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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT