Hon. Charles W. Smith See Rating Details
Subcircuit Judge
Circuit Court
Lake County
Ninteenth Judicial Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 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


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Charles W. Smith


Comments


Other

Comment #: IL2560
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Smith made inappropriate comments telling a non custodial parent to get their toothbrush ready as he threatened to send them to jail for non payment of child support. Then for the next hearing when the purge was paid as agreed in open court he sent the litigant to jail for spending a portion of the tax return. This is judicial overreach because the litigant needed to cash the tax return check in order to negotiate a check to pay for past dur child support. The litigant also stated the only made 26000 that year and needed a portion to pay for living expenses so that they and another child would not be homeless. Judge Smith ignored this and said the litigant could just live in jail. Judge Smith ignores potential conflicts of interest when there is biased because one of the parties works in the Courthouse and denied a change of venue request.