The JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 06

Title: Dressing Down

Hosts: Hugh & Christine

Episode Summary:

In this candid episode of The JudgeMental Podcast, hosts Hugh and Christine—two seasoned attorneys and the minds behind Judgy—dive deep into the world of judicial accountability. They break down viral clips of judges on social media, share personal stories from their combined 30 years in law, and discuss the real reasons they both left the legal profession.

Key Topics:

• Viral courtroom moments: Analyzing a judge’s public apology after an outburst and what it reveals about courtroom culture.
• The power dynamic in court: How judges’ behavior impacts attorneys, clients, and the public’s trust in the system.
• Behind the scenes: Hugh and Christine’s personal journeys, including the emotional toll of practicing law and the breaking points that led them to leave.
• Systemic issues: The role of FOCs (Friend of the Court), GALs (Guardian ad Litem), and the need for reform in family court.
• Social media & accountability: The impact of judges’ online presence and the importance of transparency.
• How to navigate difficult courtroom situations and advocate for change.

Notable Moments:

• Christine’s passionate response to judicial misconduct and the lack of accountability.
• Hugh’s reflections on empathy, professionalism, and the changing culture of the courts.
• Real-life stories of courtroom drama, from viral TikTok judges to questionable rulings.
• A call for listeners to share their own stories and viral clips for future episodes.

Call to Action:

Have a viral lawyer or judge video you want analyzed? Tag @judgey_judge_y on TikTok or visit judgey-judge-y.com to submit your clips and stories.

Connect with Us:

• Website: judgey-judge-y.com
• TikTok: @judgey_judge_y

Thank you for listening!

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, rate, and leave a review. Your support helps us shine a light on the need for transparency and reform in our courts.

The JudgeMental Podcast: Where sharp insights, candid critiques, and unshakable honesty meet the fight for a better justice system.

The JudgeMental Podcast – EP 05 AI is Coming

Hosts: Hugh & Christine

Episode Summary:

In this candid and insightful episode, Hugh and Christine, the minds behind Judge-y, dive deep into the realities of the court system, judicial accountability, and the challenges facing both practitioners and the public. They discuss their recent experience observing local judges, the persistent backlog in district courts, and the impact of COVID-era scheduling on justice delivery.

Key Topics:

• Judicial Attendance & Accountability: The hosts share their observations on the low number of judges present in court and what that means for public trust and case backlogs.
• The 10-Day Rule & Scheduling Issues: How attempts to waive the 10-day preliminary hearing rule affected court efficiency and defendants’ rights.
• Courtroom Practices: The quirks of local court systems, from handwritten “jackets” to the lack of electronic processes.
• Prosecutorial Policies: The impact of hardline policies on case outcomes, especially for vulnerable defendants.
• Bar Association Critique: A frank discussion about the Kentucky Bar Association’s role, mandatory CLEs, and the mental health of attorneys.
• Legal Advertising & Professional Culture: The evolution of attorney advertising rules and the tension between tradition and innovation.
• AI & the Future of Law: Predictions on how artificial intelligence will transform legal practice, from document review to judicial analysis.
• Judicial Orders & Staff Attorneys: The ethics and realities of staff attorneys drafting orders and the use of signature stamps.
• Public Perception & Social Media: How speaking out about the judiciary can provoke strong reactions, both online and within the legal community.
• Listener Engagement: The hosts read and react to audience comments, including a poll about courtroom attendance and some lighthearted banter about martinis and Burger Week.

Notable Quotes:

• “Absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of the scale that it’s on.”
• “If attorneys could run businesses like a business, they could innovate, they could cut the cost down, which would then trickle down somewhat.”
• “AI is going to change everything about law practice in the next few years.”

Call to Action:

Stay tuned for updates on Judge-y and the push for greater transparency in the courts. Visit judgey.com for more information, and don’t forget to follow, rate, and review the podcast!

Connect with Us:

• Website: judgey.com

 On today's episode of the Judgmental Podcast, Christine and Hugh dive into the major problem that is delays in Family court. Hugh shares a personal experience of what happened to his client in Oldham County. Christine dives in to give more backstory about her journey over the last two years since she left family Court.

In this episode, attorneys Hugh and Christine discuss the community feedback from the bet.

The hosts take a critical look at delays and the length of time it takes for courts to enter orders. These have real life consequences for the constituents that the judges' were elected to represent.

Christine poses questions about a local family court judge that has a personal podcast, yet takes months to issue an order.

The episode concludes with a discussion of practicing in city courts vs the county court in Kentucky.

In this episode, the hosts break down the results of the bet over Kentucky craft beer. How many judges were in court on a Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.?

Hugh breaks down the reasons that led to him leaving family law after twenty years while Christine questions whether or not the system was designed to operate this way.

Either way both attorneys agree it's past time for judicial accountability and discuss what led them to want to create Judge-y.

In this episode, the hosts take a critical look at the inner workings of the judicial system. They shine a light on judicial transparency, misconduct, and the far-reaching impact of judicial decisions on litigants' lives.

One major concern raised is the potential conflict of interest between judges and the media. They recount troubling instances of judges allegedly leaking to the press in high-profile cases and explicitly question whether the current a retired judge, is a spokesperson who squashes negative stories to protect judges' reputations.

Their conversation further explores alarming patterns of judicial behavior, including decisions made outside formal proceedings (ex parte communications) and favoritism toward select attorneys such as Guardians Ad Litem (GALs) and Friends of the Court (FOCs).

The hosts share personal experiences, including a disturbing case where a judge ordered financial payments without a filed motion or hearing, based solely on an off-the-record discussion with opposing counsel.

They highlight the lack of accountability for such misconduct, pointing out that formal complaints rarely result in public consequences—often allowing problematic behavior to persist unchecked.

The episode concludes with a powerful call for judicial reform, advocating for everyone to speak out.