Hon. Lawrence Ecker See Rating Details

County Court
Westchester County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.3 - 2 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      
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. Lawrence Ecker


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5747
Rating:1.1
Comments:
udge Ecker's lack of knowledge and incompetence is painful to deal with.

I just wish there were "negative" numbers for some of these rating rather than 1 to 10.

Judge Ecker gets extremely hostile when you correct him for critical issues. His catch phase to avoid being corrected is that "We are moving forward, not backwards". It's astounding this man is on the bench.

He is very much against male litigants in matrimonial matters.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5746
Rating:1.5
Comments:
Ecker's lack of judicial competence seems vast, but is completely overshadowed by his bias against the male litigants in his court. In cases where a litigant is female, he will make errors in her favor, claiming he is not aware that DRL236B is on applicable prospectively for cases filed after Oct 2010. For male litigant's who have filed in 2012, he will then claim he is not aware DRL236B is mandatory... He has also repeatedly granted attorney fees for "friends" in matrimonial matters, even though their is no signed retainer and it was brought to his attention. In summary, Ecker makes so many mistakes he even had to have a sign put up no his bench to say "Were moving forward" to help reduce the number of times people try and put him on the right track.

Litigant

Comment #: NY5536
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He seems to have a distain for male litigants in divorce that matches his distain for the law, and simple math. His ruling on Pendente Lite Relief was nothing more than criminal from my perspective.