Hon. Susan F. Maven See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge
Superior Court
Atlantic County
Vicinage 1
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.6 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 3 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. Susan F. Maven


Comments


Other

Comment #: NJ2845
Rating:1.0
Comments:
My observation of this judge showed that she was an extremely unethical judge. I was appalled at the way that she handled a case in the court room. There were an attorney for both the plaintiff and the respondent. The respondent filed a motion and the plaintiff tried to get the motion thrown out. The Plaintiffs Lawyer was loud an out of control yelling of the respondent and talking so fast. The judge would not let the respondents lawyer get in a word. Then she said well neither one of you appear to have a pot to piss in. Then she figured an amount of alimony on a paper napkin awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff. After I heard the respondent talking to his lawyer and saying that the plaintiffs lawyer lied about him making all that money and that the exwife lied about her income. So the exwife ended up leaving with twice as much as the respondent. Which was totally wrong. Also the judge would not hear the motion of the respondent which is what initiated the hearing on the fact that the plaintiff had been cohabitating the whole entire time that she was collecting an unreal amount of alimony.

Litigant

Comment #: NJ2822
Rating:8.0
Comments:
Observed Judge Maven on motion day go through 5 or 6 cases. I am not an attorney, but I felt she was fair, patient, thoughtful, and gave each litigant "their day in court." Observed her take the time to explain to a pro se litigant why his filing was deficient, and took the time to explain step by step what this person had to do to correctly file. It seemed to me that she tried to find an equitable solution. I did not observe what the attorneys have previously posted, but I am not an attorney. I felt that she knew the issues at hand in each case, and gave each side an opportunity to argue their point, and asked a lot of questions to get to the facts.

Other

Comment #: NJ2036
Rating:2.0
Comments:
JSC Maven is biased, and unjust in the Court Room. After experiencing her biased demeanor in the Court Room, I felt practically "raped" of my rights. She was unwilling to listen to the parties fairly. I witnessed her pay full attention to a party who had an attorney, while the other party had no attorney and might as well have been sentenced to prison. There is no way this guy could survive on what she adjudged was fair.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NJ719
Rating:1.6
Comments:
Inconsistent, inappropriate, impaired thinking. Severe bias in my observing other cases. Contradictory and conflicting orders.