Eduardo C. Robreno

He bends over backward to protect government agencies, conniving at blatant malfeasance on their part.

A lower court judge has issued several decisions replete with factual and legal errors while aware that Judge Robreno would preside over any appeal of his decision. The record was clear in each instance that the lower court judge not only sought to and did nullify facts of record but blatantly and methodically misrepresented facts of record throughout his opinion. The record made clear of the litigant harmed by the trial judge possessed limited resources. In the multiple opinions the trial court judge exhibited absolutely no fear or concern that Judge Robreno while reviewing the misconduct of the lower court judge would pursue action (ethical, disciplinary, reversal) against the trial court judge.

The issuance of an appeal proof "decision" devoid of any factual or legal analysis runs entirely contra to any public expectation of a district court judge. When a judge does so in a disparate balance of power context between the litigants in favor of the litigant yielding the most resources and political power there can be no redress in the legal system. If he behaves like a judge only in high profile cases there is no hope of redress in the legal system. However, there are professionals who find injustice repugnant and will pursue a thoughtful, well documented, investigation and scrutiny of the case, along with a review of the Judge's past decisions, biases, patterns of ruling for his own political convenience while ignoring the law and justice.

In a case where there was clearly documented irrefutable evidence of fraud, Judge Robreno called the parties to a dispositive hearing. Robreno scheduled the hearing after hours on a bitter cold evening in the dead of winter. The female litigant, her counsel, and the big law firm attorneys managed to get by after hours security and navigated their way through the hallways of the darkened courthouse to Robreno's courtroom which was locked. Eventually Robreno's clerk opened the huge majestic door and asked who was present. Palpable fear that press would appear even though courthouse closed? During this horrific charade settlement was raised but never explored. The Judge ruled against the female litigant shortly thereafter. Robreno's decision, an empty opinion that served to nullify/ignore all salient facts of record, was affirmed by the same circuit court judge with the same empty opinion that rubber stamped a previous ruling from Robreno against a female litigant. Horrific.

Slip and fall case with significant, permanent, established damages and liability. Female litigant. Opposition was huge law firm. Robreno was acknowledging validity of the case. Then case took a complete 360 when facts were nullified by Robreno in a "non opinion" at summary judgment. On appeal case found itself before Third Circuit where panel was led by judge who has history of failing to issue decisions in these types of cases involving similar litigants.

Found Robreno to be extremely biased in favor of defense/big law firm. In cases before Robreno female litigants with huge damages with clear liability had the unfortunate experience of an appeal from Robreno finding itself before what some believe to be a misogynistic circuit judge who routinely did not issue opinions in the appeals of Robreno's questionable decisions. Female litigants rendered powerless and victimized. Justice denied.

In a multi-defendant criminal case, he was careful and diligent to ensure that justice was achieved. He was compassionate where appropriate and tough when it was called for. I may not have agreed with his results but know that they were fair.

Had 3+ day civil jury trial. Treated lawyers for both sides with respect. Ran a very nice court room. Easy to work with, and always gave counsel their opportunity to be heard.

Judge Rebreno folds to the winds. He will take the word of law enforcement over prosecutors.

From commencement of the action to the time of verdict, Judge Robreno was exceeedingly biased in favor of the defense. He made every ruling in favor of the defense, even denying a 'routine' motion to compel discovery. Astoundingly biased. He made absolutely no effort to settle the case. Your best advice as plaintiff's counsel - get out of the case by settling it and doing so early on.

Another of arlen specter appointees (along with E.D. Judge Michael Baylson)on the E.D. of PA bench. If your client finds him or herself in that camp then he or she should have smooth sailing from the moment of case inception until the very bitter end. Wonder what his law clerk thinks as the judge has him partake in authoring intellectually dishonest off the wall opinions? NOT a judge for the people of this Commonwealth during this post world economic crisis. A judge for big law firms that put him on the bench.

Currently handling all federal asbestos-related personal injury claims and moving that mountain along nicely. Innovative and fair.

defense bias why can't we get judges on the federal bench who are evenhanded?