Pro Se Litigants, Television

Standard Of Review: Hot Bench Is A Remedy For A Sick Day

Columnist Harry Graff's verdict: Hot Bench is definitely entertaining, but don't go out of your way to watch it.

By  
on

A few months ago, while home sick from work, my body only had sufficient energy to press buttons on my television remote control (and to check my BlackBerry for work emails, of course). Accordingly, I looked into my daytime television options, but I discovered that, even with hundreds of channels, most of what airs during the day is trashy garbage (except reruns of family sitcoms that I enjoyed in the mid-1990s). Therefore, when I found out that the new popular syndicated court show Hot Bench was added to many broadcast markets in late March, I decided to watch three episodes to see if the show is worth your (day)time.

Hot Bench is the brainchild of Judith Scheindlin, better known as Judge Judy. Each episode consists of two small-claims cases heard in front of a panel of three judges — Patricia DiMango, Tanya Acker, and Larry Bakman — who ask rapid-fire questions of the parties and then retire to their chambers for a brief deliberation (emphasis on “brief”) before issuing the verdict. All the parties are pro se, and they occasionally call witnesses and submit physical evidence.

These small-claims cases are undoubtedly “small.” The three episodes I watched consisted of cases involving (among other things) a dog biting a man, a claim for a breach of a contract to breed dogs (for some reason, dogs played a prevalent role in the episodes I watched, which is funny because I actually have been bitten by a stranger’s dog, though sadly in the pre-Hot Bench epoch), a claim for unpaid loans, and a suit for the return of the plaintiff’s belongings after she moved out of the defendant’s apartment (including sixty photo albums!). The show is worth watching if only for the parties’ and witnesses’ sartorial choices; virtually no one is actually dressed properly for “court”; I don’t think I saw a single male wearing a white or blue shirt. One witness actually showed up in a hoodie. Frankly, I was surprised that no one dressed as a member of the Faith Militant from Game of Thrones. I also have absolutely no idea how how these people agreed to resolve their case on this television show instead of in actual court (as I doubt any of the agreements in question contained a Hot Bench clause, though that would be amusing).

The three judges are clearly the stars of the show. Judge DiMango is the only one of the three who has actual experience as a real judge (she was formerly a New York Supreme Court judge in Brooklyn) and it shows, as she has a seemingly never-ending supply of quips, delivered in a thick Brooklyn accent. For example, when one defendant was laughing at the plaintiff, Judge DiMango told him that he needs to go to the “bad person seat.” She tells a different defendant that his defense is “a bunch of baloney” and another pair of defendants that “sometimes we take things because we are vindictive and spiteful people.” The other judges are not as witty but they nevertheless try to play for the cameras; in one episode I saw, Acker kicked one defendant out of the courtroom for making snide comments.

I wish that the show featured more of the judges’ banter with each other. Each “deliberation” is extremely short, sometimes lasting only about a minute. And while it was clear after some deliberations which way the judges were going to vote, in others they just stated that they were ready to vote without showing us the vote itself. There were a few instances where the judges seemed not to agree, but then ten seconds later, they announced a verdict. Hot Bench should make an effort to show more of the voting process, even if the judges are deliberating in front of the parties themselves (to avoid repeating the verdict twice).

Also, even though most people watching daytime television are not champing at the bit for a law lesson (except perhaps bored law students home from class and procrastinating from their reading), I think the show should attempt to provide more explanation of what the law is. For example, in the episode involving the dog bite, the judges kept mentioning “strict liability” without actually explaining what that concept means. In another episode, the judges mention the plaintiff’s burden of proof in abstract terms, but they don’t further elucidate what the plaintiff has to prove. One of the reasons that Shark Tank is such a great reality show is that the sharks constantly impart business lessons as they banter with each other. The Hot Bench judges should follow Shark Tank’s lead and provide more information about the law.

Hot Bench is definitely entertaining, but I would not recommend going out of your way to watch it. If you are home sick in need of entertainment, Hot Bench probably ranks well above Dr. Oz but well below reruns of Boy Meets World (because we all know that the greatest part of being home sick is being able to spend more time with Cory and Topanga).

Sponsored

Harry Graff is a litigation associate at a firm, but he spends days wishing that he was writing about film, television, literature, and pop culture instead of writing briefs. If there is a law-related movie, television show, book, or any other form of media that you would like Harry Graff to discuss, he can be reached at harrygraff19@gmail.com. Be sure to follow Harry Graff on Twitter at @harrygraff19.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , ,