Hot Bench cases are real as the show reportedly employs researchers to find compelling small claims cases across the US to appear on the show.
Hot Bench is set to return to our screens with its ninth season, which will introduce a change in the judges’ panel as it has been confirmed that Patricia DiMango and Tanya Acker will be leaving the court show after eight seasons.
Therefore, this season will introduce judges Yodit Tewolde and Rachel Juarez to join Michael Corriero.
While it will be of interest whether the popular and original court show maintains its two to three million live viewers per episode after this change, one of the biggest questions to continue to follow the show is whether the cases are real or not.
This question is answered by the introduction of the show which stipulates that all cases are “real small claims cases from courthouses across the country”.
What makes Hot Bench so unique?
When Hot Bench premiered in 2014, it was touted for its original take on the already saturated market of court shows in the US, since the show was premised on three judges presiding over small claims cases instead of a single judge.
The inspiration for the show’s format was developed by executive producer and reality star, Judge Judy Sheindlin.
It is reported that Sheindlin was inspired by her visit to an Ireland court which had three judges presiding over a court case, which Sheindlin believed would make for great court show viewing.
Are Hot Bench cases real?
Much like any other reality television show, Hot Bench has faced the same scrutiny regarding its authenticity.
However, it has been corroborated that Hot Bench, along with other popular court shows, is completely real in terms of the small claims court cases they hear.
The authenticity of the cases, including the litigants that participate on Hot Bench are protected by the rigorous process that is followed to ensure that all the cases are real.
First, Hot Bench employs researchers across the country which are tasked with visiting small claims courthouses to find compelling or comical cases that they believe will make for great television. It is estimated that they find hundreds if not thousands of small claims cases to be vetted.
Thereafter, the production team of the court show will look at the cases that the researchers have submitted and choose the best cases from the bunch. Thereafter, the litigants are contacted and asked if they would like to be part of the show.
If they agree, they are made to sign a Binding Arbitration Agreement, which is a contract that stipulates that the litigants must accept whatever verdict is handed down by the judges.
Are the judges’ verdict final?
This is where it gets interesting. As highlighted before, litigants who agree to appear on Hot Bench are obligated to sign a Binding Arbitration Agreement.
The agreement is aimed at getting litigants to agree that the verdict given by the judges is final. But since the show is not shot in a real court room, the judges function as arbiters or mediators in these small claims cases.
Therefore, their verdict is not necessarily final, but it can be used in the court of law to finalise a small claims case which has already been heard on Hot Bench if either party of litigants is unhappy about the verdict on the show.
Are Hot Bench judges real?
All the judges that feature on the Hot Bench panel are real legal minds with extensive experience in their fields.
Judge Michael Corriero served in the New York State Court for 28 years with a particular focus on the youth. Judge Yodit Tewolde is a well-renowned criminal defence attorney, former prosecutor, and journalist and she also has her own criminal defence firm.
Judge Rachel Juarez served as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Temporary Judge Program.
Moreover, she is touted as a litigator that specialises in representing high-income individuals in divorce and other legal family matters.
Are defendants responsible for paying winning complainants?
One of the “advantages” of being on a court show like Hot Bench is that the show covers the cost of flying the litigants to the shooting location, and it provides them with accommodation and a small appearance fee.
But there is an added advantage to this as it is suggested that each small claims case is allocated a special budget that pays the complainant if they win their case.
Moreover, for the defendant, an additional advantage is the rumoured fact that if there is money left over after the show has paid the plaintiff, the remaining amount is split equally between the litigants.
