ericeres Personally, I think it is a great show, and it can be funny at times. To those wo hate the show: remember that this show provides people with jobs whether you like it or not.

cashion_deborah I am a big fan of legal/court related shows; this one is definitely not one of them. I often feel pity for the litigants having to endure such disrepect from these judges, especially DiMango. She is obnoxious in every sense of the word often speaking over the person not allowing them to even present their case. She is loud, arrogant, and very unfair in her decisions which are more personal in nature rather than in following the law. I'm surprised anyone is even willing to appear as litigants in this show.

alan-58908 I am extremely surprised by the bad reviews on here for Hot Bench. I think it is the most interesting and refreshing law show on television. One reviewer said that the judges are often judgmental and jump to conclusions but that is JUDGE JUDY! While I watch Judge Judy she constantly comes to conclusions and acts like she knows everything about the plaintiffs and defendants. I find that the judges of Hot Bench are often compassionate and ask more questions. I love seeing the three of them get together to come up with a verdict. It is fascinating to me. I will always call HOT BENCH my favorite court show and support it by watching it and giving it praises.

morticia021358-1 Spoiler Alert! There have been changes to the show's line-up!I am a big fan of the TV court show genre, but I don't like or enjoy ALL the shows are on the air. I find many of them to have a rather irreverent air about them, with many of the "jurists" appearing to lean more toward making the litigants look silly on the air. That being said, I like the concept of "Hot Bench", with multiple legal minds drawing on their professional experience and expertise to weed through the prattle, in order to reach a decision in the case, based on established laws and statutes that apply to the case at hand. I also like the show's practice of allowing the viewing audience to see them deliberate on the case, going over all the legal points of the case by applying the law to the facts (or lack, thereof): The fact that the jurists on this show also have a little fun at the litigant's expense, is usually the result of the litigants firmly, and sometimes inadvertently, putting their own feet in their own mouths. As this show is the "baby" of Judge Judith Sheindlin, I can see some of her influence on the show's demeanor, i.e., "putting the hammer down" on attempting to include hearsay testimony, and that all three jurists are what she calls "equal opportunity abusers", in that they call out BOTH sides when their testimonies don't add up, or when they try to include information that wasn't in the original signed depositions. I also like that each jurist has an expertise in particular aspects of the law: Judge Backman's in contract and criminal law helped more than a few litigants in their respective cases. And what really pleases me about the show, is that they are not afraid to disagree with each other on the legal points in the case, and are not above dissenting when they don't agree with the other two on points that can be decided one way or another, based on established law. If Judge Sheindlin is really retiring from her show in the near future, I'm happy she chose this vehicle to "keep her hand in the game".