Susan E. Cox

She has a policy of seeking ex parte consent. It is clear that her ex parte discussion focuses on supporting the plaintiff in civil matters. She demonstrates unwillingness to discuss defense perspectives.

ms SUSAN E. COX carelessness actions caused her to tell mr newson she apologize for misleadig him with false information once he realized ms susan e. cox mislead him this happened 12/13/2019 between 2pm and 3pm its on record what she did at the federal district courthouse in chicago,il under oath is beyond unconstitutional if she would have been careful she would have never made that mistake she owes mr newson $100,000 if the people of the public ask ms susan e. cox did she apologize in the court of law to mr newson for misleading him 12/13/2019 its on record if shes a law bying judge she will tell u yes she made a big mistake if shes not a law bying judge she gone try to avoid all questions asked about her unlawful reactions because she knows her reputation is on the line

Judge Cox has repeatedly shown an improper bias towards plaintiffs and unprofessional temperament towards civil defendants (and their counsel). She is amongst the worst draws a civil defendant can get as a magistrate.

Judge Cox is bright and hardworking but goes out of her way to appease plaintiffs in employment matters. She does not let fairness or the law get in the way of her own view of a case.

I've had several settlement conferences with Judge Cox and found her to be very helpful. She does a great job giving the parties candid insight on the weaknesses and strengths of their cases. She brings a practical perspective to the table and is a very effective communicator.

An excellent judge! She had been a prosecutor and a civil attorney in private practice and clearly knows the realities of litigation better than most judges.

committed? she most certainly should be committed -- to the nearest asylum. She is nuts. Makes Castillo seem rational. Never, ever, consent to this psycho. And settlement conferences? Forget about it. She lives to abuse defendants; especially in employment and civil rights cases. Thank god Obama did not make her an article iii.

A very good judge. Very smart, very committed to doing her job well. A bit of temper -- you need to listen to what she's saying, you need to do your job and come to court prepared. She has been a litigator and has a very practical straight forward approach to litigation.

I attended a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Cox in a complex contract/construction dispute. Although the case did not settle, I thought she was fair and persuasive with both sides. She appeared to be very well prepared for the settlement conference and knew both the facts and the applicable law. I would recommend her for a settlement conference in a civil dispute.

Do not accept a referral to her in an employment discrimination case. She might as well be Plaintiff's co-counsel. She also cites to her own opinions as authority.

Cox would make a good district court judge. She can run a hearing and referee discovery disputes in a practical manner. But she is awful in settlement conferences. Going to her for a conference is a complete waste of time. Consent if you want a trial, but otherwise avoid her.

Cox is no Oliver Wendell Holmes, but knows what she needs to in order to get the job done satisfactorily, in addition to being practical. She tends to be get very testy in settlement conferences, but I suspect that is an act to scare parties into settlement. I would consent to her if I had a case that had to go to trial. However, I would not consent to her in an employment discrimination case if you think would go to trial. She appears to have a pro-plaintiff bias in those types of cases.