Seattle’s Judge Judy Suspended For Abusive Courtroom Conduct

Judge Judith Raub Eiler has been billed Seattle’s Judge Judy — abrasive and grandstanding. Her reviews, however, have become increasingly harsh from her colleagues who suspended her for her abusive treatment of lawyers and parties.

Eiler is widely criticized for her sarcastic and rude treatment of individuals in her courtroom, including hurling insults ala Judge Judy who is widely viewed by lawyers as a disgrace to the profession.

Eiler was first sanctioned in 2004 by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for “a pattern or practice of rude, impatient and undignified treatment” of the people who appeared before her. She admitted to the violation and agreed to participate in behavioral therapy. However, she was quickly accused of the same conduct in court and in 2008, she was again accused of abuse.

The Commission, however, rejected a demand from the disciplinary counsel to remove Judge Eiler permanently from the bench. Instead the commission suspended her for 90 days without pay. To the criticism of many, the Washington Supreme Court then reduced that sanction to just five days.

Source: Time.

30 thoughts on “Seattle’s Judge Judy Suspended For Abusive Courtroom Conduct”

  1. “Two Luzerne County Judges yesterday pleaded guilty to federal charges that they received millions of dollars in kickbacks from two persons engaged in the operation and construction of juvenile detention facilities in
    Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The guilty pleas of Judges Mark Ciavarella, Jr. and Michael T. Conahan resulted in seven year prison sentences for both men. The offenders must pay restitution and resign from their positions. The Pennsylvania state bar association is expected to immediately and permanently disbar both judges from the practice of law.”

  2. kay sieverding

    Well I may be wrong in stating it’s the ABA, but somebody does; that’s why we don’t have to worry about rouge attorneys. See below:


    The difference between the “sins” of lawyers and that of Christianity is simply this: lawyers police their own and condemn the wrongdoer


    Just because it’s such a great point, I’d like to repeat Mespo:

    The difference between the “sins” of lawyers and that of Christianity is simply this: lawyers police their own and condemn the wrongdoer

    Just funnin’.

  3. Dear Buckeye

    Where did you get the idea that the American Bar Association disciplines problem attorneys? I think many many years ago “bad” attorneys were excluded from bar associations but now all they have to do is pay to join. Am I missing something?

  4. Tootie

    I have it on good authority, from this website no less, that the American Bar Association disciplines all problem attorneys. I would hope that pertains to judges, also; though if the judge isn’t an attorney maybe that doesn’t apply?

    Probably all the problems we see are simply those that the ABA hasn’t gotten to yet.

  5. What is way overdue is a clearinghouse, website, or foundation devoted solely to impeaching or ousting abusive judges.

    It ought to track these people,expose their records, and teach the people how to oust these disgusting tax-feeders.

    They need the fear of God in them. And in this case, the fear of the people.

  6. Never had the “privilege” of practicing before her, but they need some three strikes and yer out on this lady. All the behavioral training in the world won’t help her.

    I practiced before a male bankruptcy judge in NDTX(Dallas Division) who was so notoriously awful that people tried to figure out how to file outside the Dallas Division, just to avoid this guy. It was better to drive 50 miles to Nowhere’sville, TX, than to deal with him. Finally he strangled on a chicken bone.

  7. “Men who make their way to the bench sometimes exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, and other weaknesses to which human flesh is heir.” Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 12 (1952)

    That must be true about women who make their way to the bench too.

  8. W=c,

    “Clearly it sounds like something has gone amok …”

    I concur.

  9. “egocentric \ˌē-gō-ˈsen-trik\, adj.,

    1 : concerned with the individual rather than society
    2 : taking the ego as the starting point in philosophy
    3 a : limited in outlook or concern to one’s own activities or needs”

    yes, but there is a difference between a healthy ego, which we all need for survival, and excessive overbloated ego which is often just compensatory for poor self-esteem. Clearly it sounds like something has gone amok …

  10. I don’t know about America, but in Europe the so-called judges and lawyers all wear masonic outfit; their robes and wigs, the gavel and usually the emblems in the court-room are all maonic. How did it come to this situation of free ctizens of America and Europe are judged and sentenced by members of secret,non-public societies???

  11. I detest the smug, all-knowing Judge Judy and all the rest of those grandstanding arbitrators masquerading as TV judges. Monkey, see and monkey, do. Good riddance.

  12. egocentric \ˌē-gō-ˈsen-trik\, adj.,

    1 : concerned with the individual rather than society
    2 : taking the ego as the starting point in philosophy
    3 a : limited in outlook or concern to one’s own activities or needs

  13. Well I was subjected to summary imprisonment by former judge Naughty Nottingham. The FBI website says that is a crime.

    Nottingham had a years’ long reputation for abusing lawyers. I met a lawyer in Wisconsin who told me that when he had an interstate case before Nottingham, Nottingham would go out of his way to schedule to force the lawyer to spend the night.

    The way that I look at it judges are supposed to obey the same rules. Rule 1 is good — avoiding techniques causing delay and increasing costs. The Rules of Evidence limit the introduction of irrelevant or character evidence — that means the judge should simply ignore misspellings because they are irrelevant and should avoid name calling. The Rules of Evidence wouldn’t be written the way they are if they didn’t work when followed.

    Looking back I wonder if Nottingham cultivated an image as having a mean tongue because it let him get away with basically criminal conduct.

  14. HEY! I made Buddha is Laughing laugh! I’m proud of myself.

    Really though why the ABA and whatever other orgs represent judges, lawyers & the legal profession don’t publicly demand that these TV ‘judges’ wear red noses and orange wigs so as to identify them as not professional is beyond me.

  15. Can I say Biatch with out offending anyone….Oops the bell has already rung….the cow’s out of the barn….

  16. Way to go Washington Supreme Court!

    No appearance of impropriety there!

    Look here, “Justices”, if the people she works with on a regular basis say she needs to ride the pine in order to learn the lesson of decorum befitting the forum?

    Your meddling only smells political and of elitist protectionism.

    Which is to say it smells like bullshit.

  17. When I was a kid my dad had a lot of business at city hall & in the summer I would tag along & sit in court rooms. It was highly educational and I would strongly recommend it unless you like cop or courtroom dramas on TV (in which case you will either be disappointed at the real thing or nauseated by the TV version).

    Thug Judy always pissed me off because she in no way behaves like a judge – she is a thug in a robe. While I have seen judges embarrass or scold lawyers I never saw one shout down a witness, demand simplistic answers or pretend they knew every ultimate truth. Maybe I never ran into this one though 🙂

Comments are closed.