused a single victim over a period of seven years. The government argued that the district court’s failure to apply the enhancement was in error because Brattain qualified as a repeat offender, and Congress explicitly revised the enhancement to apply to repeat offenders who abuse only a single victim.
Hon. Fernando M. Olguin (C.D.Cal.)
A poor judge biased who is biased in favor of the defense. This man would give bail to Charles Manson if he could. He routinely ignores the prosecutor's recommendations and releases violent felons, many of them illegal aliens, back onto the street with no regard for the public's welfare. Many of his pre-trial defendants never again show up for court.
Hon. Russell G. Vineyard (N.D.Ga.)
Vineyard is a former US Attorney/Criminal Division and knows nothing about labor and employment law. He makes rulings that are laughable like finding a defendant's training records are not relevant when there is a Faragher/Ellerth defense that has been pled. He never ever saw a defendant's summary judgement motion he didn't like and will rule for the defendant on issues the defendant never even moved upon for judgment. Awful.