Katherine Polk Failla

Rarely have I seen a federal judge demonstrate such strong favoritism toward large firms. She didn't even bother to try to conceal it. She starts off even-handedly, but quickly turns into a rubber stamp for large firm attorneys. They can do no wrong in her book (even when doing things that small firm/sole practitioners wouldn't dare do). Her philosophy is that if you work for a large firm, you must be smart, whereas if you're a sole practitioner or small firm attorney, she assumes you're just plain dumb, and she behaves in a demeaning manner. She easily misses the big picture. And she acts on misinformation as well, which I found troubling. Making (inaccurate) assumptions on the part of judges appears to be the norm these days, though it has no place in a courtroom, much less a federal courtroom - but she does - and then becomes intemperate because of those inaccurate assumptions.

Judge Failla is a notoriously bad judge when it comes to issues of jurisdiction. On a lot of substantive issues, she's generally alright, but it's hard to understand how one can be a federal judge and lack a grasp on basic jurisdictional questions. As has become common in recent years in SDNY, there's a tendency toward rudeness from the judges. She errs on what seems to be a desire to avoid addressing issues on motions to dismiss or remand.

Fair and balanced judge; savvy to contemporary issues and technology cases in a way many older judges are not.

Prosecutor in a robe. She is smart but thinks she's the smartest one in the room and let's you know it -- a la Judge Stein. Condescending to all. Just downright demeaning to counsel and litigants. Routinely hands out sentences more harsh than the government seeks. Her compassion is packed away when she assumes the bench. Several troubling experiences from a defense perspective. Biggest take away is her short fuse and talking down to even capable and prepared counsel. Will not let you make defense arugments without interrupting you with her jaundiced views of the defense function and all defendants. Suspicious of almost all defense arguments. She will not let you get off the ground in advocating for your client. The antithesis of compassion. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

This judge has a very serious bias in favor of large firms and against small firms/sole practitioners. Even though you may be a small firm/sole practitioner well versed and experienced in your area, she consistently favors large firms instead of the merits - at least in civil cases. Should not happen in federal court. She is also not even-tempered. She can be warm as day one minute and turn on a dime for no apparent reason, which is a troubling characteristic. Attorneys should always be prepared, no argument there. But even if you are prepared, she will tip the scales in favor of a large firm every time.

Arguing a motion before the Judge is just a wonderful experience. Patient, smart, even handed, are the least of it. In my civil cases, if she doesn't know the law, she is meinsch enough to admit it! Can you imagine! She will then allow herself to be educated by both sides and then make her decision if need be right then and there.

Wow! Today was my first time before this judge. Incredibly bright, professional, courteous, and even-handed. Made sure each side had an opportunity to flesh out their arguments completely. Very judicious in her resolution of the issue before the court. A total pleasure to appear before.

Exceptional intellect and pleasant demeanor, but know your case and be prepared to answer pointed questions.

It just doesn't get any better than this. Consider yourself the luckiest person in that courthouse if you get her assigned to your case, and, make sure you go to your synagogue, or church, or whatever, and give thanks. Dynamite selection for the Bench.