Hon. Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.)
judge nathan lacks confidence and compensates by being nasty to attorneys especially when they cite well-known cases for general priciples of law - one is left with the impression that because she is unfamiliar with the cases she becomes highly offended and lashes out in a demeaning and hostile manner - during a criminal trial she conducted herself like an animal when she snatched a document out of an attorney's hand in the presence of the jury then falsely denied that she did - she also treats caucasion lawyers better than she treats african american lawyers - she is by far one of the worst federal judges in the country
Criminal Defense Lawyer - (8/19/2017 3:52:52 PM)
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill (D.Conn.)
Protest Judge Underhill Judge Underhill shattered my faith in a fair legal system that seeks truth. Specifically in 13 CV 1382 he allowed Walsh to practice without a Certificate of Good Standing. He became enraged when the Plaintiff asked if Walsh's client was the father of her out of wedlock child posing a conflict of interest. Judge Underhill claimed that it wasn't relevant Walsh didn't have a Certificate of Good Standing and engaged in sexual relations with her client. In fact Walsh announced her marriage to her client 15 months into the litigation. A Certificate of Good Standing is a requirement. Walsh didn't have a Certificate of Good Standing for at least fifteen months. Walsh did give sexual favors to her client. Couldn't her client find an attorney with a Certificate of Good Standing? Of course! Client hired an administratively suspended attorney who fucked him. Judge Underhill doesn't seek truth and he sanctioned the Plaintiff for seeking disqualification of Walsh. Judge Underhill has removed truth, justice and fairness from the courts. Instead we are left with administratively suspended attorneys who fuck a client for a job Pick a Dick
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/19/2017 2:01:17 AM)
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill (D.Conn.)
Join the protest movement against Judge Underhill!! http://protestjudgeunderhill.blogspot.com #NastyJudge #NoWayUnderhillNightmares Judge Underhill behaved like the worst judge in the US second circuit in 13 CV 1382 when he funded Attorney Tuman Walsh who was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar without a Certificate of Good Standing during the lawsuit with the Plaintff"s blood transfusion money. The Plaintiff accused Walsh of using blood money to finance a new law firm because Walsh couldn't attend an emergency hearing for FMLA reinstatement when the Plaintiff needed human blood plasma transfusions at the beginning of the lawsuit. Walsh was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar when the Plaintiff filed her lawsuit. The Plaintiff said her life was important and her doctor saved her life. So Judge Underhill decided to sanction the Plaintiff while unemployed $4380 and took the Plaintiff's blood transfusion money which would have paid for blood plasma transfusions to fund Walsh's new law firm. Judge Underhill has created a nightmare for the legal profession with the 13-CV-1382 legal precedent. Based on 13 CV 1382, an attorney could stop practicing law for many years due to motherhood and then seek employment as an attorney in a federal case without a Certificate of Good Standing. Using the Hewett legal precedence, Connecticut attorneys could fail to pay their bar dues, become administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar and finance their new law firms by exploiting FMLA Plaintiffs who challenge an administrative suspension. SO GOT BLOOD? Great. judge Underhill might use you to fund the law firm of an administratively suspended Connecticut attorney. In the Connecticut lawsuit 13 CV 1382 docket 451, Judge Underhill awarded $4380 because the Plaintiff complained that the administratively suspended defense counsel used blood money to fund her law firm. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Attorney Tuman Walsh and sought disqualification of the administratively suspended attorney. Judge Underhill wrote in the sanctions order that Walsh was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar, yet despite the administrative suspension, in a scheduling conference July 7 2014 he gave her permission to practice without a Certificate of Good Standing. Judge Underhill never followed up on his verbal permission with a written order on the Motion to Disqualify Walsh as Triple Point's defense counsel. Then Judge Underhill ordered $4380 in sanctions, and he literally, not figuratively, took the Plaintiff's money for blood plasma transfusions as funding for the law firm of the defense counsel who was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar during the lawsuit and without a Certificate of Good Standing for many months. Judge Underhill never wrote a written order on the Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Walsh. The Connecticut Practice Book should be updated immediately that judges can let an attorney practice in federal court without a Certificate of Good Standing. The Plaintiff filed the Motion to Disqualify Walsh as counsel because the Connecticut Practice Book made a Certificate of Good Standing a requirement at the time of the lawsuit. If Judge Underhill abused his discretion with letting Walsh appear on the case without a Certificate of Good Standing, then the sanctions should be refunded to Hewett. Judge Underhill should expect protests if he were nominated as an appeals jurist. I definitely would not recommend him because he violates constitutional rights to due process such as hearings for injunctive reinstatement and on the Motion for Summary Judgment. He was prejudiced against the Plaintiff by letting Walsh practice and appear in court rather than require a continuance while Walsh obtained a Certificate of Good Standing. Frankly if Judge Underhill had written an order explaining that he would let Walsh practice without a Certificate of Good Standing in a timely manner, then I would have withdrawn the lawsuit. Judge Underhill has a profound communication weakness in which he doesn't establish facts, identify legal precedent and write an order. The Plaintiff became increasingly unable to participate due to the lengthy time requirements of the litigation with an attorney who didn't have a law firm and caused frequent discovery delays. I would protest if Judge Underhill were ever nominated as an appellate jurist. He violates constitutional due process rights. He funds the law firms of administratively suspended attorneys with blood money. He has a poor temperament becoming frustrated, impatient and visibly enraged with blood rushing to his face. Vote no for Judge Underhill. No way!!! Litigation with Judge Underhill was the worst experience of my life.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/18/2017 5:24:22 PM)
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill (D.Conn.)
Join the protest movement against Judge Underhill! http://protestjudgeunderhill.blogspot.com Judge Underhill wrote a New York Times opinion article, •Did the Man I Sentences to 18 Years Deserve It?". Judge Underhill sentenced a criminal to 18 years which was more time than the prosecutor recommended, but less time than the mandatory life sentence which was avoided by Judge Underhill's acceptance of the prosecuting attorney's 5K motion. Judge Underhill gave a "speech encouraging the defendant to make the most of his time in prison". Then in the years that followed, Judge Underhill wondered if the criminal's "remorse was strong enough to overcome his past". So Judge Underhill decided to visit the criminal in prison when he was attending a conference on sentencing issues. Judge Underhill visits the criminal in prison without his defense counsel as a violation of the criminal's sixth amendment right to counsel. Judge Underhill should be more cognizant of his role as a sentencing judge and hold a hearing open to the public with the criminal and his defense counsel when checking on the criminal's progress. The criminal has a right to counsel who could help him apply for a reprieve or commutation of his sentence. Judge Underhill makes no comment about anyone helping the prisoner apply for a reprieve or commutation of his sentence, and he never communicated to President Obama at that time who commuted a record number of sentences. The protest against Judge Underhill is his inaction. Judge Underhill, as a federal district court judge, cannot work with a prosecutor and defense lawyer of the criminal's and succeed in the early release of the criminal. Although Judge Underhill contacted the prosecutor and his lawyer encouraging them to find a way to get him released early, he fails citing no straightforward way to shorten a federal inmate’s sentence, even if prison officials acknowledge that more jail time is a waste of time and money. So he had to stay in prison, at an annual cost of $30,000 to taxpayers. Yet a team of law students can get the sentence of a Texas prison inmate commuted. A team of University of Utah law students, working with Professor Michael Teter, successfully lobbied President Obama for the commutation in the case of a Texas prison inmate. President Obama commuted the sentence of Jose Jasso Jr. Unfortunately Judge Underhill carves a niche for himself as an idealistic dilettante who despite his significant power as a federal judge cannot obtain the commutation of a criminal. Even worse Judge Underhill "stops by" a prison rather than hold a hearing with the criminal's defense counsel. Although the prison may be a distance from Bridgeport, Connecticut, Judge Underhill could arrange a hearing with defense counsel and the prisoner on the phone. Criminals have a sixth amendment right to counsel that Judge Underhill forgets or ignores. Judges apply the law but do not create the law. Judge Underhill's keen interest in sentencing reform appears like a conflict of interest with his judicial responsibility of the application of existing law. Moreover do taxpayers fund any part of his expenses and resources for the sentencing conferences and preparation of the New York Times opinion article? A judicial investigation into Judge Underhill's sentencing conferences is necessary. Who pays for his meals, lodging, and travel expenses during these conferences? Does he use vacation days or court time for these boondoggles? What authorization or judicial approval exists for his sentencing conferences? Judge Underhill is paid for his time in court not posh boondoggle sentencing conferences unless he has made special arrangements for his attendance. Judge Underhill was denying hearings for my case 13-CV-1382 from 2013-2016 repeatedly during the same time as his extracurricular sentencing boondoggles. In fact Judge Underhill waited many months after the Summary Judgment motion had been filed and did not attempt scheduling any hearing until after his NY Times article was published. I had illness and a job interview at the times after his sentencing article hit the newstands so he denied a hearing. I could have met for a hearing if Judge Underhill scheduled the hearing in 2015 and worked on The NY Times article after a hearing. Judge Underhill also made many mistakes in his order on the motion which required corrections, and he never addressed many probable errors in his Order on Triple Point's Summary Judgement motion which makes me wonder if his NY Times article had distracted him from his regular caseload and my case. Judge Underhill may be spending so much time on sentencing conferences and the preparation of a New York Times opinion article that he cannot meet the requirements of his court caseload. Regarding Judge Underhill's boondoggle sentencing conferences, as taxpayers we should ask: Is Judge Underhill's "second-look" sentencing reform idealistic and improbable? Probably so, but if it his mantra, he certainly has not implemented in a timely manner which essentially renders his efforts as moot. "Delay is the deadliest form of denial. C. Northcote Parkinson"
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/18/2017 5:22:32 PM)
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill (D.Conn.)
Judge Underhill demonstrates the worst qualities in a judge - biased, ill tempered, and poor communication skills which makes him the worst rated judge in the US based on my experience with him. He was frustrated and impatient. On numerous occasions, he simply could not grasp the concepts in the litigation which was only made worse by his violation of constitutional due process rights to a hearing so he wouldn't hear the facts. Even worse he communicated poorly failing to write orders and rambling incoherently when he did write orders. If you're looking for a judge who will waste your time and money, then look no further than Judge Underhill. I would never recommend him. Here's the factual basis of his poor rating: At Triple Point Capital in 2011 I gave oral and written notice to Triple Point of my asthma, need for regular medical treatments and the recommendations for blood plasma transfusions including periodic evaluation of immunoglobulin counts. In 2013, I experienced pulmonary infection and asked for a room at the office in which nebulized asthma medicines could be used. Triple Point gave me a reasonable accommodation for the asthma but denied me FMLA leave for the asthma allegedly because I didn't want it or they didn't know of my need for FMLA leave. 13-CV-1382 Nothing could be further from the truth. I desired both a reasonable accommodation and FMLA leave for the ADA disability and FMLA serious health condition of asthma. Triple Point alleged a poor performance, but the dates of the evidence were after my discussion with my manager about the need for evaluation of blood plasma transfusions. Triple Point awarded a bonus and salary raise every year as further evidence of a good performance. The docket included significant oral and written evidence of a good performance. The root issue with Judge Underhill's Order on the Motion for Summary Judgment was best described by the appellate judges in an Order on a Judicial Complaint. Specifically the Chief Judge determined: Judge Underhill "just didn't get it". Judge Underhill never understood that the FMLA serious health condition was asthma for any period of incapacity. Rather Judge Undersell searched in a confused manner for a serious health condition that required more than three days of incapacity. I am asthmatic and at the time had hypogammaglobulinemia. I received roughly fifty blood plasma transfusions for the hypogammaglobulinemia which reduce the severity of asthmatic bronchitis or pneumonia until I reached normal antibody levels. Now almost five years since my employment at Triple Point, I do not receive blood plasma transfusions. I have not experienced pulmonary infections for many months. Judge Underhill also sanctioned me based on inherent authority when I filed a Motion to Disqualify opposing counsel because she was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar when I filed my lawsuit. My life was at risk without emergency medical treatment, and I sought a hearing for an emergency injunction requesting the usage of Triple Point's health and disability insurance when opposing counsel was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar. Judge Underhill never granted a hearing for an emergency injunction when my life was at risk. A hearing for an emergency injunction was highly relevant and addressed an acute life threatening medical condition for a 12 week FMLA leave. Opposing counsel requested 18 months of discovery on a 12 week FMLA leave when my employment barely lasted two years, and I became unable to participate in the litigation due to job interviews, work requirements and illness. In fact Judge Underhill subsequently denied me a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgement because of illness and a job interview. Judge Underhill acted with prejudice against me with his repeated denial of hearings. I filed a judicial complaint against Judge Underhill, and the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge described Judge Underhill as "frustrated" and "impatient" and characterized his judicial behavior as an "imperfect man". In fact, the appellate chief judge didn't have any kind words for Judge Underhill. Moreover, the appellate chief judge grasped the conflict with Judge Underhill about opposing counsel's administrative suspension from the bar. As consideration of Judge Underhill's position, the administrative suspension may have embarrassed and humiliated opposing counsel, but I looked at the relevance of the denial of an emergency injunction hearing for FMLA reinstatement. As my position, Judge Underhill made a personal prejudiced decision without an order on the motion to Disqualify counsel. The chief appellate judge seemed calm, impartial and rationale such that an order on the Motion would have been required and thoughtfully considered by the appellate judge. In fact, Judge Underhill never established the dates of the administrative suspension from the Connecticut bar nor when opposing counsel obtained a Certificate of Good Standing many months after the lawsuit was filed. Because I raised arguments about the merits of the case, an appeal was required for a reversal of the sanctions. The real conflict and turning point in the Triple Point case resulted from the Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify the opposing counsel because of an administrative suspension from the Connecticut bar. The defense counsel had three children which resulted in a five year absence from federal court and an administrative suspension from the Connecticut bar. The defense counsel sought to form her own law firm rather than return to her original employer that is a Connecticut bar member. As a result defense counsel didn't have a Certificate of Good Standing for about fifteen months. The Plaintiff expressed concern that the opposing parties were financially motivated to continue the litigation rather than settle the case when the parties agreed to a settlement conference. The Plaintiff sought an unbiased party for the settlement conference who would represent Triple Point. Judge Underhill sanctioned the Plaintiff for the attempts to disqualify the defense counsel who was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar and practiced without a Certificate of Good Standing for many months. I didn't appeal the sanctions because based on the judicial complaint decision, I expected a "remand for further factual development" decision. Specifically the appeals court likely would have required an Order on the Motion to Disqualify opposing counsel which would be years of continued litigation. Judge Underhill would have then written an Order on the Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel which I would have likely appealed again. The costs of multiple appeals, transcripts etc were greater than the sanctions. I didn't appeal Judge Underhill's Order on the Motion for Summary Judgment because I recognized that I would never get what I wanted. I filed the lawsuit for an emergency reinstatement to Triple Point's insurance when my life was at risk. That ship has sailed and the wrong could never be righted regardless of any appeal, and I had completely mitigated my damages through a position with significantly higher compensation after the medical treatments. Triple Point's FMLA leave was largely unpaid so the amount of financial loss was about five weeks of income. My current employer offers paid three months medical leave in my contract. As my health stabilized, I ended blood plasma transfusions and embarked on a nutrition and fitness focus. I have the best health in years without the blood plasma while focusing on fitness and nutrition. I pursue yoga, cycling, skiing, and surfing.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/18/2017 5:20:14 PM)
Hon. Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.)
Two years of litigation & I never saw him.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/18/2017 2:05:58 PM)
Hon. Alan C. Kay (D.Haw.)
Great Judge. I have litigated several cases in front of Judge Kay and he has always treated me fairly. He writes extremely long and insightful opinions and otherwise is a great judge.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/17/2017 2:09:22 AM)
Hon. Roanne L. Mann (E.D.N.Y.)
Judge Mann is a very intelligent no-nonsense jurist. She has a business-like approach to her handling of pre-trial matters. She is an excellent decision writer. Despite what others have said, I don't think she is arrogant at all, but I do think she does not put up with nonsense from attorneys. She was superb in a settlement mediation with complex legal issues and several defendants who resisted all private efforts to resolve the matter.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/16/2017 11:58:38 AM)
Hon. Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.)
Well prepared and skilled mediator. Pointed out weaknesses, did not belittle strengths, maintained credibility as honest purveyor of unvarnished news - good and bad. Concluded the four hour conference with a confidential proposed settlement number at the lowest end of reasonable (from my client's viewpoint) which both sides accepted the next day.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/15/2017 11:54:27 AM)
Hon. Katherine Bolan Forrest (S.D.N.Y.)
I have observed her in a complex maritime case involving a variety of legal issues. She is fair, open, direct, and civil with counsel on all sides.
Civil Litigation - Private - (8/14/2017 11:01:03 AM)