top of page
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

REGISTER

subscribed

Add Comment and/or Rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed) 

Confirm E-mail Address

ZIP

Occupation

arrow&v

Comment:

Rating:

*Temperament:  
*Scholarship: 
*Industriousness: 
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:  
*Punctuality:  
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:  
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation: 
Flexibility In Scheduling 
General Inclination Regarding Bail
General Incl. in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial: 
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:

General Incl. in Criminal Cases, Trial:

General Incl. in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:

Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:

  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating

(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
(1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
(1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)

(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)

(1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)

(1=10%,10=100%)

How familiar are you with the work of this judge?:
Participates in Oral Argument:
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument:
Attitude during oral argument:

Scholarship as reflected in Opinions:

General Inclination in Criminal Appeals:

General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals:

General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals:

General Inclination in Immigration Appeals:

(1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)

(1=Rarely,10=Always)

(1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)

(1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Cons. respectful)

(1=Poor,10=Outstanding)

(1=Strongly Pro­Government,10=Strongly Pro­Defense)

(1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly Pro­Plaintiff)

(1=Strongly Pro­Employee,10=Strongly Pro­Employer)

(1=Strongly Pro­Immigrant,10=Strongly Pro­Gov.)

Non-lawyer rating (if applicable)

(1= worst, 10=best)

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

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

32813

10/1/19

6

4

3

4

7

1

1

5

0

0

0

0
0
0

3.7

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

32829

10/7/19

1

1

1

1

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

31146

1/1/19

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

29308

1/2/18

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Govt.

29336

1/2/18

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

28818

1/2/18

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

0

0

0

0
0
0

1.1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

27254

1/2/18

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Govt.

25097

1/1/18

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24943

1/2/17

1

1

2

1

5

1

0

0

0

0

1

0
0
0

1.8

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24215

1/1/17

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24189

1/2/17

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24076

1/2/16

2

1

1

3

1

1

0

3

0

0

1

0
0
0

1.5

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

23979

1/1/16

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0
0
0

1

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

22994

1/2/15

2

2

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0
0
0

1.5

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

13463

1/1/12

5

3

1

1

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0
0

2.7

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

11463

1/2/10

1

2

5

1

10

1

1

5

5

10

5

10
5
0

3

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

10087

1/2/10

5

5

2

0

9

2

0

0

0

0

2

0
0
0

4.6

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

9903

1/2/10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0

10

0

0

0

0
0
0

10

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

9167

1/1/09

10

10

9

10

10

10

0

10

0

0

0

0
0
0

9.8

read comment
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

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

32813

10/1/19

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

32829

10/7/19

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

31146

1/1/19

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

29308

1/2/18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Govt.

29336

1/2/18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

28818

1/2/18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

27254

1/2/18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Govt.

25097

1/1/18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24943

1/2/17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24215

1/1/17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24189

1/2/17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

24076

1/2/16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

23979

1/1/16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

22994

1/2/15

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

13463

1/1/12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

11463

1/2/10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

10087

1/2/10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

9903

1/2/10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
Civil Litigation - Private

9167

1/1/09

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

read comment
category average

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Non-lawyer Rating 
(if applicable)

evaluator

ID

date
Rating
Litigant

24228

1/1/17
1
read comment
Litigant

11899

1/2/11
3
read comment
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

minitalk.gif
Litigant
comment #:
32860
rating:
0
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
32813
rating:
3.7
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
32829
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
31146
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
29308
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
has no business being a judge. a weird, nasty person. hates plaintiffs and everyone knows it.
1/2/18, 2:22 AM
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
29336
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
28818
rating:
1.1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
27254
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
25097
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24943
rating:
1.8
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
Defense lawyer in black robe.
1/2/17, 2:16 AM
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24215
rating:
1
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Litigant
comment #:
24228
rating:
0
average rating is 3 out of 5
average rating is 3 out of 5
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
Send email to poster
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
24189
rating:
1