Hon. C. Edward Simpson See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   6.6 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 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      
Zip
Occupation

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




What others have said about Hon. C. Edward Simpson


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA10417
Rating:1.0
Comments:
"Judge" C. Edward Simpson did everything he could possibly do to trip me up during trial on behalf of his friends at LAUSD. Post-trial he could not do second-grade math. His judgement amount did not match the repeatedly changing amount, not "sum certain", the amount LAUSD was finally asking for. In my Motion in Limini, LAUSD had promised in Discovery not to use non-Gregorian calendar, extraterrestrial, "Fiscal Year Salary Review". Simpson allowed them to use it anyway and based his judgement amount on them with 4 other pieces of secondary fraudulent evidence. He also ignored my twice formally subpoenaed opposing witness from attending trial plus an additional witness and documentation.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA9016
Rating:8.4
Comments:
Very Good and intelligent judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7714
Rating:2.0
Comments:
The judge was reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance on 9/28/15 - called an "ossified numbskull" "benighted imbecile" after being reversed on a writ of mandate and having a decision repudiated by an impartial judge. A total fraud.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2416
Rating:9.3
Comments:
I had a one day bench trial for fraud in front of Simpson. Very fair if you are too. Don't try to be something you're not or argue something that isn't there.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2256
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He does not read filed papers in-depth and makes rulings based on a superficial impression of the case