"The Robing Room: IL 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. Susan J. McDunn

Comments

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: IL256
Rating:2.1

Comments:
Susan McDunn is perhaps the most incompetent judge before whom I've appeared in 34 years. Even though she entered a directed verdict after 7 trial days and discharged the jury, for the last 2 months since that time she has sua sponte reversed herself on a significant ruling and has continued to entertain multiple motions to reconsider offered by plaintiff's attorney. Her manner is abrasive and she refuses to follow case law and precedent preferring instead to inject her own determination of facts that were never in issue, never discussed during the trial and concerned issues that were in the "trial books" that she insisted upon receiving prior to trial but contained multiple documents that were not introduced into evidence. Simply terrible.