Hon. Nancy S. Fahey See Rating Details
Circuit Judge
Circuit Court
Vermilion County
Fifth Judicial Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.3 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Nancy S. Fahey


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: IL3649
Rating:2.3
Comments:
Stupid and mean. In five years of litigating in front of her I have never heard her commit a piece of legal reasoning. She denied a client the right to choose cancel his choice, saying, you can choose anybody but x, Then back down without comment, some days later, presumably after somebody told her that was structural error. She refused to release a six month pregnant client from jail Despite a new law stating that such people had to be released, in the face of an agreed order with the prosecution, because, she said, it was a drug case, although the statute made no such exception. She also silently back down from this after a couple of days, once again, presumably when someone told her she couldn’t do that. She has no business on the bench.