What happens if a case goes to trial in Judge Lambert's court

In my previous blog post I indicated how Judge John F. Lambert conferences cases to death to force settlements upon litigants, potentially through financially draining them by having to pay their counsel to appear for the endless conferences that they did not ask for.

Yet, when people actually go to trial in Judge Lambert's court, what happens is that a decision may be produced where the judge does not even care to articulate parties right clear enough for the appellate court to understand them.

If the appellate court does not understand the parties' rights, surely the parties cannot either, and not every case from Family Court goes to the Appellate Division, many people simply give up or cannot afford to appeal, so there may be a lot more cases out there like this one.

It is a shame, because when Judge Lambert started out, I could see he was making efforts to be fair.  Then, increasingly, he became snappy and disrespectful to litigants and attorneys - apparently, learning from his judicial colleagues and from the concept of judicial immunity that allows judges in the State of New York and in this country to do anything they want on the bench, with complete lack of accountability.

What is also alarming about this judge is the rate of reversals.  There are simply too many recently:

April 3, 2014 - People v Fancher, a partial reversal;

July 3, 2014 - Town of Delhi v Telian, a reversal on the law (there were valid points for the defendant Telian, but not pertaining to standing to sue, but, as far as I know, pertaining to the fact that defendant was not the owner of the property that was subject to code enforcement at the time of alleged violations, but that issue does not seem to be discussed in the appellate decision);

January 8, 2015 - Beardslee v. Beardslee, a modification on the law for failure to allow the defendant in a divorce proceedings credit for separate property contributed toward marital debt;

January 22, 2015 - People v Tubbs, a reduction of sex offender level from III to II for improper attribution of factors;

June 4, 2015 - Dumond v Ingraham, reversal on the law.

FIVE reversals or modifications in the last year?  Is Judge Lambert getting sloppy in his work? No wonder he tries to conference litigants to death - possibly fearing yet another reversal or modification on appeal which will reflect badly upon his judicial reputation?

It is a pity what is happening. 

Once again, at the beginning of his career Judge Lambert was visibly trying to be a good and a fair judge. 

I am a witness to how Judge Lambert had the courage and decency in one of the cases I tried in front of him to acknowledge the error in law that he made at the previous day of trial in his ruling, saving the parties time and effort to have to appeal the ruling (admission of hearsay evidence in child protective proceedings at the fact-finding hearing).  I know that attorneys present in that case greatly appreciated such judicial candor, as did I.  I only respected Judge Lambert more for that correction.

Yet, I also know that, as Judge Lambert's career developed, he became increasingly snappy against attorneys and parties, including, sadly, as far as I know, being rude to female attorneys who are older than the judge (and I do not mean myself), and increasingly sloppy in his rulings.

As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I wonder whether there is still potential for Judge Lambert to return to where he started his judicial career - by trying to be fair to people and diligent in application of the law.

For the sake of the people appearing in front of Judge Lambert, I hope there is still such a potential.