"The Robing Room: MD State Judges

Hon. Margaret M. Schweitzer	See Rating Details
District Judge Circuit Court
Montgomery County 6th Circuit	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 4.1 - 6 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 4.0 - 6 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Margaret M. Schweitzer

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD9382
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This is an irresponsible criminal attorney that has ZERO business ordering children to be sent away to the The Troubled Teen Industry is not fit to be making decisions for families. She is clearly ignoring warnings of the vast rampant abuse within this multi-billion industry and has already made dangerous irresponsible decisions. I suggest she be immediately removed for [redacted] decisions that have already teamed havoc on children and their families.

Litigant

Comment #: MD9381
Rating:1.0

Comments:
~She should not be allowed to sit on the bench in a family court. She doesn't make eye contact, doesn't consider that she is making decisions about CHILDREN and families that will impact them for the rest of their lives. The court system needs to train this judge before putting the lives of people in her hands. She so casually made a decision without looking at the long-term impacts of her ruling that stripped a child of his human rights. She said one thing in her ruling then completely changed it in her written order. It's clear she comes from the criminal courts as a prosecutor and has no business in a family setting. I feel terrible for those who have had their lives harmed by this awful judge and worse human being.

Litigant

Comment #: MD9375
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Should be impeached for the most serious judicial misconduct, including allowing all attorneys in case to commit fraud on the court; despite knowing that fraud had already tainted proceedings, scheduled continuation of trial anyway (despite my saying that dispositive motions, including recusal request, should be resolved first); refused to discuss motions for dismissal with prejudice, sanctions, hazel-atlas motion for appropriate relief (despite request for hearing); falsely claimed she could be “objective” when she was clearly retaliating (denying motions re: judicial recusal/reassignment 1-2 days after filing) and denying due process; threatened to rule default judgment against me without hearing my case if I didn’t start presenting case even though she/the court never refuted that it had been defrauded and refused to hear motions on this. MCCC coverup for Schweitzer (whom i cannot call a “judge”) having allowed attorneys to commit one of the most serious offenses possible in a court of law.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD9010
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Agree with the comments below. But the blame should be directed at the Judicial Nominating Commission. Why do you continue to recommend people who have served in the government for years without having been a private attorney. Private practice allows you to connect with real people with real problems who will hold you accountable if you’re negligent or lack empathy. This Commission is about to do it again. Two career prosecutors who are up for the spot. Both will be an unmitigated disaster for the same reasons highlighted below.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD8881
Rating:1.3

Comments:
As a trial attorney, I find that I must agree with the negative comments below. I found the judge to be very prejudicial in favor of the plaintiff. This probably due to her decades in criminal law. She presided angrily, never once lifted her eyes to view the witnesses, and ruled constantly in favor of hearsay to the point that no evidence could be considered.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD8873
Rating:2.5

Comments:
Following my previous comment, now providing ratings

Litigant

Comment #: MD8872
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This judge presents herself as angry and prejudicial. She comes from criminal court where she spent 20 years, so woe be unto the defendant in a civil family law case with this judge. She rarely lifted her head to observe the court room, and therefore, she missed a lot of important non-verbal information. She was more interested in the time required to hear the case rather than to listen and understand the evidence. She throws people out of the court room just for stating a minor opinion. Not only that, but this judge picks favorites and is obvious about it. Her final judgement was unfair and impractical for both sides. This judge needs to loosen up and realize that family law is not criminal law. Furthermore, the court system needs to train this judge before putting the lives of people in her hands. Oh, and judge, women are abusive, too. You need to stop thinking in terms of cut-and-dry criminal law and start perceiving people with more heart if you are going to preside over family matters. In a civil case, defendant only means "the person who didn't sue first". Defendant does not mean "perpetrator" and Plaintiff does not mean "victim". In family law, there is no innocent vs. guilty, there is only what is fair and possibly. In family law, all people have value, and you need to approach your role as judge with more understanding and leave your prejudice at home. You should also understand that the defendant in a divorce case is often going through an emotionally devastating event in his/her life while being subjected to an adversarial court system that preys on the life saving of hard-working people. In your court room, I felt that I was in an old English-style elitist court room where the poor were instantly thrown into debtor's prison. It was terrifying and traumatic to say the least. I don't wish it on my worst enemy.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: MD7826
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
2nd Degree *Murder* for an accident?

I wouldn't want to be a white man in her courtroom.

"“You thought that everything would be fine because you were very smart,” she said. “You thought you could fix everything.”"

What is he being punished for, here, exactly?

It seems pretty unjust.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD7358
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Overall very fair

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD7135
Rating:9.0

Comments:
Appears to be a refreshing exception to the common practice of other sitting judges, that of admit to no shortcomings of the legal system. Years ago, while practicing as Assistant State's Attorney she had the guts to inform the presiding judge that she was only opposing the motion for expungement because it was what her office instructed her to do, but that she saw no legal or factual basis to do so. Thanks to her willingness to speak out, Justice was served.

Other

Comment #: MD7131
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Served as a jury member for a criminal trial where defendant was acquitted. Judge Schweitzer was at all times professional and friendly in her conduct with the lawyers and the jury members. She understood the sacrifices by the jury, and acknowledged that; she also communicated frequently so that the jury knew what was happening and understood the instructions. Finally, when the trial was over, she sent a thank you letter. Overall, pleasantly surprised because didn't expect a "customer service" friendly attitude from a judge.

Litigant

Comment #: MD7123
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Rude, unprofessional & a literal extension of the State Attorney office. The derogatory comments below deserve an echo from me. For Judge Schweitzer every defendant is guilty, evidence doesn’t matter beyond the pleadings of the state. She clearly built her legal career as a state prosecutor & never retired that uniform when she became a judge. An awful judge & an even worse human being.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: MD5677
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Incredibly rude. Was fumbling around with papers not related to our case the entire time my party was testifying. Never even looked at him then ruled against him. She has not taken off her prosecutor's hat. Every defendant is guilty, not matter how weak the evidence and how strong the defense. Furthermore she completely ignored the black and white law.

Litigant

Comment #: MD5575
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Schweitzer is an outstanding judge. She took 40 minutes in a packed court room to read my documents in my little speed camera case to make sure she got the right decision which was not guilty.

The only bad thing I have to say about Judge Schweitzer is that she does not like to waive court fees. Judge Schweitzer said that she would put a litigant on a payment schedule for a $20.00 court fee but for her to actually waive the fee the law requires that the defendant prove to the judge's satisfaction that the defendant would not be able to pay it for several years. Schweitzer herself admitted that this was an impossible standard but said that was what he law required.

Other judges frequently waive court fees for indigent defendants.

Overall a good fair judge.