Judge Judy specific retaliation: technically ethical?
<p>In <a href="https://instagram.com/p/BV5dLrGhC8K/" rel="noreferrer">this clip</a>, Judge Judy Sheindlin directs a defendant to “talk fast.” He responds with, “If you wouldn’t cut me off, I’d be able to talk fast.” Judge Judy, out of disbelief or humor, asks the bailiff to confirm that this is what he said and immediately proceeds to rule in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.</p>

<p>Obviously, this was <em>not</em> the appropriate response from the defendant. While I don’t take issue with her decision from a moral point of view, is this an ethical decision for a judge to make? If the defendant’s case has genuine validity, could he pursue that decision in another court? And does Judge Judy have more legal leeway because she presides over a family court or appears on television?</p>

<p>This wasn’t an actual court case.</p>

<p>The show seeks people in civil disputes and pays them to have their case arbitrated by Judy instead of settled in court. (The legal term for this is Alternative Dispute Resolution, I believe.)</p>

<p>They sign contracts agreeing to be bound by whatever decision Judy makes.</p>

<p>The show then sets up this mock trial, and she is free to come up with whatever “judgment” she wants, without having to heed actual civil procedure.</p>

<p>If this case was decided before a real judge, rather than Judge Judy, the impertinent party could be held in direct contempt of court (imposed summarily and punishable by penalties similar to a misdemeanor crime), after being given a moment to make a mitigating statement, but should not have have had the case summarily decided by the judge merely on that basis.</p>

<p>A judgment imposed on that basis without further findings of fact would ordinarily be reversed on appeal (unless the appeal was from a court not of record, in which case a new trial is held in a new court following every appeal in any case). But, a contempt of court award in that situation would be reviewed for abuse of discretion and it would be a close call as to whether a contempt of court finding would be upheld for that conduct which is close to an abuse of discretion at a minimum. It would depend to some extent on the sanction imposed and a $5000 fine would probably be considered excessive in that context.</p>

<p>Usually, however, arbitrators do not have contempt of court powers the way that almost all ordinary judges in the U.S. do.</p>

<p>On the other hand, while there are isolated reasons for invalidating an arbitration award, it would be an uphill battle to get an arbitration award overturned on this basis, although not impossible. An arbitration award must usually involve some good faith effort by the arbitrator to resolve the case on the merits even if particular mistakes of law or fact are not reviewable. Indeed, the most common reason that arbitration awards are reversed is the refusal of the arbitrator to consider all relevant evidence. The prevailing party could argue that this was a <em>de facto</em> sanction award rather than a true resolution on the merits and might very well win, but it wouldn't be an ironclad class.</p>

<p>Whether it is ethical is another matter that has two answers. At the level of did a judge give someone something that they didn't deserve, the ethical answer may very well be no. But, at the level of formal sanctionable judicial ethics, this would probably violate the duty of a judge to show judicial decorum and respect the process, although it would probably be a very minor offense resulting at most in a public reprimand.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is this an ethical decision for a judge to make?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It depends. We don't have enough context from the clip to tell. It's possible the defendant had a weak case on the facts, the law was against him, and all this happened toward the end of a trial he was about to lose anyway. In that case, Judge Judy's verdict would tend more ethical. If all this occurred at the beginning of the trial and the defendant was just about to make his opening oral argument prior to presenting his evidence, then Judge Judy's verdict would tend less ethical. We don't have enough context to make a call.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If the defendant’s case has genuine validity, could he pursue that decision in another court?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It depends on the arbitration rules in effect at that moment. Both litigants would have signed binding arbitration agreements with the show's production company that might allow it. Also, many courts in many jurisdictions allow for a <em>du novo</em> appeal in court of arbitration decisions.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And does Judge Judy have more legal leeway because she presides over a family court or appears on television?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. The rules of arbitration and court proceedings do not make exceptions for presiding in family court or appearing on television.</p>

judge professional-ethics