America's Court with Judge Ross

Why is this show even on the air in select places? Kevin Ross is not a judge anymore and was disbarred by the State Bar of California.

Kevin Ross was a judge in the Los Angeles courts at one time. Unfortunately, he treated his courtroom like his own little kingdom and regularly abused the rights of people coming before him. (Do a Google search for the Los Angeles Times article on this, published Nov. 17, 2005.) He violated so many people's rights, that the Commission on Judicial Performance (California's governing body over Judges in the State) conducted an investigation.

At the end of their investigation, they REVOKED Kevin Ross' judgeship, and the State Bar of California also DISBARRED this guy from ever practicing law in California again.

So now he ends up doing a TV show as a "Judge"?? Not only is that ludicrous, the show is awful. As another reviewer here said, it's legal lite, as though the Judge doesn't have a breadth of the law. Well... he doesn't! Not when he consistently violated the rights of people appearing in his real courtroom when he was a Judge.

Judge Judy is the original and best--in part because she's wicked smart and also because she was sitting in family court in NYC when the rest of the TV judges were in grade school. None of the other TV judges can cross-examine (eviscerate) a witness as well as Judge Judy. Judge Milian (sp) is my second fave and there are a couple of the others (i.e., Judge Alex and Judge Toler) who are okay. But the rest of the TV judges are pretty lame. Either they don't know much law; or they are not smart enough and/or quick enough to make minced meat of the liars who come before them; or they lack sufficient personality (charisma?) to entertain; or they are essentially social workers wearing a black robe and sitting on a bench. Whatever the reason, we could do with fewer of them. That includes Judge Ross. Although he's easy on the eyes, it's painful to watch him discharge his judicial duties, such as they are. Most of the time, when he says "the gavel is going to come down in favor of...," I get the impression that he hasn't even made-up his mind yet. There's a pregnant, expectant pause that screams uncertainty. And his recitation and application of the law are on the light side. Perhaps that doesn't matter on TV. But, then, what's the point?

This show is really good for cringe watching at best. The plaintiffs and defendants are always terrible actors. Interesting reviews on this show are also fun to read. Surely no one thinks this is real.

I have read some of the reviews denigrating this judge and I do not agree at all. I find in most cases he is right on the money: he explains his decisions in detail -explains why he is ruling the way he does. The only downside of the show is that some of the plaintiffs/defendants seem like actors to me: I would hope, like other judge shows, they would use the real people involved in these situations.

Working in the legal profession, I would think his show is a satire. Every ruling is wrong that I've seen. Can't watch this show. His intro claims to educate. It's not on the law, that's for sure. Too bad for losers if it's binding The worst representation of the judical process. Lazy and careless. Best representation of why you need a lawyer.