Hon. Marjorie Laird Carter See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Orange County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.3 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Marjorie Laird Carter


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3623
Rating:5.3
Comments:
Generally speaking, she is pleasant. The largest problem I've had with her is that she seems to be terrified of reversal and so chickens out instead of handing down rulings which would efficiently resolve cases. She punted on a motion for summary judgment on a technicality that both parties had waived. She said she would only issue a ruling if both parties entirely waived their rights to appeal. We stipulated to waive our rights to appeal on the sole issue of the technicality which she claims we did not meet, but she said she wouldn't issue a ruling unless we waived our rights to appeal ON ANY ISSUE. Requiring litigants to waive their right to appeal as a condition precedent to having a dispositive ruling is entirely inappropriate, and shows just how fearful she is of reversal.

Also, the probate division is still ridiculously far behind in the clerk's office, so be prepared to have your filings misplaced or not in the court's file. I always bring extra copies of recently filed documents, after seeing one hearing where she explained to another litigant that a document must have been "misfiled" when it was actually lost. The clerk hunted around in the back and eventually produced it. Sad for the courts, frustrating for the litigants.