Hon. Yvette M. Bryant See Rating Details
Associate Judge
Circuit Court
Baltimore City County
8th Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.5 - 6 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   8.0 - 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. Yvette M. Bryant


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD2911
As an alumnus of American University and a 2011 AU alumni award recipient, as a professional with a long career in the criminal justice system, and as an Adjunct Professor at two universities, I am appalled at the behavior of Montgomery County, Maryland Judge Audrey Creighton. Her association with a convicted felon, Rickley Senning, who she represented as a public defender coupled with her live-in, intimate relationship with him is outrageous.

Allegedly, she is the victim of kidnapping and assault by the 24-year-old convict. Though she may have been victimized and undeservedly so, she precipitated her own victimization by her egregiously poor choice of association. The conflicting versions regarding her relationship with Senning that she relayed to the police and to the Commissioner, when she was seeking a protective order, cast serious doubt on her veracity.

Creighton’s conduct clearly violates the ethical standards that are relevant to her position on the bench. Moreover, she has demonstrated excessively poor judgment combined with a total lack of common sense.

Creighton is also a disgrace to American University’s Washington College of Law, and she tarnishes the reputation of the university with her behavior. She is no model to emulate and certainly doesn't need to be teaching aspiring law students. With her marked demonstration of excessively poor judgment, it is disconcerting to realize that she decides the fate of others lives much less tries to instill knowledge and principles to American University law students when, obviously, she lacks them herself.

Actions speak louder than words. Creighton’s actions have proven she is a disgrace to the legal profession, to the judiciary, to the criminal justice system as a whole and to American University. Undeniably, she leaves a black mark on the reputation of all these entities.

With an upcoming primary election on June 24, 2014 in which voters in Montgomery County must cast their vote for a judicial candidate, they need to oust Creighton off the bench and put her out to pasture rather than elect her for a 15-year term. Her actions have produced serious consequences and cast tremendous doubt on her ability to serve. She needs to go.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1668
She did improved. Still needs work, but I think somebody told her the score.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: MD1188
This woman should not be on the bench. I have seen her tear pages out of the official court file and then say she does not see them in the court file. She has a clear bias. She will rule without evidence. I have seen her on several occasions either deny or grant a Motion within a day of the filing without allowing opposing counsel to reply or Answer before her ruling. She talks about cases and parties and counsel to the court staff including not only the clerks but the bailiff's and the clerks at the intake desk. She is mean spirited and will put defamatory remarks about the parties and the counsel in her rulings for public record. Finally, she regularly communicates ex parte with either a party or an attorney and will rule based on the ex parte communication. She should not be on the bench. That is my conclusion. She is a disgrace to the Court.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1170
What a nasty person. She was nasty to everybody - attorneys, parties, pro se litigants. Worse case of "black robe disease" I have seen in 20 years of practice. Where did they find her?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1005
This was one of the worst judges I had ever worked with in 30 years of practice. She clearly favored opposing counsel. I generally work in another jurisdiction. She would interrupt and cut off both me and my client. Opposing counsel represented an alcoholic who wanted to increase custodial rights. They were granted on no evidence whatsoever. Her ruling was an hour along and full of personal bias against my client, whom she perceived as being mean-spirited. Worst yet, the alcoholic has since been involved in several incidents with minor children in the car.