I had a pretty outrageous experience. I have never had a judge struggle so mightily to grasp very basic concepts. Afterward opposing counsel and I spoke and were in just total disbelief that the new judge reasoned the way she did. It wasn't just bad, it literally made no sense. It was nonsensical gibberish. It was to legal reasoning what a fermented burp is to opera.

Unfortunately, if I gave the details it would reveal that I am one of two attorneys and I am not going to risk that.

I can say that in the future, I am absolutely going to try all kinds of malarkey theories in front of this judge.

News judges are better than old judges. Soonhee Bailey good. Nancy Allf bad.

Agree with 1:03. Williams and Allf should not be near the top of anyone's "worst of" list.

In fact, I think Williams is pretty solid.

As, for 10:44, they need lessons in basic logic and rationality. This poster insists that some judge is totally irrational, and then offers that "I can say in the future, I am absolutely going to try all kinds of malarkey theory in front of this judge."

So, following this logic, if this judges is so clueless, stupid, and befuddled that they cannot respond adequately(and in fact responds irrationally) to proper, clear, concise, simple, easy-to-follow arguments, we would be far better-served to present such judge(of obvious very limited faculty and acumen according to 10:44) to completely baffling, obtuse and incomprehensible arguments of multi-layered complexity?

Yeah, sure. What could possibly go wrong? If a judge is a blithering idiot who makes a hash out of the most simplistic of issues, then present them with a highly complex and multi-layered, completely baffling, confusing issue and you will receive extremely level-headed, and highly proper, well-reasoned, and well-cited judicial opinions.

Let us know how that goes, 10:44.

Also, although I realize you are just venting, there are ethical implications of indicating you wish to violate Rule 11(and other statutes and rules) with impunity and file complete balderdash simply because you think a judge is a moron.

1:19, all true in a sense, but some bad judges have certain proclivities that some skilled attorneys learn to effectively exploit.

1:24, You're right that 1:19 should chill a bit, but I tend to agree with the point being made.

If the Judge From Hell, that 10:44 alludes to, can't handle the most simplistic of legal concepts, then the approach 10:44 indicates they will take may just make matters a lot worse. But again, as you suggest, it's probably just venting.

I likewise had some challenges about 10:44, although, yes, 1:19 was a bit harsh.

10:44 insists that both sides were extremely troubled by the nonsensical decision. Unlikely as even highly erroneous decisions still tend to clearly favor one side, and that side's attorney will not too often "feel the pain" of the opposing side and continuously and enthusiastically agree about how irrational the decision is.

Now, an exception might be if the decision is nonsensical gibberish to the point it is impossible to know who prevailed on any of the issues, or even what the actual rulings were.

When you vote based solely based on gender and not on experience, there are going to be issues.

Limited experience with the new judges so far, but so far so good. A couple have fumbled the ball a bit on procedural and calendar management issues, but nothing that a little experience won't likely solve. As you have no doubt discerned by now, I do not practice in Family Court. I know nothing of the place, and I plan to keep it that way.

I don't know that it's a bigger issue, but a different one perhaps. The civil litigants best bet for success would be in their preparation. Unprepared litigants tend to turn the firehose on opposing counsel in court rather than clarify their position through well thought-out arguments. Substance is key.

2:37–I greatly appreciate and admire Mr. Ben Nadig having the courage to post under his actual name(which is much more than I can say for myself or most of the other posters.)And I have only heard great things about him as an attorney, and, far more importantly, as a human being.

However, the opinions he offered about the brand new judges seem to be positive to the point of being almost gushing. The tone is simply far too non-critical and incredibly generous IMO.

How could all these brand new judges, a few of of whom seemed to have relatively limited qualifications and experience when they ran but some of whom were able to displace excellent incumbents, be so wonderful the minute they take the bench even though it is a job that many take 10 years at to truly reach a solid level?

When lawyers are anonymously polled, only about 3 of the 32 RJC District(Non-Family) Judges would poll at a level that would equate to receiving an "A" grade, and those 3 are often among the most experienced judges who served for years, and improved all along.

But Ben would appear to give all these brand new judges an "A" or "A+", often based on what appears to be just one or two court appearances. Here's what he said about the six newbies he appeared in front of.

1. Amazeballs. Should never draw an opponent. I call that an A or A+ from Ben.

2. Smart as shit and awesome. That's also an A or A+.

3.Can do nothing wrong ever. Clear A+. BTW, this judge must therefore be the only person who ever walked the earth who could do nothing wrong ever(but, that said, yes, I do understand the use of ultra-hyperbole to strongly drive home a point,and realize that was what was intended. But still–Can do nothing wrong, ever?)

4."Wonderful", but accompanied by a mild suggestion about improving time management, so perhaps an A/A- on this one.

5. "Nothing but good things to say", but concedes others may talk shit about her, so perhaps an A- on this one as well.

6. The final one is not graded, due to Ben only appearing on something apparently uncontested, but he still offers they are "Incredible." Sounds like an A to me, but he says he doesn't want to yet evaluate or grade such judge so, okay, no grade at this time.

If an independent agency or panel was created, among top notch judges, attorneys and legal scholars, to grade these judges, they would probably grade them out as a "C" at most. I'm not commenting on any of these judges or their performance, I'm just saying that is likely how a batch of brand new judges would tend to grade out if such an undertaking was to be assembled.

So, if our new judges would truly grade out as an "A", we easily have the best District Court Bench in the country.

Of course all this is subjective and opinion-based. But may I suggest that Ben might experience a challenge if he were to attempt to readily assemble a large group of fellow attorneys who enthusiastically agree that these newbie judges average out at an A grade in terms of legal/procedural knowledge, legal and judicial experience, and judicial performance.

I really hope some of them reach "A" level eventually, but it's hard to agree with Ben that all of them are already at that level after just a couple months.

Some incredible newbies(who practiced a couple decades as a top notch attorney) can hit the ground running and be awesome form the start, but far too often , there are some real growing pains.

I give you what I got, and yes, zero fucks are given by me. The criminal bar tends to be much more collegial than the civil bar. We have three rules as defense attorneys; 1. Don’t blow up my deal, 2. Don’t show me up in front of my retained client and 3. Be fucking quick. You do those three things, we love you. You don’t, we don’t. I liked Kephardt as a person, but he would blow shit up on the regular, Mosely was tough as shit as a judge but he would follow your deal, So we loved Mosely but disliked Kephardt even though both would hammer your client. There are other judges who violate our three rules but criminal defense attorneys know who they are so I don’t have to publicize it. The judges I talked about follow the rules and so they get positive reviews, Jasmine fails on one of the rules but if you saw the length of her calendars you would understand why. I know Tara Clark Newberry from the election circuit, where I got destroyed and she did not, and that’s why I know she’s an amazing human being. I think as attorneys we tend to inherently be haters and I try to step outside of that. These new judges have earned their positions and have done a great job in the short term. So take your C grade and eat a d*ck cause they’re doing great.

I am with 11:20 on Allf. Not a good judge at all. Bailey, I have no idea. I am not a Tim Williams fan, but I like him better than Allf. She's out there.

4:19– I am a little shocked at what you just said.4:06 admittedly engaged in a debate wherein they indicated that they thought your evaluations were too generous.

But 4:06 also made it clear that they have heard wonderful things about you and praised you as a person and as an attorney.4:06 even praised your courage for posting under your own name

And 4:10 pointed out to 4:06 that you have attracted support for your positions on this blog, but also suggested that your evaluations of the new judges may be somewhat diplomatically phrased.

But if you tell these two posters you give "zero F***s" what they think
and that they can take their evaluations and "eat dick", I'm sorry but I find that shameful an disgraceful.

It also makes me wonder if 4:06 was just being diplomatic when they say they heard great things about you as an attorney, and far more importantly, as a human being.

If you are just blowing off steam, or somehow just got pissed off or needled by what they said, but recognize that you reacted a little disproportionately and inappropriately, then you may well be the great person that 4:06 mentions you are.

But if you stand by your statements that those who offer you a highly respectful counterpoint to some of your arguments, even while they heap extravagant praise on you as an attorney and as a person, that they should "eat dick" and that you give "zero f***s" what they think, I find this quite disturbing and alarming.

But, again, I realize you give "zero f***s" what I think and that I should "eat dick" because that appears to be what you may think and say about anyone who does agree with you 100% on 100% of all issues and topics, even if these people are very generously complimenting you while they discuss or debate some of the points.

So, considering that a poster has mentioned that you may run for judicial office in the future, since you have now very publicly, and for all time and memorium told people to "eat dick", and essentially f**k off when they happen to mildly disagree with you on something(while still heaping much praise on you) you might want to do something humanistic and sensible.

Please consider acknowledging that your statements were a bit crude and uncalled for, and when you demonstrate the maturity and decency to do that, we can all believe the fine things said about you here.

But if you wish to double down and reiterate that people who don't immediately agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues, need to be dismissed with the most vile of cruelty and profane(or even obscene) name-calling, even though they have been graciously complimenting you as an attorney and as a person, that of course is entirely your call.

If your respond to all this is that I too should "eat dick" and f**k off, so be it.

BTW, I happen to really like your assessments and analysis, and quite agree with them, at least as to the judges I have had exposure to. I don't agree with 4:06 that they probably grade out at a C at best. Don't at all agree with that.

But the quality of your evaluations is really not the issue for me. Crude verbal abuse of those who did you no wrong, and in fact were praising you while they offered counterpoints to some of your positions, is what is at issue.

Please think about it. Thanks much for reading.

I agree with Ben. All you fuckers should eat a dick…or a whole bag of dicks. It's a blog. He had something positive to say and did so…under his real name. Y'all posted anonymously and over analyzed some essentially irrelevant comments on an essentially irrelevant blog. You're so cool. I'm sure your wives love seeing you crawl across the bed at night. (vomit) And yes, I'm posting anonymously too hahahaha

Blog is only Mostly Dead.

6:31, you're basically right(about it generally doesn't matter who comments what on some blog, and that these posters over-analyzed)but with one main exception.

Before you continue to trumpet your support of this Ben, and gush about how right and wonderful he is and adopt and repeat the same obscene insults he offers, if you really are a friend or supporter, or even just a colleague, you should have recognized something and advised him accordingly.

That is that someone referenced that he may run for political or judicial office in the future. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, no matter how seemingly irrelevant the blog or the comments may seem, him telling people(who are very respectful and even flattering, but who may offer mild disagreement) to eat dick and that he gives zero fucks what they think is really ill-advised.

But instead of so advising him, you join in the remarks.

But I guess he probably does not intend to run for office after all, as he has not deleted his profane remarks.

So, yes, these people might be over-analyzing and putting too much significance on most of these remarks, except for the fact that if he does want to run for office I am frankly amazed that he offered, and left up, those remarks, no matter how seemingly relatively obscure the blog may seem to you.

Trust me. Watch what a female opponent(or any opponent for that matter, but particularly a female opponent) would do with this material if he leaves it up, and rightfully so.

And you can take that to the bank. Iron-clad guarantee.

He should be deleting the remarks right now, before someone starts thinking of preserving them–such as screen shot or whatever.

So, although you are right about people, for the most part, making too big a deal about anonymous blog remarks, I would hope that rather than keep joining him and repeating the same filthy, sophomoric insults, that you would exercise the maturity and professionalism to advise him(if he is in fact your friend) that his particular comments are not anonymous, and that if he has half the intelligence you claim he has, he will immediately remove them.

BTW, anonymous, insignificant blog or not, on what planet is it appropriate behavior to tell people, who are being highly respectfully
but merely offer a somewhat opposing viewpoint, that they should F*** off or eat d**k.

What's wrong with you two?

That saidIt's probably not tru

8:36, just for the record, I'm not aware of any stated plans he has for future judicial races, but he did just run anginst Judge Susan Johnson this last time.

Almost impossible to knock off an entrenched female incumbent if you are a male challenger.

But the reverse very much happened this last time–entrenched male incumbents were uprooted by female challengers.

The pro-female lean of the electorate in judicial elections is more glaring than in any other area–perhaps in large part because the public knows almost nothing about judicial candidates.

I'm not knocking it or complaining about the dynamic, just noting that it is very much there.

Sometimes, historically speaking, when an inequity is being corrected(in this case, females largely disenfranchised and marginalized from the judicial profession for many years) the pendulum needs to swing dramatically in favor of the affected group of people who suffered the inequities or the disadvantages, until the pendulum finally settles back somewhere in the middle.

When I first began practicing, it was so difficult for females to get a footing. Only one of 16 District Judges were female, and there were no females in the Justice or Municipal courts within our county.

But now the District Court bench(including Family Court) is largely dominated be females. In fact this last time, In Family Court, of 10 races in the General where it was a female vs. male, the female won every time, even if she was seriously underfunded. Largely the same dynamic at RJC.

So, my advice to female attorneys who dream of the judiciary–strike while the iron is hot, or, more to the point, while the pendulum still sways where it does.