"The Robing Room: SC State Judges

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. Paula F. McElvogue

Comments

Other

Comment #: SC60
Rating:3.0

Comments:
I was the Plaintiff and it was obvious she didn't even read my complaint. My claim and delivery was from July 23 of this year and was finally heard Nov 13. I am positive many of my items have been damaged or destroyed and she did not take that into consideration under SC 15-69-100 even though I wrote this into my Complaint. Nor did she allow me to speak. Due to the length of time I was without certain items I had to replace them and should have been awarded the replacement cost under SC 15-69-210. She was blatantly siding with the Defendant and continued the haring even though one Defendant was not present. She also allowed testimony from someone not named in my Complaint. She alternated between appearing bored and short-tempered. I have never seen such conduct from a so-called judge and plan to complain to her supervisor and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.