"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. James F. Matthews	See Rating Details
District Court
Suffolk County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 9.7 - 3 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 4.0 - 3 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. James F. Matthews

Comments

Other

Comment #: NY13543
Rating:1.0

Comments:
`Upon my information and beliefs,
this judge was biased and prejudiced with an agenda before hearing the lawful facts.
He should not be presiding in a court of law. He dismissed lawful factual evidences while admitted nonfactual "say so". His judicial temperament was unfitting for a judge and tone unacceptable .I could not afford a lawyer- so beware. Too many times its who you know not what you know. a miscarriage for certain.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY13402
Rating:9.6

Comments:
Exceptional grasp of issues, needs to train the others on how a professional judge conducts themself.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY10101
Rating:9.8

Comments:
Fair and respectful as anyone could ask a judge to be.

Litigant

Comment #: NY10100
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Appeared twice before Matthews:
First Town code matter, he was as fair as could be, went on a true fact finding mission.
Second, small claims matter, listened intently to all evidence and then made a sound decision based on the law.Great deal of respect for his fellow human being.

Litigant

Comment #: NY9309
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The worst judge I have every stood in front of. He is prejudice and had an agenda. He knew the defendants atty. He should be thrown off the bench. Has no business being a judge

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY9283
Rating:9.8

Comments:
Number one compliment I can give, he is not afraid to work which is refreshing. He also treats all litigants with respect and gives the parties room to work.