Judge-y

Welcome

Thu, 15 Oct 2026 17:27:41 GMT

Welcome to Judge-y! We’re Hugh and Christine, the lawyers that created a space to pull back the curtain on the bench, break down the courtroom drama, and shed light on what’s really going on behind closed doors.

Between the two of us, we’ve logged over three decades in litigation, and if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that the legal system only works when there’s true transparency and accountability. We started our show – The JudgeMental Podcast—and created our platform, Judge-y—to give litigants, attorneys, and everyday court-watchers a real voice to evaluate judicial conduct, track rulings, and share their experiences without fear (or providing Big Brother their identifying information)

This is the place where we break down courtroom moments, analyze key appellate reversals, dive into modern legal shifts like remote hearings, and provide commentary of the courtroom happenings, rule changes, and attempts by the judiciary to avoid transparency.

Our goal is simple: to empower you with knowledge before you ever step foot inside a courtroom. Because let’s be honest, knowledge is power!

Bookmark this site, download the Judge-y app and follow along to see Christine and Hugh daily posts ranging from court decisions, court videos, legal analysis, courtroom commentary, Christine’s attempt to avoid looking ugly in her next (it's inevitable at this point 🙂) mugshot, etc.

Thank y’all for your support and for joining the Judge-y movement!

It’s time to JUDGE THE JUDGES!

EP 110 That's All, Folks!

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:00:00 GMT

JudgeMental Podcast – Episode 110: "That's All, Folks!" Episode 110 marks a milestone and a momentary goodbye. The hosts raise a Miller High Life to celebrate reaching 110 episodes — now downloaded in 69 countries in less than one year — before announcing they're stepping back from the podcast to focus on building out their core platform. What's Discussed in This Episode: The Hiatus Announcement Christine and co-hosts explain why they're taking a break: the emotional and logistical toll of the podcast has become unsustainable. Christine opens up about retaliation she's faced, the weight of holding others' trauma without compensation, and the need to reset. The team emphasizes that no content is being removed — the mission is simply shifting focus toward developing the Judge-y app, the website, and the judicial accountability community they've built. "We built what could be a huge movement, and will be. But we don't owe our day-to-day, not sleeping at night." The Bridgeman Case The hosts note that nothing was filed by the GAL in the public record, but that an order has come down and a case management conference is upcoming. Christine raises concerns about matters potentially being handled off the public record via what she describes as a "shadow docket," and calls for transparency. She says the case "gives her the heebie-jeebies," noting the involvement of a high-profile family and the presence of an unidentified individual at a confidential hearing. The Matt Bevin Case A bench warrant was issued after former Governor Matt Bevin appeared remotely at a sentencing hearing despite three explicit notices requiring his in-person attendance. The hosts debate whether the judge's handling — issuing a bench warrant that was recalled upon payment of a $250 fine — was proper enforcement or political theater. Christine argues it was the latter, given that Bevin almost certainly knew he'd just pay the fine. Co-host Trey pushes back, noting the judge was consistent in requiring in-person attendance and was building a proper record for escalating consequences. Attorney Accountability & Complacency A broader conversation emerges about the "pussification of Louisville lawyers" — attorneys who privately complain about judicial misconduct and incompetence but won't file motions, preserve the record, or stand up for their clients. The hosts argue that attorney complacency is one of the biggest systemic problems in family court, noting that attorneys who "play the game" get more court appointments while clients suffer. Prosecutors & The Judicial System The team discusses how prosecutors routinely fail domestic violence victims — including cases where a person admitted on recording to drugging and raping their spouse and still received minimal consequences. Christine argues the problem isn't about gender or race but about unchecked power: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Judge Lauren Ogden & The Social Dynamics of the Bench A candid moment: Christine shares that the only two family court judges she'd "have a beer with" are Angela Johnson and Lori Goodwin. She expresses concern that Judge Johnson may be getting herself into a situation that "could be one to break," while also noting the troubling dynamic of attorneys who trash judges in private but pose for photos with them publicly. Stay Connected & Support the Movement: 📲 Download the Judge-y app and join the community: judge-y.com 🐦 Follow us on social: @Judgingthejudges 💬 Share your story — all submissions are confidential 🛒 Buy merch to support the show 💰 Community membership is $10/month — if you genuinely can't afford it, email Christine directly to discuss a waiver 🎙️ Share old episodes with friends, legislators, and anyone who cares about judicial accountability All episodes remain available. The team will make announcements about future plans on their website and social channels. LEGAL DISCLAIMER The content of this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the hosts, guests, or their firms. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any law firm, company, or organization. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or applicability of the information presented. Any reliance on the information in this podcast is at your own risk. Laws are constantly changing, and every situation is unique. You should always seek the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific legal concerns.

EP 03 - S-Y-B-A-U

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 09:00:00 GMT

In this episode, attorneys Hugh and Christine discuss the community feedback from the bet. The hosts take a critical look at delays and the length of time it takes for courts to enter orders. These have real life consequences for the constituents that the judges' were elected to represent. Christine poses questions about a local family court judge that has a personal podcast, yet takes months to issue an order. The episode concludes with a discussion of practicing in city courts vs the county court in Kentucky.

Ep 02 - The Bet Conclusion

Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:00:00 GMT

In this episode, the hosts break down the results of the bet over Kentucky craft beer. How many judges were in court on a Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.? Hugh breaks down the reasons that led to him leaving family law after twenty years while Christine questions whether or not the system was designed to operate this way. Either way both attorneys agree it's past time for judicial accountability and discuss what led them to want to create Judge-y.

Podcast Ep 01 - The Bet

Wed, 16 Jul 2025 09:00:00 GMT

In this episode, the hosts take a critical look at the inner workings of the judicial system. They shine a light on judicial transparency, misconduct, and the far-reaching impact of judicial decisions on litigants' lives. One major concern raised is the potential conflict of interest between judges and the media. They recount troubling instances of judges allegedly leaking to the press in high-profile cases and explicitly question whether the current a retired judge, is a spokesperson who squashes negative stories to protect judges' reputations. Their conversation further explores alarming patterns of judicial behavior, including decisions made outside formal proceedings (ex parte communications) and favoritism toward select attorneys such as Guardians Ad Litem (GALs) and Friends of the Court (FOCs). The hosts share personal experiences, including a disturbing case where a judge ordered financial payments without a filed motion or hearing, based solely on an off-the-record discussion with opposing counsel. They highlight the lack of accountability for such misconduct, pointing out that formal complaints rarely result in public consequences—often allowing problematic behavior to persist unchecked. The episode concludes with a powerful call for judicial reform, advocating for everyone to speak out.