Rating judges online

April 15, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In doing a little research for a story, I came across ratethecourts.com. This site lets people anonymously rate any judge, and even judicial nominees. In addition to being able to fill out a survey about the judge’s performance, the site also lets you cast a vote if you think a particular judge is the worst judge of 2010.

One thing I found interesting about the survey is that, while you are anonymous, you need to respond as to your relationship with the judge – attorney, juror, litigant, witness, etc.

Judges who have been rated are assigned a letter grade, and you can search by location to see who had the highest grades, lowest grades, most comments, most negative comments, most positive comments, and more. The results may be deceiving because most judges – Indiana included – only have had a couple of surveys completed on them.

Like a lot of websites that rate things anonymously – hotels, clothing, restaurants – you have to digest the results intelligently. While a lot of bar associations conduct surveys anonymously, those are done with attorneys who practice before these judges, not the general public who may have had an unfavorable or favorable outcome in the courtroom.

Another component of this site is a forum where you can leave comments on judges. Again, this is where disgruntled people can say what they want about the judge, sometimes fueled by the negative outcome in their cases. But some people do leave positive comments. Lawyers also comment, as one wrote that an Indiana judge was a pleasure to appear before as an attorney.

I’m a fan of review sites. I tend to look up hotels before I book one to see what others’ experiences were. When it comes to rating a judicial experience involving the general public, it may be a bit skewed because those who had a negative outcome in their case will be more likely to say the judge was a bad judge even if he or she did their job correctly and fairly.

What are your thoughts on these kinds of judicial rating websites that allow anyone to fill out a survey and comment?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT