Hon. Frederick Paul Horn See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Orange County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.3 - 4 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. Frederick Paul Horn


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6142
Rating:8.0
Comments:
Overall, bench trial went well and confidence was high, but then the judgment was contrary. It read like the judge did not like my client, so the conclusion did not follow logic or legal rational. Appeal reversed him. I still believe he could be a good judge, but perhaps got a little bias or misunderstanding on unique issues.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4420
Rating:1.1
Comments:
This judge did not understand basic real estate law. He kept on stating that holes in the wall are normal wear and tear, and that deposit funds may not be used to repair the holes created by the tenant. Holes are definitely damage. He thought that garbage and debris left on the property is normal. He also did not consider as damage the tenant painting a few parts of the wall with a different color. This is a terrible judge that should not be handling real estate matters.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4191
Rating:6.0
Comments:
A really decent judge. He tried to be even-handed and get the parties to work together cooperatively. He has a very industrious legal clerk, who generally nails the issues, which makes it generally a pleasure to be in his courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3149
Rating:6.1
Comments:
He acts very pious, but he is not to be trusted at all. He will schedule hearings knowing of attorney and party conflicts. He is not judge-like. He should not be on the bench. He is rude, very rude. He will not recuse himself and will hide major conflicts.