Ben, I hope we were using the sarcastic hat for that post.

Correction:

Judge Judith Sheindlin IS a real judge but she is working on a TV show in a fake courtroom. That doesn't take away the fact that she is a judge though.

FTFY.

Does that mean she has to sell her personal jet and give up her 4 year $100 million Dollar contract?

Isn't Judge Judy the one that rules on "common sense" instead of the law?

Please show up post.

Wow, really? That whole disclaimer at the end of the show that states that it's not a real court didn't give it away?

Gosh... I really hope you didn't actually believe that this had anything at all to do with the "real" legal system. Tell me you're kidding.

... or that you're 9 years old.

... and learning disabled.

... and legally blind.

... and entirely cut off from the outside world.

Tell me that and I'll forget this happened.

So while the cases and people may be real, the courts could be held on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise and still have the same effect.

No, it would be more awesome.

@zephyr_words: hehe, you beat me to it. :)

All the "Judge" shows are technically arbitration. I think the small print says that the litigants also do not pay if they lose - as compensation for being on the show I think the show pays! I will do some research and update that later to tell you my findings.

Haha, looks like they edited the post title now; that's good.

I hate those shows, if I want to see white trash, and black ghetto stereotypes I will go back to Detroit.

My hope is that anyone who believes that these "judge" shows are real don't ever end up on a jury. I hope that the system would wash them out.

My sister was on Judge Judy many, many years ago. It is exactly as described previously. She had to drop her small claims case and agree to whatever Judge Judy decided. Fortunately, she won, and the show paid her, because we knew collecting from that asshat ex-fiancee of hers would be difficult.

@ SHAN6
Way to represent for the D. Enjoy your time in Ohio, asshat.

While it's not a real court, JJ can still make life pretty miserable for the most stupid of participants--how often do folks expose themselves as welfare/disability cheats or abusive & incompetent parents by agreeing to participate in order to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the system?

JJ is not shy about throwing these folks to the lions (CPS, Social Security, etc.)

@Rectilinear Propagation: I would totally watch a court show if it were held on the Enterprise. Also, it should be bound to Federation law, Picard should be the judge, Worf the bailiff, and Kirk the commentator.

@zephyr_words: word.

Most judges will just shut up and not give you warnings when you're wrong, they'll just kick you out.

@belisle: No.

I think it is a stretch to call "Judge Judy" arbitration.

A more apt description would be to call it a game show with a really crotchety hostess. Neither party pays a cent.

Anyways, people actually thought these were actual legal proceedings?!?!?!?

We're so screwed.

Also, a show like this on the bridge of the Enterprise would add about 130% more awesome.

Looks like the headline here differs from the RSS feed! I thought it was obvious that [i]all[/i] these court shows were just arbitrations, going all the way back to the original People's Court.

These guys/gals often don't follow the law, and base their decisions on what "feels right." Back when I was a kid I learned never to agree to this type of arrangement when Judge Wapner tore a landlord a new one because he'd (properly) put bleach into his well. Rather than checking his facts, he (wrongly) found for the plaintiff.

I want to note other facts some may not realize. It is the litigants free choice to go on Judge Judy, if you want real courtroom procedures do not agree to arbitration. Further, in real small claims court many times the disagreement goes to arbitration. Small claims courts often do not have enough resources to hear every case so the litigants often agree to arbitration to expedite the adjudication of their dispute.

You guys just figured this out?

Welcome to the 20th century.

Oops, forgot to mention, these are even more funny on the Spanish channels, because there are a lot of illegal situations that are inherent with the Latino version of the typical trash that end up on these shows! Course you gotta know Spanish, and sometimes you have to be able to understand those wacky Caribbean accents.

@UCLAJason:

I thought they were frog marched into Judge Judy's "courtroom" at gun point.

(KIDDING!!) HA!!

Gosh, it never occured to me that people were really dumb enough to think this was actually a court!

Of course it is arbitration. The major attraction here is that no one who 'looses' is ever out 1 cent, the show pays the award not the looser.

Next thing you know, we're gonna see a post saying that wrestling is (gasp!) fake.

At least Jerry Springer's guest are real-life people with real-life troubles just like the rest of us? Doesn't everyone have a trailer park where the neighbor's boyfriend had a sex-change operation and married her daughter? That's *real.*

@Clutch414:
I thought so to.

I think we should appreciate these shows for the comedy they are. You have people who go in there and think they can sue for the stupidest things or that they don't have to pay for the stupidest reasons.

The concern is that in making syndi-courts look like real courts, they can warp potential jurors attitudes about how a court case should be conducted.

I recall reading an article a long way back about how cops and lawyers were worried that CSI would influence potential jurors' ideas about what kind of evidence they should be able to present.

However, I'm not sure how it would effect the outcome of a case if the jury is expecting the judge to yell at the litigants but get a judge that keeps their calm.

The "contract of adhesion" term is a little misleading in this scenario. This isn't a situation where an arb clause is a part of an ordinary consumer contract, presented as a "take it or leave it" deal.

Arbitration is the whole point of the contract in this case, so it's pretty hard to argue that someone was "forced to go to arbitration" in exchange for . . . agreeing to arbitrate a dispute.

Since the show pays the award (and the award is capped), it's a pretty nice deal for someone willing to be humilated on TV.

@Rectilinear Propagation: The CSI syndrome is a very real worry among trial lawyers. I'm not sure I agree, but there is a lot of hand-wringing around cases that don't have a lot of fancy scientific evidence, regardless of how strong the "traditional" evidence (witnesses, documents, etc).

Guys, Ben is making this up. It's NOT true! Say it's not TRUE!! Judge Judy IS REAL! Hold on, my meds are kicking in.....

I was almost on Judge Joe Brown and its the same thing - they pay appearance fees to both parties, and the court agrees to pay the settlement if there is one - its basically a win win for both parties so there's an incentive to appear. As one commenter said, no one is forcing anyone to appear, so the normal Consumerist gripes about arbitration don't really apply here.

this is old news. anyone who thought court t.v. is real, just watches too much t.v.

I can't believe this was actually posted. I don't know who should be more embarrassed: the author for writing it, or us for somehow giving the author the impression we are complete and utter fools.

You guys aren't so good with sarcasm, are you? It's the hot new thing on the interwebs, don'tcha know? Though that mutiny post - that was totes serious, for serious.

@notallcompaniesarebad: I think Ben should be embarrassed for giving his readers too much credit.

Actually, if Ben's guilty of anything, it's burying the lede. I mean, really, really, really burying it. The operative part of this post is the final sentence.

Just wanted to echo that Judge Judy WAS a judge in the New York family court system for over 24 years; she was asked to be on the TV show as "arbitration judge" after she retired in 1996.

As to warping potential jurors attitudes, it's a serious leap from small claims court where litigants represent themselves and the decision lies solely with the judge, to a full-on jury trial.

If your argument was saying that Court/Crime Drama Shows like Law And Order, Boston Legal, and Shark can warp potential jurors attitudes about how a court case should be conducted, then I would say Spot On. Add to that... the TV Drama versions are always more interesting and entertaining then their real life counterparts shown on Court TV and the news.

Would you rather watch 2 hours of Law and Order or two hours of the Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson trials? Which one would make you want to sign up for Jury Duty?

Personally, I'm disheartened that there are so many court shows on TV these days. These "game shows" have become somewhat of a dark reflection of our litigious nature.

@FightOnTrojans: The only "good" reason to ever go on one of these "Court" shows is when one party simply can't/won't pay; and the only chance of getting your money is through essentially an "appearance fee"; and you're in a situation where you need the money.

Otherwise, take your chances on a game show where at least you know in advance whether or not it's a "humiliate the contestants" game.

Actually I thought the judgement portion was just a little bit different.

From what I've read, both parties receive payment for their appearance. However any judgement made by JJ is subtracted from the losing parties' appearance fee. It's listed after the closing credits on the show.

Also if you listen closely you'll notice that Byrd says something like'Your honor this is case #10488 on the calendar... please be seated'. In a real court, like Law and Order, it would be a docket not a calendar.

@D.B. Cooper-Nichol:

Thanks for mentioning that "Contract of Adhesion" is the wrong terminology to be used, it was irking me a bit. A common definition is:

adhesion contract
n.(contract of adhesion) a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.

From: [dictionary.law.com]

Why wasn't the differentiation between arbitration and court picked up on? It seems a quick call to the program or even looking at wikipedia would have helped. [en.wikipedia.org]

Good link to the aba website however

I guess I just don't see the appeal of watching Judge Judy. Now watching that chick on Maury who has brought in 47 guys trying to find her baby's daddy? That is good TV!

This is precisely how The People's Court was, too. That's also why Judge Wapner's name plate said "Ret." at the end.

Besides, most courts won't allow cameras or recording devices (except their own), so it hardly seems likely that there'd be one that agreed to show all cases. And besides, most courts, even small claims courts, have daily dockets longer than a half hour.

Btw, the arbitrator is bound by rules determined by the parties (through choice of institution or contract) enforced by contract law.

You could have rules of evidence if you contracted for them, but it would defeat the point in some regards.

Moreover, consumers should be aware that there are many types of alternative dispute resolution, including ones that do not give up rights.

A good summary of the options that consumers can find in contracts and life can be found here: [www.abanet.org]

You people really should see the clip of writer/performer Harmon Leon scamming Judge Joe Brown. And Leon's writing about scamming judge shows in LA is gold.

I wrote about the Judge Joe scam on my day job's blog, a network that doesn't show the fakey stuff, although people often confuse the two.

[blog.courttv.com]

Disclosure: I already said the above link was from my day job, but it's really awesome, honest.

My clients who had small claims court cases used to get calls all the time from the TV Courts asking them to remove their cases to the TV.

The staffers flip through the files at the court houses finding "fun" cases.

Honestly, if you don't mind being on the TV it's not a bad deal for the parties. Plaintiff's get their money and Defendant's aren't out any.

Here is someone who has really strong beliefs about Judge Judy and the fact that the show is not a real court:
[judgejudyisascam.com]

@zephyr_words: She used to be a judge, now she is a TV personality.

Ben: Were you joking? It says so every time it comes on.