Frederic Block

Brags about his 99 IQ, and I believe he exagerates. a real article 3 jerk, pre-judges cases, forces all to kiss the ring, forces all to laugh at his insipid jokes, has made sexist and racist comements from the bench and at settlement conferences. an emabaressment? yes. a buffoon? yes. unaware that everyone loathes him and laughs behind his back? also yes. let him, and his ilk, retire and never be seen again.

Absolutely no impartiality. Wouldnt let you try your case. Protected witnesses and refused to allow cross with inconsistent dep testimony. Decided which attorwey he liked and that dictated decision.made factual findings contrary to fact stipulations in the record and simply ignored the law.

On his iPhone throughout the entire proceeding, every day at all points. This is a very serious problem, one which needs to be addressed immediately. Distracted. Uninterested. Unfamiliar with the case and evidence. Could not remember who which party was the defendant. Deferential to corporate litigants and witnesses which he feels are powerful. Confused about the law. Poor with accounting. Disoriented. Allows his clerks to make most decisions, heavily reliant on Mike Innelli. Ad hoc in his pre-trial rulings. Relies on antiquated vague forms, rules and instructions in an effort to appear quirky and old school, but it is obvious he uses them so that only he knows what is actually happening in the courtroom. Testifies on the record more than most judges. Talks about himself constantly. Uses high drama and over the top gesturing to obscure his actual movements and physical actions during trial. Has no interest in allowing the trial to play out or in hearing the truth, only wants to stay on his schedule. Overly interested in being famous and in litigants who he believes are famous or well known. Makes jurors feel stupid for asking questions. Shouts over testimony. Sanctimonious. Has command of the courtroom which would be good if he had any ability to be unbiased. Mutters during recess to influence anyone who is listening while off the record. Not certain why he is a judge in New York. Seems much more interested in being in Los Angeles.

Not a bad person, per se, but needs to retire. Let's his personal likes and dislikes override the facts and the law. Unfortunately, it appears that his mind is going.

Judge Block's conduct disrespects litigants and the Court. He will read and send text messages, take calls and make faces while presiding over a trial. If he does not like a case, he will perform the cross examinations himself. He will berate attorneys, especially newer attorneys, in a manner ill-befitting a Federal Courtroom (often in the presence of the jury). Groveling and flattery are required. It is truly well past the time for this man to retire.

Judge Block just released what may be the most stupefying and grotesque appellate opinion one will ever come across, while sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit. The issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in not giving the State of California defendants the opportunity to develop an issue during discovery that they neglectfully didn't develop when they had the opportunity to do so. Judge Block turned that issue into a de novo review of the underlying question that the State wanted to conduct discovery on, decided that he could address the underlying issue because the State of California (the party that would benefit from him doing so) said it was permissible, decided the issue in the first instance (on appeal!) even though neither party had developed it through discovery at the trial court level and the record was devoid of any real evidence on the matter, issued a ruling against the plaintiff on a political question that the statute of limitations ran out on forty years ago (if there ever was one), and created quite possibly the worst Indian law opinion to come out from a federal court in the past twenty years -- which is saying a lot, considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court. Everyone should take a look at the opinion in question before they have to appear before this guy. It's titled Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, No. 10-17803 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014). What the opinion tells me is that Judge Block either has a blatant disregard for precedent, rules of procedure, the fairness of proceedings, and the rights of litigants, or he has some very serious prejudices that he needs to deal with in a professional setting.

J. Block treats every one very well no matter how low the position of power that person is in -- one mark of a truly great man. I meet a lot of judges -- J. Block is the only one I really admire. I am baffled by any negative comments and feel they can't be accurate. Especially the one below--it simply seems mean spirited. I am reading J. Block's book now, and it's really humble and honest (not usual hallmarks of attorneys as well all know) and full of inspiration and guidance. --from the point of view of a young attorney.

Vain, impatient, lazy, intemperate, biased and arrogant. Never refers to precedent when deciding legal issues. Like a stuck clock, he'll be right from time to time by accident, but should retire so he'll have more time to write books about his great self.

The man is an embarassment to the bench. Ill-tempered, ill- mannered, he makes no secret of his abudant biases and ignores case law and precedent. A pompous, arrogrant "judge" who does not give those in his rifle-sight a chance to even state their case.

I had the unique opportunity to participate in both Civil and Criminal cases before Judge Block, both as a attorney for a criminal defendant at trial and as the attorney for civil litigants over the years. Judge Block really immerses himself in the cases and uses all of his exceptional academic energy and vast experience to bring about a just result, which seems to be all he is interested in.

Great temperament. As I awaited my client's sentencing, we watched a parade of criminal violations of probation and other criminal matters in which he was unfailingly polite, fair and willing to accomodate all parties and see justice was served, yet protecting the public while limiting the needless suffering of others. He fortunately gave a non-guideline, non-custodial sentence to my 70 year old client who PG to a tax count and who has medical issues and other significant 3553(a) factors. A hefty fine was imposed but Justice was amply served by this Titan of the bench.

Amazing at his job. Looks beyond the nonsense.

Saw Judge Block at the Cioffi/Tannin trial today, 10/16/09, Fri. He appeared fair to both sides and even tempered when handling issues brought by each side. The only negative comment: He should give up the gum chewing during the proceedings.

I tried a civil case before him several years ago. I found him below average in getting and applying the law of evidence. Overall, I would say he tried to be fair, but was not particularly insightful. Way too self-involved. One day we were prepared to break early and I told him I wanted to go to my son's high school graduation in the afternoon. He came back an hour late from lunch, causing me to miss part of the graduation.

Reminds me of Jackie Mason. From "egg foo yong" to "this is an absurd prosecution" in McGriff, I really dig this guy.

By far the worse judge I have appeared before.

A disaster. How he got on the federal bench is beyond me.

Has maintained his fair and and even stance after assuming senior status. Judge Block is always a good Judge when considering complex civil matters, although rarely one to make a radical decision. Predictable, yet very fair.

Practical, efficient, fair, even-tempered

doesn't want to waste time