Janet Bond Arterton

Judge Arterton is, in fact, a thorough and intelligent jurist. But my compliments stop there. She rigidly adheres to the Sentencing Guidelines in the absence of a substantial assistance motion. She plays goal blocker with any criminal case. You can count on one hand the number of times she has granted a motion to dismiss/judgment of acquittal/habeas corpus/2255 in a criminal case. Based on her comments at a number of sentencing hearings, she has a very black and white view of the world and morality. There is no grey for this Judge. Ask for a downward departure and you'll be lucky if you get 10% of the guidelines even if your client is sick and has a limited number of months to live. She is fair insofar as she believes what she says, but that doesnt mean it is the best outcome. In short, she takes no risk and she has no empathy. I would go so far as to say she has no heart, but I'll stop at empathy. Unfortunately, that is a fair jurist in the laws eyes -- just ask Judge Chatigny who once showed empathy and got beaten up for it before the Senate. Judges are not suppose to show empathy the senators said, they are just suppose to blindly follow the record and the law. Perhaps this episode with Judge Chatigny scared Judge Arterton but she was harsh well before that episode. The cost of her inability to grasp that her rigid ways cost many defendants too much on the "in side" far longer than necessary is incalculable. I wouldnt rate her a conservative or a liberal. And I wouldnt attack her intelligence as others have done so here. She is smart. She does take her time and will sometimes overlook facts that are favorable to your sides just because she can (hey, every judge does it). She is also as stated above a wonderful goal blocker, at every angle no matter what type of case you have in front of her, if she is on your side...: this means she is intelligent and you just didnt do a good enough job to persuade her to be on your side. She is also more pro-Government than you

She's the worst judge ever! She doesn't read! She will never draw inferences for pro se litigants. If you are a pro se litigant, avoid her like the plague. She is terrible. She bases decisions on briefs filed years ago. She doesn't look at discovery evidence. She doesn't look at any evidence. She does not read. Be specific, precise and directly to the point with her. She's incompetent. She should be disbarred. Do not allow her to be involved in your case.

Queen Elizabeth is actually the empress who wears no clothes. She sounds like a fair-minded, even-tempered, well-informed judge, but her actual approach is to pick sides and treat the side she does not pick with contempt.

Manipulate the laws to appear impartial, however, would never allow a defendant against the U.S. to prevail by simply allowing the public defender to order a competency hearing at the most critical part of a trial proceedings and ordering a mistrial based on false testimony.in violation of due process of law.

Worst kind of liberal activist. Very manipulative and scheming. If she's coming at you in a hallway or at a bar dinner, run the other way. The only time she's nice is when she wants something. A real user. Stay away. She's nothing but trouble.

A wonderfully fair, rule-oriented judge; she is intellectually curious, and not afraid to engage the larger issues of a case, but goes BY THE RULES!

Quite possibly the worst federal judge I've ever appeared before. Takes forever to decide even the simplest issues and is uniformly nasty to all litigants who appear before her. Not a great - or even good - legal scholar, she frequently issues equivocal rulings that fail to resolve central issues and advance the case to disposition. If she worked in the private sector she would be fired.

Respectful to attorneys and generally a pleasure to appear before. Average intelligence--not a legal scholar. Takes her forever to render decisions. She will sit on summary judgment motions for months, going on years. She is one of the least decisive judges I've ever experienced. She will issue a ruling, then permit the parties to come back repeatedly to re-argue the same issues. She's even been known to reverse herself on her own without any prompting by the litigants. While she may finally get a decision right after three or more tries (and that's questionable), the price everyone pays for her inability to get things right the first time is enormous.

Thorough, intelligent, impartial and precise.

The mere fact that what appears to be her friends posting the identical back to back comments or even a debate based on "conservative" and "liberal" is itself evidence that she is not viewed as an ideologically impartial rule of law judge. Even her own friends acknowledge she is a "liberal". Otherwise, there wouldn't even be such a discussion. Judges perceived as impartial rule of law judges don't split the bar this way and have the confidence of both "sides". This is a judge a number of lawyers speak of wanting to avoid if they can. No judge should be spoken of in such terms.

Sounds like the other commenters have lost and not had their conservative results. Arterton is fair, even and hits these big shot lawyers and their high income clients' where it hurts, the wallet! That is why they bash her here.

This is a superb judge who is efficient, prepared and knows how to get things done. I imagine she doesn't tolerate fools or unprepared lawyers, but she does seem to reward those who follow the rules, are prepared and do not waste her time. A pleasure to be before her.

Behind the Queen Elizabeth bearing is one calculating, manipulative woman. Perhaps because she's too old now to have her 2d Circuit ambitions realized, she's just gotten meaner and just does whatever the heck she wants. Plays favorites with lawyers, reputedly takes revenge on anyone who pisses her off and rules based on the outcome she wants - in a nutshell, a bad judge.

Rocket man meets his match in this chambers. Don't get in the way.

In civil cases, this is a plaintiffs' judge who will go out of her way to apply caselaw in their favor. If it's a cause not dear to her liberal mindset, even the most compelling evidence is ignored or sanitized to achieve the result she wants. Does not make up for it in personality either. Also brutally inflexible on scheduling and will keep lawyers late into the evening while she mulls far too long on simple matters - she needs to get a life.

Intelligent and highly capable judge but very impersonal and frosty - can be vindictive when she doesn't get her way - is overall fair judge but is gaining reputation as liberal activist - so conservatives and civil defense lawyers - try to stay away.

God forbid if you get an environmental case before her. Your client will probably go away for a while!