Hon. Lourdes I. Santiago See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge
Superior Court
Hudson County
Vicinage 6
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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




What others have said about Hon. Lourdes I. Santiago


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: NJ1979
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I am plaintiff in small claim court against a defendant who didn't not show up on court date. It is an obvious default judgment. To my surprise, The judge started ask me questions as if I was on trial. 'How do you know the person lives in that address?', 'How can you prove that you didn't receive the check from insurance company'. God, the judge is asking question for defendant who was not present. I expected two outcomes on the court date. If defendant is not there, as most other courts would do, a default judgment is entered. I will provide written documents later for default judgment. If defendant is there, we would go to mediation to settle. I was not ready for the second question, for that, the judge dismissed my case. This is not criminal case. The judge should be impartial to hear story from both sides. How dumb decision is it to dismiss a plaintiff case with absence of defendant? She does not even allow me to submit the evidence later in paper. Laughable.....