Hon. Karen M. Wilson See Rating Details
Associate Judge
Circuit Court
DuPage County
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 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. Karen M. Wilson


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: IL2188
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Father typecast before hearing began. Judge would not listen to respondent father appearing pro se and would not allow him to present evidence on his own behalf. Did not conduct required bifurcated proceeding to determine that substantial change existed before moving to determination on amount of child support change necessary. Instead, judge ran hearing like an interview where she asked questions she wanted. Did not allow for father's admission of emails between father and mother that directly contradicted mother's testimony and pleadings. Told father she philosophically disagreed with approach original judge took re: parenting time and allocation of visitation costs, so she was going to modify judgement regardless of petitioner's evidence. Retroactively and sua sponte (on her own) increased past child support amount due even though issue not pled. Refused to accept evidence of or consider father's extensive medical bills as statutory deduction to determine appropriate net income. Told respondent father he could either sign her order as agreed or she'd continue case and enter an order that granted petitioner even more monetary relief and he could take his chances arguing case on appeal. (In other words, agree with me or I'll make it worse for you.) Refused to hold petitioner accountable to Local Rules and exempted her from mandatory discovery which meant that petitioner produced NO DOCUMENTS in support of her alleged changed circumstances based on increases in her child-related expenses.

Litigant

Comment #: IL1810
Rating:3.0
Comments:
In her opinion I was guilty before being allowed to provide my evidence in post divorce. The decree was confusing to all attorneys. My mistake was trying to minimize financial harm,and receive a fair outcome. Did not want to even listen.

Litigant

Comment #: IL1522
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Totally ignore prior judges orders and comments