Hon. Sharon V. Burrell See Rating Details
Associate Circuit Judge
Circuit Court
Montgomery County
6th Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.3 - 11 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 4 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. Sharon V. Burrell


Comments


Probation or Pretrial Officer

Comment #: MD2405
Rating:4.0
Comments:
Needs to treat the parties with respect. She does not seem to enjoy the job. Mean spirited person.

Litigant

Comment #: MD2302
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She seemed completely uninterested in the entire case. It seemed like she didn't want to be bothered with it at all. I do not believe that she is capable of giving a fair trial. I would settle, or give in completely, if you have to try your case in front of her. If you are the plaintiff, you will not get a fair trial!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD2199
Rating:3.1
Comments:
Unfortunately, she shows little knowledge of, or desire to learn ahead of time, the rules or law applicable to the case. She obviously did not read the motions or supporting memoranda, and had no grasp of what was before her. Even when quoted the rule and handed case law on point, she either does not comprehend it or is unable to discern how it applies to the facts before her. She fails to distinguish argument from actual facts and law. She is nice enough to counsel, but she's the last judge you want if the law and facts are on your side, because the results are totally unpredictable.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1961
Rating:9.0
Comments:
I had to sit through an entire morning motions docket and my case came last, so I saw her rule on a wide range of family, estate and civil matters. She was even handed, allowed pro se parties to have their say, but kept it under control. She seemed to rule correctly in the cases that I observed. More important, though, was that in each case her comments were focused on what I believed was the primary issue.

Other

Comment #: MD1675
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Clearly had read none of the case, did not even notice when the plaintiff was caught lying under oath even though everyone else in the court room did. Based on her actions it looked like she was late for lunch and made a ruling that was counter to law, directly over rode the wishes of the trust grantors and appointed a new trustee, (the one who lied under oath) , who had neither the finical or ethical background to the job. Like I said she just wanted to get out of the court room so she just said ok and left.

Bottom line, if you get her assume the worst!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1640
Rating:9.1
Comments:
I have been in front of her a few times and also dropped into her courtroom yesterday and watched her manage a jury trial. Frankly, some of the comments her do not reflect my experience or observations. She struck me as more than fair to a marginally competent ASA and a less than marginally competent private defense attorney. All in all, she made the right decision even when counsel did not know how to ask for her to make the decisions and she understood the law. She was fair to all concerned.

Other

Comment #: MD1520
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I was a witness in a family court case. She seemed irritated to have to deal with the case at all and treated me as if I was an irritant. Someone who had testified came back into the witness room where we were waiting. I brought some work to do and was working on it when I was called before the judge who asked me if I talked to the first witness about the testimony she just gave. I felt like I was being accused of something! Excuse me, but why did you have the witness come back into the room if that was a concern! Seems really basic to me. Her demeanor in asking was really nasty. She made me feel very uncomfortable. After returning to the witness room after this questioning, I waited for quite a while, and then the other witnesses and I were told that the judge seemed aggravated and didn’t seem to want to hear any testimony, so we were sent home. I find this appalling!

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1365
Rating:9.3
Comments:
I have had several hearings in front of Judge Burrell and found her to be fair and open minded. I think she is one of the better judges on that court. She was always polite, and was in no way a pawn of the State. She is intelligent and has grown on the job. I think she is an overlooked gem.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1273
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Probably the worst judge I have ever appeared before. She is that lethal combination of arrogance and stupidity. She does not know the law; does not know evidence rules; does not know the Rules of Procedure - she knows nothing. As if that is not enough she is unbelievably nasty on the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1210
Rating:1.2
Comments:
Ahh but she comes close to Toni Clarke. She does not have good judicial temperament. She was snooty to witnesses and attorneys involved not because it was warranted but it appeared to be her general attitude in conducting a trial. Pretty obvious she lacks trial experience as well. Go MC with the bad judges once again. I fear she will only get worse.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD1200
Rating:8.1
Comments:
I'm not sure what this woman did to warrant the bad ratings, but no way is she worse than Toni Clarke. Just as it is biologically impossible for fish eggs to hatch into a hamster, it is biologically impossible for her to be worse than Toni Clarke.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD1179
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Daft. Bored. Either profoundly lazy or dim like a two watt bulb -- the first time I was in front of her, I remember thinking to myself, "I don't know how this person got into, much less out of, an accredited law school." I was dumbfounded when my associate told me she'd gone to Harvard. Incapable of giving a fair hearing. Consider having a stroke or heart episode that day if you find out you've got a hearing in front of her.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD997
Rating:1.1
Comments:
Woman has no personality. Cold and shows no ability to handle even the simplest legal issues. Not a bright judge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD956
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She totally lacks judicial temperment. Even though I got a mostly favorable ruling, it was done in an odd manner. She types of her laptop during 80 percent of the trial. She did not focus was the witnesses. It was like she had better things to do than to be in the courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD817
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Not a good judicial demeanor. Not familiar with relevent case law or statutory law and not interested in learing it. Does not appear to grasp issues quickly.