Judge Judy reportedly makes $45 million a year. What kind of legal power comes with it?
JIM RUYMEN/UPI /Landov
While Judith Sheindlin was a real, live judge — New York City Mayor Ed Koch appointed her to criminal court in 1982 and then made her Manhattan’s supervising family court judge in 1986 — she’s not acting as one on her show. Neither are any of the other daytime TV judges (whether they passed the bar and served as actual judges or not).
TV court show sets are designed to look like courtrooms and the judges wear robes, sit on benches, and use gavels. But they’re not court rooms and they’re not real trials presided over by real judges (though they are real cases — the producers often contact parties who have pending litigation in small claims court and offer them the opportunity to appear on TV instead). What you’re seeing on these TV court shows may look like small claims court and quack like small claims court, but it’s really just arbitration playing dress up in small claims court’s clothes.
Arbitration is a legal method for resolving disputes outside the court. The disputing parties present their cases to a neutral, third-party arbitrator or arbitrators who hear the case, examine the evidence, and make a (usually binding) decision. Like a court-based case, arbitration is adversarial, but generally less formal in its rules and procedures.
The power that Judge Judy and the rest of the TV arbitrators have over the disputing parties is granted by a contract, specific to their case, that they sign before appearing on the show. These contracts make the arbitrators’ decision final and binding, prevent the disputing parties from negotiating the terms of the arbitration, and allow the “judges” wide discretion on procedural and evidentiary rules during the arbitration.
From one of Judge Judy’s old contracts: “The Arbitrator’s Decision and her interpretation and application of laws and principles she uses in arriving at the Decision, shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto.”
Court Costs
With jurisdiction over the dispute signed away to them, the TV judges make their decision on the case and either decide for the plaintiff, in which case the show’s producers award them a judgment fee, or with the defendant, in which case the producers award both parties with an appearance fee. This system seems to skew things in favor of the defendants, and gives them an incentive to take their case from court to TV. If they have a weak case, appearing on the show absolves them of any financial liability, and if they have a strong case, they stand to earn an appearance fee along with their victory.
If one party or the other doesn’t like the arbitrator’s decision, that’s too bad. They already signed the agreement. The decision can really only be successfully appealed if it addresses a matter outside the scope of the contract. In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned for that reason by the Family Court of Kings County. In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.
While these court shows can be entertaining, social scientists and legal scholars worry about their effect on viewers’ perception of how courts work and apply justice. In a survey of litigants in small claims court in 1988, the height of popularity of The People’s Court, researchers were shocked by how often the show was mentioned when talking about expectations of the justice system, and suspected that the show may have had a major influence on some people’s decision to even go to court and on the way they prepared their case.
Thanks to reader Marty for suggesting this Big Question.
More from mental_floss…
The Full Details of the Infamous Hot Coffee Lawsuit
*
Who Wrote the Pledge of Allegiance?
*
September 11th and the Hospitable People of Gander, Newfoundland
*
Andrew Jackson’s Big Block of Cheese
*
Who Cleans Up After Seeing Eye Dogs?
Comments (17)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
Can we see the top 10 moments of Judge Judy history?
posted by iambeaker on 1-25-2012 at 2:03 pm
I miss Rusty and Doug.
posted by They Call Me Bruce on 1-25-2012 at 2:22 pm
I don’t understand why anyone would agree to go on that show. Real judges are are required to follow legal precedent and the law, fake TV “judges” do not.
Ms. Sheindlin’s $45 million a year is sufficient motivation for her to make decisions based on good ratings rather than fairness or the law.
posted by Tidomonkey on 1-25-2012 at 2:37 pm
If you ever want to read a great way to get a free trip to LA (courtesy of one of the judges), read “National Lampoon Road Trip USA” by Harmon Leon. It tells you what those shows are really about.
posted by pammythebear on 1-25-2012 at 3:04 pm
So if I’m reading this correctly, if Judge Judy finds for the Plaintiff (against the Defendant), the producers give the Plaintiff the judgement $, and the Defendant is off the hook?
posted by Craig on 1-25-2012 at 3:06 pm
@Craig – the producers take the judgement amount out of your appearance fee. The max amount is usually $5000 and you receive $5000 for appearing, so it’s possible that your entire payment will go to the plaintiff.
posted by Chris on 1-25-2012 at 3:28 pm
So it’s really a no-lose scenario for the litigants. Especially since the vast majority of those cases are for a good bit less than $5000.
posted by Scott Bieser on 1-25-2012 at 4:05 pm
So by agreeing to be on the show and agreeing to the arbitration, the Defendant is essentially relieved of any responsibility to pay anything – they either break even or come out ahead. That’s a pretty sweet deal.
posted by Craig on 1-25-2012 at 4:05 pm
My brother had a friend in the military who was a defendant on one of these shows. He was pumped about it because they found for the plaintiff but he didn’t have to pay a dime. It is a win-win situation for all involved the way I see it.
I wonder if that Divorce Court show worked the same way- as an arbitration?
posted by Brit on 1-25-2012 at 5:33 pm
Sounds like I should trump up some charges against a buddy.
posted by Sabi on 1-25-2012 at 5:40 pm
wow! i knew none of this! i knew people got paid to be on the show – just not that much
posted by Jen on 1-25-2012 at 6:45 pm
I’m sure the different judges on these shows give differing consideration to legal precedence. Marilyn Milian on The People’s Court seems to quote the laws in the litigants’ home states fairly often. Of course, she’s always ready to call someone on their b.s. when she hears it. Besides, who doesn’t enjoy seeing a red-head of Cuban descent tell off someone who needs telling off?
My wife used to watch quite a few of these shows. She stopped after they showed too many cases involving dogs (she’s extremely sensitive when it comes to dogs in distress).
posted by MatthewZD on 1-26-2012 at 12:21 am
My aunt was on Judge Judy! She spoke only when spoken to, kept her mouth shut otherwise, and won her case.
posted by grouchonacouch on 1-26-2012 at 7:52 am
I love watching these shows especially Judge Judy and the peoples court. I knew they had to be paid something and get off the hook for alot of people.. some of them are just idiots. and there is a disclaimer at the end of the show that they are paid.
posted by NINA on 1-26-2012 at 8:03 am
I don’t care what NO ONE says, Judge Judy is hilarious! I could careless what people are on their trying to do, as long as I’m entertained while they are doing it. If you want boredom and justice go to your local courthouse.If you want to watch people get belittled watch Judge Judy.
posted by Just me on 1-26-2012 at 11:30 pm
re: just me….if you like belittling, take a look at your english and grammar…
have you ever looked at a dictionary or read the word syntax ?
I did not think so…..
posted by david on 1-27-2012 at 12:33 pm
$45 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!??? You have got to be kidding? Is that her salary or is there something else? There seems to be a ton of these judge shows where people are willing to go humiliate themselves. How is hers different? Or do they all make that? It just reminds me of the hilarious bit on “Arrested Development” when the they had Judge Reinhold host his Judge Reinhold show.
posted by CvilleJohn on 2-7-2012 at 6:06 am