Hon. Charles Irwin See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge
Superior Court
Cochise County
See Comments
Sierra Vista

Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 4 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* 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=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Charles Irwin


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: AZ1562
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Rulings very subjective. Appears to show preferential treatment in regard to what is allowed and disallowed as evidence. Makes statements that are applied to rulings that are not based on any evidence or reference except personal opinion and are blatantly outside of scope of practice, such as basing ruling on information regarding IRS regulations, which in contrary to IRS published information;and disallows presentation of any information to demonstrate that his information was incorrect. Blatantly partial to male v.s female litigants.

Other

Comment #: AZ1510
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Everything that has been mentioned against him before he has since reversed on. Very Pro Se! Especially females.

Other

Comment #: AZ722
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He literally told us he wanted us to pay to see him even though he was going to do nothing to help. He is the most unethical judge I have ever witnessed. He has been spotted chatting it up with attorneys often.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ622
Rating:2.1
Comments:
Judge Irwin can't be called "pro-defendant" or "pro-plaintiff" because he's "pro-man". I was warned by over a dozen people, pre-divorce hearing, that Judge Irwin was extremely pro-male (and his being censured twice by the AZ Supreme Court for sexually harassing females under him) yet, I couldn't believe a judge would be SO biased. Apparently, he is. If you are a woman living in Cochise County and want a divorce, either do whatever you can do to stay away from Judge Irwin or have it transferred to Pima County. This man is a sexist to the nth degree.

Other

Comment #: AZ582
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Judge Charles Irwin has excluded evidence that hindered me from receiving a full and fair hearing, which denied me a full and fair administration of justice. Judge Irwin favors plaintiffs with counsel, and shows prejudice against the unrepresented. His demeanor towards pro se litigators is disdainful. He also has a past history of sexual harassment towards female court employees, and has been caught drinking after hours on courthouse grounds, which has been documented in the Sierra Vista Herald.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ554
Rating:3.9
Comments:
Racist, sexist, imperious, cruel, abusive, short-fused, humorless, sanctimonious, and regularly engages in ex parte communication with select male (only) lawyers; he is abusive to the unrepresented.