Hon. Dennis Pearson See Rating Details
Presiding Judge
Superior Court
Lamoille County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.1 - 2 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. Dennis Pearson


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: VT3
Rating:4.8
Comments:
Dennis is a baby. He doesn't have the temperament to be a judge. He'll indulge in ad hominem attacks and vendettas while imposing penalties against parties he doesn't like that don't exist at law.

In addition, he just wrong a lot. It's part of his reputation. He's grotesquely wrong at times. We're not talking nuances, we're talking fundamental mis-identifications of law.

He shouldn't be a judge. He was a volatile, bad tempered trial attorney and should have remained one.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: VT1
Rating:3.5
Comments:
The guy needs to retire. He has this strange capacity for being completely wrong at times. It's part of his reputation. He'll also fall over himself to favor attorneys he likes.

Has an infantile temper when it shows. He can't be trusted any more. Time to retire. Possibly burnt out.