Hon. Mary Beth McCormick See Rating Details
Associate Circuit Judge
Circuit Court
Montgomery County
6th Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.1 - 8 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      

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)

What others have said about Hon. Mary Beth McCormick


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD5115
Absolutely the worst. In a family law matter, called the attorneys in and asked for a brief statement of each sides' position. Then, without benefit of that small fact-finding process known as a trial, said "Here's what I think is going to happen...so I'd encourage your clients to settle." Effectively rendering a decision without that inconvenient exercise in due-process, aka the trial? Handing one party incredible leverage and forcing the other party into accepting a less-than-equitable agreement? Congrats, MB. You've fulfilled the highest standard of jurisprudence and made Oliver Wendell Holmes proud...in absolutely NO conceivable plane of reality.
As if her actions weren't already obnoxious enough, to top it off, her ordainment of the finding of fact (again without the bother of the mechanism mainly used to find fact in disputed cases, e,g, the trial)also completely contravened the Montgomery County custody evaluator's findings and recommendations.

So, good on ya, judge, for wasting 40 hours of the taxpayers' dollars so that you didn't have to sit through a couple hours of messy family court. Kudos for debasing the process by issuing a summary judgement in the form of a hypothetical to force a settlement that could only be lopsided unless the recipient of your largesse was scrupulous-to-the-point-of-sainthood or completely retarded. Because we wouldn't want you to be put out by having to do your job, much less in an impartial way like that crazy blindfolded lady with the scales.

The only thing that is more embarrassing than this episode is that, in Maryland, her conduct is OK and not grounds for an appeal.


Comment #: MD2326
As a pro se plaintiff involved in a civil lawsuit against a debt collector who obtained copies of my credit report from Experian on two occasions without a permissible purpose under both state and federal laws, I was repeatedly frustrated by the Court’s: 1) failure to interpret the plain language definitions of “creditor,” “credit” and “account,” as well as the statute of limitations and civil liability for users of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; 2) failure to enforce the ten days' automatic stay of enforcement period under MD Rule 2-632(a); 3) failure to compose a memorandum detailing the Court’s findings and identifying the controlling legal authorities relied upon to reach its decisions; and 4) failure to give me the opportunity to reply to the defendants’ opposition motion, in accordance with MD Rule 2-311(b).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD2310
I tried a medical malpractice case with complex issues before her. She was courteous, even-tempered and attentive throughout the trial. It is a pleasure to try a case before her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1678
Biased and not very bright.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1419
Very involved in her cases. Thoughtful and thorough. Very nice courtroom demeanor, treats litigants with respect. Treats lawyers with respect. She cares about her responsibilities and wants to do the right thing.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1271
In Family cases, I have found her to be very good to EXCELLENT, even in cases where she has decisively ruled against my client. She has excellent insight into the developmental needs of children.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1220
A discrace to the judiciary

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1181
Waste of space. Must be connected, because she sure didn't earn her way onto the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1144
Rating:Not Rated
Blue blood and out of touch. I agree she is lazy.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1104
Another lazy montgomery county judge.