Hon. Andre De La Cruz See Rating Details
Superior Court
Orange County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   10.0 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 5 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Andre De La Cruz



Comment #: CA51393
The decision to grant 50/50 custody in this case is deeply troubling, given the glaring discrepancies in the proceedings and the presented evidence. During the trial, a daily drinking log, which meticulously chronicled the father's consistent alcohol consumption, was submitted by the mother. This log raised substantial concerns about his ability to provide a safe environment for the children. Moreover, the mother had previously obtained a temporary restraining order against the father, indicating genuine concern for her and her children's safety. This restraining order should have weighed heavily in assessing the father's suitability for shared custody.
Additionally, documented evidence of repeated verbal abuse directed at the mother, occurring in the presence of the children, was presented during the proceedings. Such behavior directly conflicts with providing a stable and nurturing environment for the children. Moreover, the father consistently presented false allegations against the mother in multiple court documents, further muddying the waters and complicating an already complex case.
The combination of these factors cast serious doubt on the fairness and thoroughness of the judge's decision. Family court decisions must prioritize the well-being and safety of the children involved. Given the weight of the evidence, procedural irregularities, and the father's manipulative behavior, Judge De La Cruz's decision was negligent and detrimental, and he should never have been in family court.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA47527
Ive recently had a few hearings in HON. De La Cruz's (Cruises?) Courtroom. Id like to start by addressing a different reviewer's comment, not something I ordinarily do, however if someone is going to review these then please bear in mind some authors, like one below literally wrote that this Judge is responsible for their child wetting the bed. Now, I've heard some doozies as a defense attorney, and having worked a bit in civil practice during law school, I understand substantial factor and proximate cause more or less. Just take a moment to consider the context there. First off, since when can a person be responsible for another persons urinary tract? Second, how could a person with the same fortitude required to find this website also be the same person who believes if it wasn't for Judge De La Cruz's ruling's they would have saved $15 on a mattress protector. Consider the source behind some of these reviews.

Here is my 3 cents. I always prefer a Judge who has served in the military.
Most people I think, get this wrong. What I mean is, most people dont recognize just how valuable having served in the military actually is to their case. Rather than have no sympathy for the human condition, or have nounderstanding of just how valuable freedom and dignity are to each of the defendants...Judge De La Cruz most certainly does...however often times, when defendants or attorneys, show little to no understanding of those principles... dont be surprised if you are "brought in line". Its a show of respect moreso than a imposition of his will. Right? I can understand how some would feel shaken, because someo of the most valuable lessons in life, whether we can appreciate it at the time or not are those that shake us. Serving iun the military can not be a walk in nthe proverbial park.

As far as his disposition to defense attorneys goes, I want to emphasize that if you are someone that is not interested in learning, in engaging, in listening or in trying...then Judge De La Cruz, who's been hired by more Global Law Firms than any attorney I've met, is not going to be a parkwalk.

I was next to an attorney who unfortunately was not familiar with the Speedy Trial Waiver or Preliminary Hearing Waiver and when asked by his HON. to give that waiver, this attorney literally, said "Yeah Sure, Ok". Judge De La Cruz did not agree to just take her cue, rather he pressed because if this attorney was unaware and hadnt learned it, he was giving her an opportunity to do so. I felt betrayed when it was clear to me that she would rather continue looking as though she knew the fundamentals of criminal procedure more than if she actually knew and understood those principles. The Judge did not want to call her fake...just because she had not learned the waivers yet, however, she brought it upon herself by reacting through her ego and with disdain that the Judge kept up the focus and was attempting to teach it to her in real time.

Judge De La Cruz, I would say...moreso than most Judges...is wicked smart. IHe
is very adept at criminal procedure
in court, not only making it look easy, but managing to give lessons as he goes. Cmon. He could probably be doing an entirely different job at the same time. Think about it. He was well appointed.


Comment #: CA41097
Contrary to numerous case law he ordered that a child's therapist (hired by a controlling stepdad of extremely questionable character) dictate when she can see her grandmother. A judge is not allowed to relinquish judicial authority, especially to a treating therapist. After his ruling this 12 year old child failed classes in school, wet her bed/pants regularly, fought with friends and became extremely antisocial, inhibited and very troubled. He basically sentenced her to live in a Jim Jones environment with no contact with the one person in the world she could trust. He definitely belongs in traffic court


Comment #: CA40031
Doesn't know the law so he cannot follow it. Should never have been appointed a judge dealing with peoples property and children. This Judge is rude and interrupts litigants while they are talking. He was relocated to traffic so at least they got him out of family law finally.


Comment #: CA36994
Does not follow the law. This Judge makes our judicial system look bad and should never have been judge. This judge refused to allow a father to see his child, makes children cry, makes rulings without due process.