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.  

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.

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.