Hon. Frank W. Somerville See Rating Details
Judge
District Court
Albemarle County
16
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.1 - 1 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


Please type what you see below:

  

What others have said about Hon. Frank W. Somerville


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: VA123
Rating:3.1
Comments:
This judge favors fathers, even when given clear evidence of abuse and/or neglect and habitually disregards the law. In cases where one parent moves outside of his jurisdictions, he decides based on keeping children in his jurisdictions: Culpeper, Orange, and Louisa, even if primary custody was previously with the parent moving. He generally seems unable to recognize that parents raise children, not school systems. He only acknowledges changes in circumstances regarding parents’ places of residence and the child’s grades, even when other changes that have been well established by case law are presented. He generally seems unconcerned about any other aspects of the case beyond school and county of residence of each parent and defaults to 50/50 if both parents live in his jurisdictions, no matter the evidence presented.