The JudgeMental Podcast

Christine Miller, Hugh Barrow
  • 5.0 (18)
  • Politics

The JudgeMental Podcast features two attorneys, Hugh and Christine, who bring over three decades of combined litigation experience to the mic. Now venturing into a bold new initiative—"Judge-y", a website and soon-to-be app—they aim to give lawyers and litigants a platform to evaluate judges and promote accountability within the judiciary.

  1. 3d ago

    EP 108 White Trash Dude

    JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 108: "White Trash Dude" Hosts: Trey & Christine Episode Summary In this episode, Trey and Christine dig into the case of Leslie Calabrese, a former Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Ohio family court judge who pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 days for her role in a judicial corruption scheme. The hosts break down what happened, why it matters, and what it reveals about systemic issues in courts across the country — including right in their own backyard of Louisville, Kentucky. What We Cover The Calabrese Case: A sitting domestic relations judge in Cleveland who repeatedly appointed a personal friend — and his daughter's company — as receivers in divorce cases, funneling over half a million dollars to that firm. The Cover-Up: Staffers were ordered to delay and withhold public records requests to let the scandal "blow over." She also allegedly manipulated which cases were assigned to her docket. The Sentence: 60 days — the hosts debate whether this is justice or a slap on the wrist, and whether her political dynasty family connections played a role in the lenient outcome. The RICO Question: Christine argues this constitutes an organized criminal syndicate. Both hosts question why federal prosecutors haven't been more aggressive. The Family Dynasty: Calabrese came from one of Ohio's most prominent political families — including Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and the mayor of Cleveland — and was reportedly the first woman in the family elected to public office. The Broader Pattern: What's the legal line between a judge appointing someone they know (because they're reliable and available) versus criminal cronyism? Hugh and Trey explore where that line is — and where it's clearly being crossed in Louisville. Louisville Parallels: Christine details a pattern she sees locally — judges appointing former staff, campaign attorneys, business managers, and even their tenants as GALs, FOCs, parenting coordinators, and custodial evaluators — with no statutory requirement to do so. What You Should Ask Your Attorney: If your attorney regularly receives court appointments from the judge on your case, they may be unwilling to challenge bad rulings in order to protect that financial relationship. Ask the hard questions before you hire someone. The Photo: A post circulating in Louisville showing a sitting judge, a sitting GAL/FOC, attorneys, and a court-appointed custodial evaluator socializing together — captioned "May in one word: flourishing." Key Takeaways A judge was actually prosecuted and sentenced to jail time for appointment-based corruption. That matters. "This is how we always do it here" is not a legal defense. Disclosure. Disclosure. Disclosure. If the relationships aren't a problem, why hide them? Receivers, GALs, FOCs, parenting coordinators — these appointments are discretionary, not mandatory. And that discretion is ripe for abuse. Ask your attorney about their relationships with opposing counsel and the judge. Resources & Links 🌐 Website: judge-y.com 📲 Download the app: Judge-y — empowering you to rate and review judges for judicial accountability and transparency 📣 Follow us: @Judgingthejudges LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns. JudgeMental Podcast is produced by Trey & Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system.

    27 min

  2. 5d ago

    EP 107 Slap of the Wrist, Hold the Slap

    JudgeMental Podcast – EP 107: "Slap on the Wrist, Hold the Slap" In this episode, Christine and Trey dig into one of the most jaw-dropping examples of judicial misconduct to make headlines recently: a federal judge who was caught having sex in her chambers — loudly, repeatedly — while her law clerks were forced to listen. And when investigators came knocking? She lied. All of it, behind closed doors, with a private reprimand and her name protected. What we cover: The anatomy of the federal judge scandal: sex in chambers, lying to investigators, attending partisan fundraisers, and a 22-page private reprimand that amounts to... apology letters Why the Judicial Conduct Commission's handling of this mirrors the worst of law enforcement self-policing — and why that era is ending The jaw-dropping power imbalance on law clerks: $200K in debt, trying to change the world, forced to be complicit in their boss's cover-up The Chrisley connection: Judge Eleanor Ross presided over the Chrisley sentencing, and Todd Chrisley is now calling for full impeachment Blackmail risk: The investigators themselves flagged how this conduct opened a federal judge and a high-ranking law enforcement official to exploitation — by anyone from opposing counsel to organized crime Why other judges who knew and said nothing are part of the problem The brewing wave: documentaries in production, algorithms catching up, legislators who know the names but haven't found it politically advantageous to act — yet Next episode: the judge who got 60 days (yes, really) Download Judge-y now and rate the judges yourself: judge-y.com Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    26 min

  3. Jun 5

    EP 106 – Dry Friday

    EP 106 – Dry Friday | The JudgeMental Podcast In this episode, Hugh and Christine skip the midday cocktails for sparkling water — because the topic is too heavy (and their afternoon schedules too packed) to drink through it. A journalist's question about whether their reporting has done more good than bad sends them into a wide-ranging, candid conversation about judicial accountability, the family court system, and the real-world consequences of their work. In this episode: Has the JudgeMental Podcast done more good than harm? Christine and Trey wrestle with the impact of nearly two years of reporting on family courts — the progress made, the cases they worry about, and the moments they've considered quitting. The 180-Day Mom update: Jason Bowman's 26A was denied in a one-page order that, in their view, failed to engage with the substance of what was filed. Christine and Trey share their frustrations. Judges restricting court access: Are courts becoming more closed as a direct response to public scrutiny? Trey has noticed a trend — fewer Zoom hearings, tighter access — and worries about their role in that. When judges won't accept your agreement: A deep dive into the maddening phenomenon of parties reaching full agreement, only to have a judge demand a hearing anyway — and what that costs litigants financially and emotionally. The Bridgeman case: An update on where things stand, and why the absence of a filed response has Christine puzzled. Tiffany Yahr: A listener asks about her background as a CPS attorney and what that might mean for her judicial philosophy. Attorney clarification: Christine walks back any implication that using FOCs and GALs is inherently problematic — distinguishing between criticism of the system and criticism of attorneys doing their jobs within it. Judge Judy + Norm Macdonald: Apparently this interview exists and Trey had no idea. Christine has posted it 100 times. Filing complaints against judges: A listener's comment raises an excellent point — if the complaint process requires confidentiality, what's the enforcement mechanism if you speak anyway? Monica Meredith is on the ballot in November. Christine plans to attend a Louisville family court community meeting this summer. The UK connection: Christine gets a live submission mid-episode from someone saying the same issues are happening across the Atlantic. Rate and review judges at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges for updates. Download the Judge-y app to research judicial backgrounds before you vote. LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    39 min

  4. Jun 3

    EP 105 Pants on Fire

    JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 105: Pants on Fire Can a Friend of the Court (FOC) lie to the parties they're investigating? That's the provocative question at the center of this episode, and the answer may surprise — or concern — you. Hosts Christine and Trey dig into the legal and ethical landscape surrounding FOCs in Michigan family court, drawing parallels to law enforcement's well-established right to use deception during investigations. The conversation covers the landmark Morgan v. Getter (2012) case that created the distinction between Guardians ad Litem (GALs) and Friends of the Court, and explores how the FOC role has expanded far beyond its original intent. Topics Covered: Can FOCs use deception as an investigative tactic, the way law enforcement can? The Morgan v. Getter (2012) ruling and the GAL vs. FOC distinction Why experienced attorneys prep clients to treat FOC interviews like police interrogations — and why pro se litigants are most at risk Judges ordering parties not to record FOC interactions — and whether that's even lawful How "buddy tactics" by FOCs can mislead both parties before a report is issued Paid supervisors and no-recording contracts during supervised parenting time The systemic pattern: nothing reported on JudgeMental has ever turned out to be an isolated incident Why FOC appointments have exploded in family court — and the problems that creates Key Takeaways: Treat every interaction with an FOC as if they are building a case against you — tell the truth, keep your story consistent, and take notes on everything said to you. Ask your attorney about attending FOC interviews with you. Stay connected with the Judge-y community at judge-y.com and follow @Judgingthejudges for updates, submissions, and ongoing coverage of family court accountability. Download the Judge-y app to stay informed and connected. LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    31 min

  5. Jun 1

    EP 104 Groundhog Day

    JudgeMental Podcast – EP 104: Groundhog Day In this episode, Christine and Trey return from a brief hiatus to dig into appellate decisions — a shift in focus driven by the volume of community submissions asking them to investigate judges with high reversal rates. They explain why looking at published (and unpublished) Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions is one of the clearest ways to show, in black and white, what's going wrong in family courts across the country. The Case: CL v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) The hosts break down a published Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion out of Lewis Family Court involving Judge Jeffrey Preston — a circuit judge presiding over multiple counties who has been reversed or vacated 38 times. The case, which Christine and Hugh flag as a "statement opinion," involves a mother who: Reported suspected sexual abuse of her four children (as a mandatory reporter under Kentucky law) Was penalized by the judge for making those very reports, which he characterized as false Had her parenting time reduced to a weekly video phone call for approximately eight months Was effectively "diagnosed" with a substance abuse disorder and mental illness by social workers and the judge — with no testimony from any qualified mental health professional Key Issues Addressed by the Court of Appeals: Improper judicial notice – The judge referenced testimony and evidence from a separate domestic violence case involving the same parties without properly introducing it into the record, denying the parties the ability to examine or challenge it. Credibility determinations – The judge made early findings about the mother's truthfulness and applied them wholesale throughout the case. Inferences stacked on inferences – The Court of Appeals found no factual basis in the record for the judge's findings; instead, they were built on a chain of unsubstantiated inferences. Unqualified mental health findings – Kentucky law requires attestation by a qualified mental health professional before such findings can be made. No such professional testified. Mandatory reporting punished – The mother did exactly what the law required. The Court of Appeals acknowledged she acted as a protective parent. No finding of risk of harm – The level of parenting time restriction imposed required a specific finding of risk of harm, which the record could not support. Bigger Themes: The outsized, largely unchecked discretion of family court judges — and why oversight matters How "one family, one court" can become a vehicle for judicial overreach in small communities Why people don't report domestic violence or abuse (and what this case illustrates about those fears) The phenomenon of judges who are reversed repeatedly on the same issues with no meaningful accountability Why the publication of this opinion may itself be a message from the Court of Appeals The argument for jury trials in family court as a structural check on judicial power Christine and Trey also give a shout-out to the trial attorney in this case — whoever preserved the record so meticulously that the appeal succeeded — and invite that attorney to reach out. Next Episode: A special Judge-y community Q&A, with one standout question getting a full episode devoted to it. Resources & Links: Visit us at judge-y.com Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to submit judges for review, ask community questions, and stay connected Case discussed: CL v. Commonwealth, 653 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2022) — will be posted on the website and shared on socials LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    32 min

  6. May 22

    EP 103 Sun's Out, Beers Out

    EP 103: Sun's Out, Beers Out The JudgeMental Podcast About the Show The JudgeMental Podcast is brought to you by Hugh and Christine — two lawyers determined to save the system through judicial accountability and transparency. Find us on judge-y.com | Follow us: @Judgingthejudges | Download the app: Judge-y Episode Summary Christine is live from sunny Florida (with a Peroni in hand) and Trey is fresh off a Miami trip. This episode is packed — from a deep dive into Judge Lauren Ogden's repeated due process violations to breaking developments in the Matt Bevin case, plus a lively community discussion about FOC Jim Murphy and what accountability in the family court system should actually look like. In This Episode 🍺 What Are We Drinking? Trey: Country Boy Nacho Bait with orange Christine: Peroni (and yes, Publix is currently running a buy-one-get-one-free on six-packs — don't miss it) ⚖️ Judge-y Community Q&A This segment is made possible by the Judge-y app — all questions are 100% anonymous. Download the app at judge-y.com or search *Judge-y in your app store.* Q: Has Judge Lauren Ogden ever faced any consequence or JCC reprimand for the multiple Court of Appeals reversals finding she violated due process? The short answer: No. None. Not a single public or private JCC complaint or reprimand that Christine has been able to find. Despite the Court of Appeals repeatedly — and emphatically — telling Judge Ogden she cannot strip litigants of their constitutionally protected due process rights without a hearing, there have been zero formal consequences. Christine and Trey explore: Whether attorneys who read those appellate opinions have an ethical obligation under the "big brother" rule to file a bar complaint Why the Louisville Family Bar's rallying around Judge Ogden may be emboldening further violations The stark contrast between judges who once acknowledged and corrected appellate reversals in open court versus the attitude that prevails today Why the absence of media coverage is staggering — it's not Christine or Trey saying these things. It's the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. 📰 Breaking: Matt Bevin Case Update The Bevin divorce case — which has attracted coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Courier-Journal, Louisville Public Media, WDRB, and WLKY — continues to develop. Christine pulled the docket live during recording: May 7th: The Kentucky Supreme Court issued its order No motion to reconsider was filed by the deadline Sentencing scheduled: May 29th at 4:00 PM Full-day child support hearing set: July 28th The case centers on whether a nearly-adult child (who filed for intervention at approximately age 17) can intervene in his parents' divorce and seek child support — a legal question with no clear Kentucky precedent. Christine and Trey debate: Why a full-day hearing is warranted given undisclosed financial documentation and the novel legal issues at stake The mechanics of imputing income when a party refuses to produce financials Why this case, regardless of who the parties are, has the potential to fundamentally reshape family law in Kentucky — and possibly beyond A message to the "Country Club followers": Your kids are coming for your money. Call your legislators. Let's get family court reform. 📣 Judge-y Community Thread: FOC Jim Murphy The Judge-y community — anonymous, candid, and growing — has a lot to say about Friend of the Court Jim Murphy. Highlights from the thread: Multiple accounts of Murphy stating he "can't weigh in" per Adair v. Zimberton, only to offer recommendations minutes later when prompted by the judge Concerns about his presence at motion hours where FOCs are not permitted to testify Questions about billing transparency — Murphy has reportedly described himself as "terrible at issuing bills" and doesn't bill for everything he does A community member spotted him being paged by a judge in one case while he'd already left for another The Adair v. Zimberton Case (in under 45 seconds): The Court of Appeals ruled that a judge cannot allow a Friend of the Court to provide third-party hearsay testimony — without those parties being cross-examined — in a family court proceeding. The FOC must be sworn in, and opposing counsel must have the ability to cross-examine. This is not a gray area. It is settled law. Christine and Trey raise the question: when a judge encourages a violation of both statute and clear appellate precedent, who bears greater responsibility — the judge or the FOC? 💡 The "Kiddo" Problem An observation that generated real discussion: FOCs and GALs who refer to the children in their cases as "kiddo" rather than by name. Christine and Trey break down why this matters: It signals a lack of preparation and case familiarity It depersonalizes the very children whose lives are at stake It sets a tone — and younger attorneys watching motion hour absorb that tone "Words matter. The judges set this tone. And it all comes from the top." — Trey Barrow 🔧 What Would Actually Fix This? Christine and Trey's practical legislative ask: require GALs and FOCs to submit itemized billing — even quarterly. No investigation required. The data speaks for itself. This is not a partisan issue. It's an accountability issue. And a standing call to action: if anyone has an itemized bill from FOC Patience Fitzpatrick on any GAL or FOC appointment, Christine wants to see it. Your identity will be protected. 📲 Connect With Us Website: judge-y.com Social: @Judgingthejudges App: Download Judge-y — submit questions anonymously, join community threads, and message Christine directly (community members only) LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    54 min

  7. May 18

    EP 102 Anyone There?

    JudgeMental Podcast – EP 102 Anyone There? In this episode, Christine and Trey dive into a pair of eye-opening stories from Louisville's Jefferson Family Court — covering judicial conduct, courtroom accountability, and the evolving landscape of family law in Kentucky. Story 1: Judge Derwin Webb Conducts Hearing With Camera Off Christine and Trey discuss a troubling report out of Louisville Family Court: Judge Derwin Webb allegedly conducted a remote hearing with his camera turned off for the entire duration — leaving a pro se mother alone in a courtroom, facing blank TV screens, with no visual of the judge at any point. Key discussion points: The hearing took place on a Friday before Mother's Day; the litigant was a pro se mom The FOC (Friend of the Court) in the case was Jim Murphy; the FOC report was filed timely Questions raised: Was the judge paying attention? Could the parties confirm who was even on the line? Was there an option to reschedule? Christine notes she was able to independently verify the incident through multiple sources and has requested the recording Trey acknowledges judges can legitimately appear remotely in emergencies — but argues that conducting a hearing without a camera on raises serious concerns about judicial engagement, accountability, and due process Both hosts emphasize that an elected official conducting official court business must be visible to the parties Christine makes clear: If we're wrong, we will issue a full apology and retraction. Story 2: The Bridgeman Case Transferred to Division 8 – Judge Brian Gatewood Presides The high-profile Bridgeman custody case — involving a mother married into a billionaire family who lost access to her children via a 60-page FOC report — has been transferred from Judge Lauren Ogden to Division 8, now before Judge Brian Gatewood. Key discussion points: A motion to vacate Judge Ogden's order suspending the mother's parenting time was filed, arguing a violation of constitutional rights The case was held up for approximately five months after the circuit clerk allegedly failed to timely certify and transmit a 26A to the Kentucky Supreme Court (hosts note this is an allegation from one side) At motion hour, Judge Gatewood asked whether there was an FOC in the case — despite the FOC being listed on the pre-ruling and the motion to vacate being centered on the FOC report Both hosts discuss the issue of judges' pre-rulings being issued by staff rather than the judges themselves A conversation about attorney conduct: one of dad's attorneys made statements as if testifying to facts, rather than properly attributing them to their client Christine also flags two broader concerns raised by this case: The failure to ensure the mother had parenting time on Mother's Day — something she says old-school judges would never have tolerated The boundary between attorney and witness, and what happens when counsel makes factual representations without proper attribution Also Discussed: The growing community of court watchers monitoring Jefferson Family Court hearings — and why Christine encourages it Motion hour culture in Jefferson County: the pros, the cons, and whether it should be abolished entirely The importance of Adair v. Emberton limits on FOC testimony A formal on-air retraction/apology to Judge Lauren Ogden for an error in a prior post (Christine clarifies: Ogden attended a fundraiser at a litigant's home weeks before the June 25 date previously cited, not on that specific date — while the case was still pending and an order was outstanding) Submit to Judge-y: Have a submission? Head to the Judge-y community at judge-y.com to submit anonymously. Submissions are completely anonymous — Christine cannot see who submitted. All active investigations are sourced from the Judge-y community. Follow along on social: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to stay connected, submit tips, and engage with the community. LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    42 min

  8. May 15

    EP 101 Lame

    JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 101 Lame This week, Christine and Trey pick up where they left off, diving deeper into the ongoing saga of Kentucky's family court system. Over Coors Light (and a LaCroix), they break down the latest developments in some of the most-watched cases in the Judge-y community — and pull no punches. What's Covered This Episode: Judicial Conduct Commission & Bar Association Transparency The duo continues their conversation about whether the Judicial Conduct Commission and the Kentucky Bar Association have the authority to silence non-members and impose confidentiality on complaints. Trey and Christine question the stated purpose of such rules — and wonder if the honest answer is simply protecting judges and attorneys from public scrutiny. They argue for more transparency and note that defamation laws already exist as a check on false public statements. Case Updates: Mommy Jail Mom & 180-Day Mom Mommy Jail Mom: Lauren Ogden recused. The case has been transferred to Division 2 (Judge Shelley Santry). No significant litigation has occurred since the transfer. 180-Day Mom: Still in Christine Ward's (Division 6) court. Motions were filed but not electronically received. A hearing has been set. Christine and Trey break down a motion hour in which Judge Ward made pointed comments to the newly-entering attorney about his client's desire for a speedy resolution — despite the attorney having a legitimate scheduling conflict. Both hosts find the remarks unnecessary and tone-deaf to the realities of solo and small-firm practice. Division 6 & Attorney Reluctance In a surprising turn, Christine reveals that many Louisville attorneys are reluctant to take cases in Division 6 — which Trey finds puzzling given what he describes as relative predictability in that court compared to others. Matt Bevin Case & 26A Motions A quick explainer on 26A motions (motions to disqualify a judge): Judge Angela Johnson recently issued an order declining to recuse herself, sending the matter back up to the Supreme Court of Kentucky for a final determination. Christine and Trey discuss whether the order was over-explained and what it might signal. Family Court Orders: A Hall of Shame From "pirate orders" with incomprehensible grammar to the opposite extreme of a Derwin Webb four-sentence ruling after a four-day hearing, Christine and Trey share war stories about the quality (or lack thereof) of family court orders — and the rare, genuinely impressive exception. Judicial Candor Gone Wrong Christine shares a never-before-told story about Derwin Webb telling her mid-case how he planned to rule — and then ruling the opposite way. Trey follows up with his own story involving a federal judge who fell asleep during a hearing, called to apologize, implied Trey's case was a winner, and then ruled against him entirely. Conflict of Interest Teaser Christine posed a legal ethics question on the Judge-y socials about conflicts of interest for attorneys who represent other attorneys — and the response was overwhelming. They'll dig into it in a future episode. Stay Connected: Follow the Judge-y community and case updates at judge-y.com Follow on social media: @Judgingthejudges Download the Judge-y app to stay up to date on cases and community discussions LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

    28 min
See All (107)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
18 Ratings

About

The JudgeMental Podcast features two attorneys, Hugh and Christine, who bring over three decades of combined litigation experience to the mic. Now venturing into a bold new initiative—"Judge-y", a website and soon-to-be app—they aim to give lawyers and litigants a platform to evaluate judges and promote accountability within the judiciary.

Information

  • Creator
    Christine Miller, Hugh Barrow
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    107
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Copyright 2026 Christine Miller, Hugh Barrow
  • Show Website
    The JudgeMental Podcast

You Might Also Like