"The Robing Room: GA State Judges

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

What others have said about Hon. Stephen G. Scarlett Sr.

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: GA69
Rating:2.9

Comments:
My experience with this judge was that he was intellectually lazy and felt little need to enter into any legal anaylis or examine precedent. He is not likely to know or care about the legal issue before him but rather just wants litigants to quit bothering him as if his true function were to do something other than serve the people who seek his assistance. He ruled both for and against my client and treated me relatively courteeously, so I have no ax to grind. But I got the opportunity to see him with multiple litigants and attornyes and hear him respond to oral argument in addition to my own, and I got the impression that he either didn't understand the legal arguments presented to him or didn't care. He certainly had no idea what any of the issues were in any case that I saw before him. The judiciary has really sunk low, and this particular judge is a model in mediocrity -- which is a real shame.