top of page
THE ROBING ROOM
where judges are judged
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
District judge
D.Conn.
2nd Circuit
Average Rating:
3.5
-
25
rating(s)
rating submitted
Please send me alerts on this judge
subscribed
Ratings:
What others have rated
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
evaluator
ID
date
Temp* Sch* Indu* Comp* Punct* Ev-Cv* Ev-Cr* Flex Bail Crim Settle Trial Sent Coop Average
Litigant
32860
10/31/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
32813
10/1/19
6
4
3
4
7
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.7
Civil Litigation - Private
32829
10/7/19
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
31146
1/1/19
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
29308
1/2/18
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Govt.
29336
1/2/18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
28818
1/2/18
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Civil Litigation - Private
27254
1/2/18
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Govt.
25097
1/1/18
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
24943
1/2/17
1
1
2
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.8
Civil Litigation - Private
24215
1/1/17
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
24189
1/2/17
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
24076
1/2/16
2
1
1
3
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.5
Civil Litigation - Private
23979
1/1/16
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
22994
1/2/15
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.5
Civil Litigation - Private
13463
1/1/12
5
3
1
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
Civil Litigation - Private
11463
1/2/10
1
2
5
1
10
1
1
5
5
10
5
10
5
0
3
Civil Litigation - Private
10087
1/2/10
5
5
2
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4.6
Civil Litigation - Private
9903
1/2/10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Civil Litigation - Private
9167
1/1/09
10
10
9
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Fam
Par
Qu-Arg
At-Arg
Sch
Cri
Civ
Lab
Imm
How familiar are you with the work of this judge? (1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)
Participates in Oral Argument (1=Rarely,10=Always)
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument (1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)
Attitude during oral argument (1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Consistently respectful)
Scholarship as reflected in Opinions (1=Poor,10=Outstanding)
General Inclination in Criminal Appeals (1=Strongly ProGovernment,10=Strongly ProDefense)
General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals (1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly ProPlaintiff)
General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals (1=Strongly ProEmployee,10=Strongly ProEmployer)
General Inclination in Immigration Appeals (1=Strongly ProImmigrant,10=Strongly ProGov.)
evaluator
ID
date
Fam Par Qu-Arg At-Arg Sch Cri Civ Lab Imm
Litigant
32860
10/31/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
32813
10/1/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
32829
10/7/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
31146
1/1/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
29308
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Govt.
29336
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
28818
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
27254
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Govt.
25097
1/1/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
24943
1/2/17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
24215
1/1/17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
24189
1/2/17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
24076
1/2/16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
23979
1/1/16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
22994
1/2/15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
13463
1/1/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
11463
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
10087
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
9903
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
9167
1/1/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-lawyer Rating
(if applicable)
evaluator
ID
date
Rating
Litigant
24228
1/1/17
1
Litigant
11899
1/2/11
3
category average
-
Temp*
Sch*
Indu*
Comp*
Punct*
Ev-Cv*
Ev-Cr*
Flex
Bail
Crim
Settle
Trial
Sent
Coop
Temperament (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Scholarship (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious 10=Highly industrious)
Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Punctuality (1=Chronically Late 10=Always on Time)
Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility in Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible 10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pre-Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions (1=Least Involved 10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators (1=10% 10=100%)
comments1
Comments:
What others have said about
Hon. Stefan R. Underhill
Litigant
comment #:
32860
rating:
0
This judge is a conspirator judge with a fraudulent act at the social security and federal deposit insurance see cases 1919-CV 1260 and 19cv-1469, 19- CV 1231, will be remove from the federal court, corrupted judge
10/31/19, 6:23 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
32813
rating:
3.7
Judge Underhill is one of our worst federal judges. He is heavily biased against individuals and favors the rights of corporations. He prejudges matters before they are briefed. He intimidates lawyers into giving up on claims. Recently, he decided the merits of a collective action at the certification stage when the law is clear that merits are not to be considered. He knows this law but ruled on the merits anyway. He simply does what he wants and favors corporations all to the detriment of hard working individuals.
10/1/19, 1:45 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
32829
rating:
1
Like many federal judges, I doubt he ever tried a civil case as a lawyer. Certainly not first chair. Certainly not on behalf of an individual. His goal is to not just let you know that he is much, much smarter than you (Yale confuses people this way), but to impose his august wisdom on how every case should turn out by hook or crook. Too bad for Connecticut bench and the people who seek justice here.
10/7/19, 8:17 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
31146
rating:
1
Finally Judge Underhill is a chief judge who is piled high with paperwork and administrative duties leaving him precious little time for litigation and trials. He was a prejudiced judge who disregarded Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such as his refusal to write an Order on a Motion to Disqualify an administratively suspended attorney. May he spend his time in an office working on papers and away from the bench
1/1/19, 11:51 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
29308
rating:
1
has no business being a judge. a weird, nasty person. hates plaintiffs and everyone knows it.
1/2/18, 2:22 AM
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
29336
rating:
1
Judge Underhill acts in haste without establishing facts and makes blatantly erroneous decisions without adequate analysis of legal precedents. How can we get him removed from the bench before he harms lives,wastes additional taxpayer money and fails to uphold the judicial standards?
1/2/18, 4:05 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
28818
rating:
1.1
Judge Underhill was stubborn and quick tempered forming opinions on his impulse rather than facts. He made decisions on orders without a hearing in violation of well established due process rights to be heard.
1/2/18, 4:52 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
27254
rating:
1
Judge Underhill demonstrates deep prejudice and let Nicole Tuman Walsh practice for 15 months while administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar. Now Walsh in his court again facing RBRG Trading. Walsh had not practiced for five years before coming to Judge Underhill administratively suspended. Judge Underhill is hated and despised for his prejudice. May he burn in hell
1/2/18, 3:30 AM
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
25097
rating:
1
As bad as some of these comments are, he is really awful. Everyone on my team disliked him, and could see that the jurors did too. He belongs in some second rate white shoe firm charging $700 hour to make himself feel important.
1/1/18, 9:22 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24943
rating:
1.8
Defense lawyer in black robe.
1/2/17, 2:16 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24215
rating:
1
Judge Underhill presided over my FMLA lawsuit. He denied my hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment because I had a job interview. He grossly abused his power as a judge and used inherent authority to allow an attorney who was administratively suspended from the bar to practice in the case, and then he sanctioned me using inherent authority to sanction me for seeking the counsel's disqualification. He could not grasp basic concepts about the case or recall that he granted both the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Summary Judgment motions. Ultimately I found a job that increased my pay by $35,000 and didn't have time for an appeal. I was deeply disappointed with Judge Underhill's poor performance. I hated him as a judge and for his lack of compassion and regard for other humans. He doesn't have any sympathy for people. I found him harsh, capricious, opinionated and stubborn
1/1/17, 5:03 AM
Litigant
comment #:
24228
rating:
0
Litigants should know that Judge Underhill makes decisions without a written order and without a fair hearing. In 13 CV 1382 he used inherent authority to let opposing counsel practice on the lawsuit without a certificate of good standing when she was administratively suspended from the Connecticut bar. Then he used inherent authority to sanction me for a disqualification motion. Judge Underhill never wrote an order on the disqualification motion but made a personal prejudiced decision that opposing counsel could practice without good standing. The sanctions motion was not served in accordance with Rule 11. Judge Underhill denied and fair hearing on the Motion because I was forbidden from discussing opposing counsel's related party transactions in the sanctions hearing. Judge Underhill has the opinion of appeal if you don't like it. I am Pro Se and don't have the skills for an appeal. Also my case was FMLA and I found another job that pays more so my damages were mitigated. Judge Underhill makes personal prejudiced decisions from the bench without a written order establishing the facts. Please email me if you would like additional information. I found him as prejudiced and someone who doesn't follow civil procedure
1/1/17, 2:31 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24189
rating:
1
Judge Underhill was extremely unfair in my civil case, and he demonstrated an angry hostile temperament. The Second Circuit Appellate Chief Judge called Judge Underhill as a 'frustrated, impatient, imperfect human'. While Judge Underhill was not punished for his behavior on the bench, the appellate chief judge didn't have kind words in his description of Judge Underhill.
1/2/17, 11:06 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24076
rating:
1.5
not half as smart as he thinks he is. glib and flippant.
1/2/16, 9:06 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
23979
rating:
1
Judge Underhill is the worst district judge in the US Second Circuit based on my cases filed in CT and NY. He becomes enraged, visibly angry and hostile without cause. He was prejudiced against my disability and denied me multiple hearing requests because I was disabled on his desired date for the hearing. He violated my constitutional rights to free speech and sanctioned me for expressing my opinion on a subject. I filed a judicial complaint with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals against him which remains open after many months, and I have never complained about another judge at any time. I would never recommend him as an appellate jurist.
1/1/16, 5:43 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
22994
rating:
1.5
Fond of saying that plaintiffs' cases are 'weak' and woe betide the litigant who manages to get a jury to totally disagree with him. Thinks he is smartest man in the room. Shows great deference to jurors while they are in his courtroom; very little once they are gone if they rejected his view of a case.
1/2/15, 4:38 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
13463
rating:
2.7
In the two cases I have been before him, one a contract dispute and one a civil rights dispute, he didn't grasp the genuine issues. Nor did he seem to care for constitutional rights or fair litigation conduct. He missed facts, and on reconsideration, remained entrenched in his position. Upon learning he missed facts because documents were destroyed by the defendants, he said not my problem. Take it another court. I see him as clearly biased for police defendants in civil rights cases, and framed the issues in the case so as to lead the jury to one conclusion. I found his stepping off the bench to greet litigants after a decision a superficial gesture, and I had all I could do to keep from calling him stupid. Although calling him stupid may have been a good thing, because it would have gotten a new judge.
1/1/12, 8:47 PM
Litigant
comment #:
11899
rating:
0
Shows clear pro-establishment bias. The words of Judge Robert H. Bork in his book The Tempting of America are suited: 'Legislation is far more likely to reflect majority sentiment while judicial activism is likely to represent an elite minority's sentiment'. Also, Judge Underhill appears to reflect a political bias which may be related to his prior experience having worked as law clerk for Court of Appeals Judge Jon O. Newman.
1/2/11, 3:28 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
11463
rating:
3
This judge apparently has no understanding of the law, and displays clear bias against the constitution and civil rights. He has displayed shocking contempt for basic constitutional rights.
1/2/10, 12:27 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
10087
rating:
4.6
1/2/10, 5:19 PM
HOME
bottom of page