"The Robing Room: CT State Judges

Hon. James W. Abrams	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge District Court
Hartford County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 9.8 - 1 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. James W. Abrams

Comments

Other

Comment #: CT548
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The decision to postpone executions and ejectments for eviction purposes through August 1, 2020 is irresponsible and an abuse of executive power. Forcing property owners to subsidize the welfares of the state and commandeering private property without just compensation should not be acceptable. By virtue of these orders the State of CT. has given away 5 free months of rent to individuals many of which never had any intentions of paying rent. Unless the state is prepared to compensate property owners for the continued use of their property, such orders should be refrained from being made. Its understood that difficult decisions are made during difficult times however please keep in mind that individuals facing executions and ejectments were already at the end of the eviction process, many of which are now in noncompliance of court order stipulated agreements, have already had their day in court and are now being allowed to take advantage rental owners and tax payers. Judge Abrams should remove this order.

Litigant

Comment #: CT279
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Jim Abrams knew the defendant and, when asked to allow a different judge to hear the case, refused and only saying he would refrain from eating at their establishment during the trial. Ignored property appraisal information and acted completely in favor the defendants he knew very well.Denied hearing of important, smoking gun evidence post trial and refused to articulate.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CT40
Rating:9.8

Comments:
Judge Abrams, on both the housing docket and the short calendar, exhibits great efficiency and commands the courtroom with a demeanor that respects all participants, attorney and pro se.