You'd never know it from Megdal's book, but Judge Rakoff is extremely well regarded.

Name is familiar. Isn't he the judge who refused to rubber-stamp an SEC settlement without the defendant company admitting wrongdoing? Said the settlement had no deterrent value without that; it was effectively just a cost-of-doing-business fine. Will google/wiki...

Edit: or I could RTFA, as it's right there in the second graph. D'oh!

You'd never know it from Megdal's book, but Judge Rakoff is extremely well regarded.

Well regarded by some, not well regarded by others.

I will say this, FWIW I believe that Rakoff does or tries to do (if the law in any way allows) what he believes is right. He does not care what others think, and he doesn't really care about getting reversed... although he is not above gaming the system to avoid a reversal when he thinks he's "right" and the Court of Appeals may be "wrong," witness him not allowing Picard to appeal before trial.

I will say this, FWIW I believe that Rakoff does or tries to do (if the law in any way allows) what he believes is right. He does not care what others think, and he doesn't really care about getting reversed... although he is not above gaming the system...

If he thinks the system needs to be gamed, what's he doing sitting on the bench? I don't suppose lawyers here can give thorough answers to the following, but is there a consensus on the behavior of judges among lawyers?

I'm not an attorney but I've been appalled at the behavior I've seen from the bench. Disrespect for lawyers and parties, little interest in the actual law, a disregard for existing case law, not to mention ignorance of it; a willingness to utterly disregard the wording of statutes. It may be that I've happened to run into the worst of it, but the behavior I've seen from judges has been shocking to me.