Source: http://therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1196
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:46:42+00:00

Document:
A man this bereft in intellect and basic human decency has no business being a federal judge in the United States of America.
This is the worst judge that I have been before in 30 years of practice. He can neither control nor hide his bias.
It seems that he likes the banks and hates pro se litigants. He is friendly with the defendants' counsel. Our family wanted to believe that justice would prevail, so even though we could not afford a team of fraud attorneys, we filed suit so that our time would not run out. Retainers were financially impossible for us, unless we had decided to become homeless. Throughout the four years of our case, Judge Norgle turned a consumer protection statute into a weapon for predatory lenders and loan servicers, and even allowed continuing blatant violations against us, and the defendants' obvious lies, to permeate the proceedings. We were forced into bankruptcy on top of it all. He had the power to save us and our children and failed to do so. I feel that we were subjected to a hostile and biased court, and that many of his orders were plainly wrong and unfair. His rulings in our case have already been cited by the predators and will damage many families in the future, no doubt.
The Seventh Circuit has collectively weighed in on Judge Norgle better than any lawyer ever could. His handling of the trial of former Chicago City Treasurer Miriam Santos caused the Seventh Circuit to coin the phrase "veritable avalanche of errors." United States v. Santos, 201 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2000). A Lexis search of "norgle" and "circuit rule 36" (meaning the Seventh Circuit re-assigned the case to another judge on remand) turns up 14 cases, including cases not involving new trials (see, e.g., Holmes v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 511 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2007)). Other decisions in Judge Norgle's wall of reversed legal rulings include: Williams v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2013); Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2013); Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, 353 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Robinson, 724 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2013); Schmude v. Sheahan, 420 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005); and Grun v. Pneumo Adex Corp., 163 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 1999). This is but a small sample of rulings where the appeals court has confirmed Judge Norgle's repeated legal errors. The repeated nature of these rulings indicates what can plainly be noticed in Judge Norgle's courtroom -- that he fails to learn from, or to correct, his mistakes. Even more shocking is that a judge with such an extensive record of legal errors teaches law at John Marshall Law School. Any student who wishes to pass the Illinois bar, or function effectively in a courtroom with even a minimally competent trier of fact, is advised to avoid his class -- or, failing that, to disregard nearly everything that he teaches them.
He is a terrible judge.
Judge Charles R. Norgle has an ill-tempered, apparently biased, and angry demeanor. He frequently and unreasonably yells at counsel and persons appearing pro-se, often for issues upon which he has not prepared or checked facts. In my opinion, this Judge is a poor example of the otherwise adequate group of Judges in the Northern District of Illinois.
Extremely hands-off when it comes to managing discovery and moving cases to resolution. Moody and unpredictable.
He's not a Johnny Carson, but he is incredibly fair. He sanctioned me five times in one civil case (FLSA), yet gave me a veryfair trial in a 14 plaintiff spuriou class action before jury. In the same case, he awarded me a fully compensatory fee and wrote a 28 page decision praising my work. He is one of the most misunderstood judges in the district. He insists on following the law to the letter, so you better have a good case to begin with. When you win a civil rights case, he won't deprive you of a reasonable fee, unlike some judges. I've tried three cases to verdict in his courtroom and was treated fairly, but I had to tow the line. You can't ask for more. Der-Yeghiyan is the worst judge in the district, not Judge Norgle.
He is a judge that demands respect in his courtroom; however, he can go to extreme during the winter months with using attorneys in the courtroom to pressuring a female pro se plaintiff to remove a knit hat. Otherwise, he uses reprisals in his decisions. That kind of coercive decision making for gaining compliance over getting a litigant to remove her hand-made knit hat is strange when many women today wear wigs, especially Black women. I think it is overreaching into the personal domain of personal choices. But obviously Judge Norgle wanted the hat off, and made several bad decisions.
Even-handed and fair. Moody at times, but right on the law and engaged during argument.
We've had dispositive motions pending for over a year before Judge Norgle with no end in sight. The other side filed a motion that Judge Norgle acknowledged in open court was improper, yet set a briefing schedule on it anyway. The client is furious and there is nothing we can do.
An excellent judge. In the end, my client lost, but the opinion we received was acceptable. Judge Norgle was fair throughout discovery and for the most part insisted that the parties work out petty disputes. Overall a good experience.
Experienced judge that produces well-reasoned opinions. He does run a rather formal courtroom, though I can't imagine why this is a source of complaints.
Runs the most formal courtroom possible; gives each side as much time as needed to argue a point and, sometimes, changes his mind due to arguments of counsel; often misses the point in rulings; while quite dry in demeanor, is actually not a mean person.
Slow and Lazy. Does not understand the law or refuses to apply it. Perfect judge to draw if you are an AUSA.
By far the worst judge in the Northern District. Not only hugely biased, but dumb on top of it. When you draw Norgle for a case, you know your prayers haven't paid off.
His hearings sometimes wandered off the mark at times (you would go into whatever issues the judge wanted to go into, regardless of the motions in front of him), but he followed the law and came up with a reasonable ruling every time.
The best, but most misunderstood, judge in the Northern District of Illinois.
false issues into the case which neither party raised or briefed.
Mean, for no good reason. Would be much better as a county states attorney, in the deep South, before the Civil War.
A lot of experience and does a very good job.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.