Lorna G. Schofield

Judge Schofield is pleasant and professional. She is pragmatic for the most part, and by and large I found her to be more or less even handed. However, she made a number of peculiar rulings both against us (plaintiffs) and for us in a complex medical malpractice case. She denied some things that were, in my opinion, so flat wrong that they would have led to a reversal of her if the trial didn’t go our way. For example, she excluded a diagnostic radiology experts testimony, because she concluded that the surgical oncologist testimony covered with the radiologist would talk about, and was there for duplicative. She then denied calling that diagnostic radiologist as a rebuttal witness, when the defendants rolled out in their case and chief, for the very first time in the entire history of the litigation, a brand new theory regarding interpretation of the radiological films. And she then denied the request to make an offer proof of what the diagnostic radiologist would testify about. On the other hand, she admitted very sensitive valuable evidence of the plaintiff involving the decedent’s words in writing and audio when the decedent was never deposed which was clearly in her discretion to admit or deny. She did not allow any voire dire, which I think was a mistake and despite my raising the issue with the court, which she dismissed out of hand, allowed a woman to serve on the jury who didn’t speak anything better than basic, broken English. She does have a command of the record but I got the distinct feeling that early on in the case she had clueless judicial clerks making rulings that flew in the face of basic FRCP. However, on balance she ruled for and against Plaintiffs and defendants pretty evenly which in hindsight shows weigh against her since the defense lawyers made unbelievable arguments that were over the top and we should have won most of the issues in dispute, despite how self serving that sounds. On one occasion the defense lawyers committed outright frau

Surprised by these comments. Seems opposite to my experience and my colleagues'. Judge Schofield is prepared, frank, and doesn't waste the parties' time. She has a great grasp of the record, and unlike some judges, doesn't just take the Government's word for it.

Judge Schofield is a very intelligent, fair, and rational judge. Her rulings are grounded in case law, while understanding limitations of previous trials. She is able to hear all sides of a story, but always rules in favor of attorneys who are prepared and argue their case most effectively.

Judge Schofield seems above all to be a practical, efficient judge. This is important in the district court. She keeps things moving, hones in on the key issues, and fairly evaluates facts and law. Her opinions are straightforward.

Preoccupied and predisposed to dispose of everything with as little effort as possible. Rules on complex issues with her gut feelings, and then twists the law in accordance with her preordained conclusions. Slow to rule, overall. Doesn't acknowledge mistakes. Picks sides. Does not quite understand what is happening. Not a scholar. Tries to handle every type of dispute with a hammer when a scalpel is needed. Her rulings will astound you both for their lack of depth and for the manifest errors contained therein. Is she the worst judge out there? Probably not. But, she's getting there and shows no signs of slowing down.

A terrific judge.

Unclear how she ever came to be on bench. Not a jurist by any real definition of the word. Doesn’t seem competent enough to apply really straightforward precedent or to adequately manage discovery that is at all complex.

Is making a key decision one day and vacating it the next of a good judge or senility? Affidavits in support of door #2 flood the courts with this legal clown.

Failed utterly to apply the law. Horror show in discovery. Looks to come across as knowledgeable, but she is not.

The quintessential example of a jurist with a pure heart, but an empty head. Judge Schofield comes off as an amicable and respectful individual, but her rulings and general awareness of what is happening on her docket are atrocious. For example, if she sets an agenda for a conference, she will forget to address the major points, such as the state of pending motions, outstanding discovery disputes, or critical factual issues. It does not seem, moreover, that she has a grasp of the law and appears more than eager to let her clerks do all the heavy lifting. She gets things flat out wrong; and not, to be clear, the minor things on which people can disagree, but big things, like well-settled, controlling precedent. Letter motions and other requests can linger before her for months at a time, not because she is considering them, but because she has simply overlooked the fact that things requiring her attention have been filed. She is easily confused and even more easily distracted, and often forgets the substance of her own orders and rulings. Overall, the impression is that she does not want to put in the work, and seems to have no awareness that her apathy and oversights are costing the parties a lot of money. Her primary concern seems to be to keep the cases moving, regardless of the direction. She is relatively new on the bench, and has had no prior judicial experience - which is actually troubling. District Judges are entrusted with great responsibility. Quite frankly, she is not up for the task. At first I thought she was picking sides, but it seems quite clear that she is, more likely, simply incompetent. I'm sure she'd be fine as a do-nothing partner in a law firm (which she was prior to her appointment) but, as Judge, she is completely lost and ineffectual.

One of the best judges in the SDNY, particularly given her relative inexperience on the bench.. Exceptional temperament and great ability to manage complex cases. Very thoughtful.

She was completely inclined to one side from the outset of the case. Her rulings on discovery defied imagination. Her opinion was poorly reasoned and read as if it were authored by a first year. The worst federal judge I have ever across in almost two decades of practice.

Result-oriented, and not in a good way. Not intellectual.