Hon. Julie E. Carnes See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
N.D.Ga.  
Average Rating:5.6 - 7 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
Add a comment only

Ratings

*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=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Julie E. Carnes


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 20992
Rating:9.5
Comments:
I found her to be very fair and balanced. She was prompt and courteous.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 20796
Rating:2.9
Comments:
Doesn't manage her docket very well; slow to rule on motions (8+ months).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 19838
Rating:9.0
Comments:
Extraordinarily gifted jurist and brilliant legal mind. Takes time to give every case a full, thorough, erudite review. Extremely bright. A model for other judges.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 19350
Rating:1.2
Comments:
very slow on ruling on motions and very lazy - hates certain kinds of cases that she deems should not be in federal court, such as in-rem property matters. Guess she forgot to read the case law about the court having the obligation to adjudicate matters properly before it. Also rather fuzzy on the standards for Erie v. Tompkins. Not very bright.