Buzz
Although Judith Sheindlin was an actual judge—appointed to family court by New York City Mayor Ed Koch in 1982 and later named Manhattan’s supervising family court judge in 1986—she doesn’t serve in that capacity on her show. The same applies to other daytime TV judges, regardless of their legal experience or whether they’ve passed the bar.
Courtroom TV shows aren't set in actual courtrooms, and they don’t feature genuine trials, though the cases are typically real—the producers usually approach people with ongoing small claims cases and offer them a chance to appear on television instead. What you’re watching on these programs is essentially arbitration dressed up as small claims court.
What exactly is arbitration?
Arbitration is a legal process used to settle disputes outside the traditional courtroom. The parties involved present their cases to a neutral third-party arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, who hear the case, review the evidence, and render a decision that is usually binding. Like in court, arbitration is adversarial but tends to be less rigid in terms of rules and procedures.
The authority that Judge Judy and other TV arbitrators have over the parties involved comes from a contract specific to each case, which the participants sign before appearing on the show. These contracts make the arbitrator’s decision final and binding, prevent any negotiation of the arbitration terms, and give the arbitrators considerable flexibility in handling procedural and evidentiary matters.
TV judges issue a decision on the case, awarding either the plaintiff, in which case the show’s producers pay a judgment fee, or the defendant, in which case both parties receive an appearance fee. This setup seems to favor defendants, encouraging them to bring their case to television. If they have a weak case, appearing on the show removes their financial responsibility; if their case is strong, they gain an appearance fee along with a win.
Can Judge Judy’s rulings be appealed?
If one party disagrees with the arbitrator’s ruling, they can only appeal successfully if the issue falls outside the contract’s scope. In 2000, Judge Judy’s decision was overturned by the Family Court of Kings County for this reason. In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties came before Sheindlin for a property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that issue but also addressed child custody and visitation, which were not covered by the arbitration agreement. A court appeal led to the overturning of the custody and visitation parts of her decision.
