"The Robing Room: AZ State Judges

Hon. Adam Driggs	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge Superior Court
Maricopa County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.1 - 3 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 3.0 - 5 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Adam Driggs

Comments

Other

Comment #: AZ2696
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Horrible judge. Contingent of having minor child live with Mother, the custodial parent, Judge Driggs ordered on his ME in 2019 to have mother possibly medicated and do long term psychotherapy. How did mother's child modification 2017 motion turn into this nightmare. This Judge also denied outside licensed medical psychologist review of mother mental health, ex. Banner health, not agreeing to Psy.D Raymond Branton, Court appointed roster per Judge Driggs for mother's psych eval costing $ 20K w/no private insurance accepted. Both Driggs and PsyD Branton and this entire Family Court system is corrupted.

URL OF cas
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?casenumber=FC2017-050317

URL of Courts of Appeal Div. 1 - Arizona
https://casetext.com/case/jorgenson-v-giannecchini

Per the Courts of Appeal
decision on case 1 CA-CV 20-0009 and FC 1 CA-CV 20-0208 FC - Vacated and Remanded ruling, it was written - the court had no statutory power to order Mother to participate in long-term psychotherapy going forward. Courts of Appeal also added "we vacate the parenting-time ruling and all subsequent orders concerning Mother’s psychotherapy".

Litigant

Comment #: AZ2303
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Terrible, this Judge obviously did not learn law in law school. He's to not understand anything when it comes to jurisdiction. Most all don't know that because they are in an active chapter 11 bankruptcy they are not even suppose to make rulings, but they simply ignore while practicing administrative law while make all litigants believe that they are practicing some form of criminal law. No criminal statues, all allege crimes are civil. The court is not even a government constructive the federal government is a Corporation.

Other

Comment #: AZ2136
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Stated: "I am not going to enforce any of the court orders that came to me from the judge in dependency court in this case."
Listened to one parent spew with no evidence then proceeded to tell these parents in a high conflict case they needed to "work it out."
Spent more time trying to figure out the motion deadline date than paying attention to the parties involved.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: AZ2041
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Shows tremendous bias in his treatment of pro-per litigants. Allows and participates in prohibited ex-parte communications. He is a horrible judge. He ignores the law. Example, wife hid art worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in clear violation of the preliminary injunction. after filing a motion to compel spouse to disclose the location of the art, he did not respond to the motion for over two months, and then stated "for the convenience of the court, it would be more efficient to hear the motion at trial' the trial date was 5 months in the future. He is lazy and lacks even the lowest level of intelligence.

Other

Comment #: AZ2032
Rating:3.0

Comments:
In think as others stated before me there are some shortcomings with Judge Driggs. One other poster hit it on the head already. There isn't the feeling of anything other than the judges personal biased during hearings and trial. The law takes a backseat,even when presented in full view of everyone present. If he likes you personally your winning his judgment regardless of legalities or the facts. This a judge who definitely should not be in his seat.

Other

Comment #: AZ1983
Rating:10.0

Comments:
I think Judge Driggs is a judge that listens to both sides before he makes a decision. I am an attorney and he has always been fair to both sides. We appreciate Judge Dirggs.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: AZ1925
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This jugde shouldnt be in family court he is biased towards fathers and know I know why people refues to fight for their kids its not that they are dead beats but the fact that they dealing with lying mothers and biased judges that are for mothers

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ1867
Rating:1.3

Comments:
This judge does not know the law and when presented with it, simply refuses to follow it. He picks his winner based on personal bias, disregards the evidence. He refuses to calendar or hear mandated motions and petitions "for the convenience of the court". He is chronically overdue with decisions and back-dates them to prejudice the parties' ability to appeal.