"The Robing Room: GA State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* 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=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Stephen G. Scarlett, Sr.

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: GA69
Rating:2.9

Comments:
My experience with this judge was that he was intellectually lazy and felt little need to enter into any legal analysis, or to examine precedent. He is not likely to know or care about the legal issue before him, but rather just wants litigants to quit bothering him, as if his true function were to do something other than serve the people who seek his assistance. He ruled both for and against my client and treated me relatively courteously, so I have no axe to grind. But I got the opportunity to see him with multiple litigants and attorneys, and to hear him respond to oral argument other than my own, and I got the impression that he either didn't understand the legal arguments presented to him or didn't care. He certainly had no idea what any of the issues were in any case that I saw brought before him. The judiciary has really sunk to a new low, and this particular judge is a model of mediocrity -- which is a real shame.