"The Robing Room: AZ State Judges

Hon. Greg Sakall	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge Superior Court
Pima County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 2.7 - 3 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 1 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. Greg Sakall

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: AZ2372
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-help-get-family-law-greg-sakall-resignation-for-endangerment-blackmailing-sexism

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ2312
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Greg Sakall is a very biased mysogynistic excuse of a man. He is so closeted that he will always choose men over women. He lives in the era where women had no rights, its 2021 wake up sakall. He already has a decision before even hearing anything. I feel very bad for his wife Jennifer Wortman who has to deal with his abuse. but lets all stand together i have noticed i am not the only one having trouble with this joker. check out these tiktoks instagram and facebook page so we can all come together for all mother safety & most importanly childrens safety. Tiktok-kickoutgregsakall
instagram-kickoutgregsakall facebook-kickoutgregsakall Let's all band together and let's get him removed!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ2111
Rating:1.8

Comments:
New to family court -2nd year and is now presiding. He fails to hold evidentiary hearings prior to making orders, some ex parte, makews decisions and orders off his AFCC friend evaluator who has drinking and drug issues, LDM legal decision maker which is not statutorily defined, he abdicates his judicial duties to, he fails to follow statues, constitutional rights of parents are infringed upon, as are human rights of children. He needs to be removed for public safety reasons. It shows by his lack of candor, and inability to adhere to the Canons of which he swore an oath to, replacing that with CLE from a court listed AFCC member teaching non evidenced based practice of which he diagnoses parents with, even though he is not licensed to do so. He fails to follow the policy of the state, but does cite New York case law from over 10 yrs ago, as an excuse for setting the order to match his predetermined outcome.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ2106
Rating:5.4

Comments:
Can be mysogynistic and seems to favor male litigants. In family law cases favors dads over moms and often sees women as "histrionic"

Other

Comment #: AZ1914
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge made a bias a decision. Had prejudice against one party prior to hearing. Was given evidence proven by law from lawyers and still ruled in favor of other party. There is a prejudice against minorities in these proceedings which should be exposed. Judges who are going to be bias and not listen to facts have no business on the bench.