Judith Abrams, West Dist. BH Courthouse Dept. 6

[Underdog]

Judith Abrams, West Dist. Beverly Hills Courthouse Dept. 6

[Avocat]

This Judge Judy is pretty good. She's polite, low key, gets to the point, but let's you have your say. She seems to have a pretty good handle on the truth or liar "meter", meaning, she seems to rule by listening to the story and credibility rather then simply the law. I observed a few hearings where I think she was wrong on the law, but the result was probably correct for the facts of the matter.:)

[Trish]

I also like this judge, though she is not particulary intellectual, she gets the job done. She has a complete poker face, is hard to read, she is the type to send a man to the gallows and so long as "the law allows it" and the objective criteria fit, off with his head in the name of "the law".

She's good at truth detecting, and has a good feel for right from wrong. ON legal issues she will change her mind and engage in limited dialogue on disputed legal issues which makes me keep her on cases. That is a mark of fairness and makes being an advocate stimulating. This has also scared the shit out of me when she initially seems to take an adverse position which is so wrong I cringe, but after arguing the point, making an offer of proof, etc., she always seems to get it right.

I had a civil trial and she is very much into complete discovery or will bar evidence at trial even without a prior motion to compel. She also interprets discovery questions a bit too over inclusively. So be warned, give the other side everything you will use in your case in chief or you may ba barred at trial. She is also not adverse to continuing a trial for discovery games late in the case.
My observations would make me stay away from her as a plaintiff in a civil case, and to be cautious as a defendant in a criminal case. She does not go for fancy push the envelope of the law arguments, but common sense or show me the authority. :)

[Wild Bill]

She's a good judge, hard to read, but that's how judges are supposed to be! :D

She is retiring by April 2005. I think she is 70; for 70 she is in fantastic shape. Must be the air in Beverly Hills. ;) Judge Stone will take over, I'm not sure how I like that.

She has great experienced support staff.

[LA Lawyer]

It's always the same thing, while they are on the bench, sometimes you love them, sometimes you hate them, sometimes you don't care. But when they leave, and you don't know who will replace them, they get better and better. And overall, she was a nice lady, and almost always correct with her rulings.

I hope she enjoys her retirement :)

[strive4equaltruthfairness]

She decided an invasion of privacy case and the basis of her decision was not complete. She forgot to address the emotional distress damages and consequently decided on an offer of proof (a phony written phone message) to help the defendant out. That was disastrous. Horrific. What a let down! She was absolutely way off in that judgement. Invasion of privacy had occurred.