Hon. Karen L. Litkovitz See Rating Details
Magistrate Judge See Comments
Average Rating:9.8 - 2 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      
Add a comment only


*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)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Karen L. Litkovitz


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21151
This judge is the most thorough that I've come across in my practice. She took the time to have hearings, and issued detailed opinions with clear legal analysis. Although she hasn't granted all the relief I've requested, I generally believe a just result has been achieved when reading her well-reasoned opinions.


Comment #: 18344
i have not appeared before Mag. Judge Litkovitz, but have been the victim of one of her R&Rs. in it, she misspells "stationery," which apparently reflects her attention to detail, not only on spelling but also on the facts and law of the case. but more importantly, magistrate litkovizt makes a serious factual error that results in her dismissing a defendant from the case. w no opportunity for oral argument, one has no opportunity to say, "hey, judge, that's just wrong. here are the real facts." also, most disturbingly, mag. litkovitz added a footnote to the R&R which opined that only a single defendant (the one w no money) would be held liable. if she were a juror who ventured that opinion, she would be immediately disqualified. how many times do judges remind jurors to keep an open mind? well, she didn't. additionally, the footnote had nothing to do with the R&R--it was completely gratuitous. incredible.
as a new magistrate, i believe that she is afraid of her own shadow, and that she will go to great lengths to avoid being "wrong," rather than to do what is right. so far, her R&R is perfunctory and pathetic.