"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Gloria Connor Trask	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Riverside County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 6.0 - 5 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 ()

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

What others have said about Hon. Gloria Connor Trask

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3561
Rating:9.5

Comments:
I have practiced on both plaintiff and defense sides of civil trials - I'd be happy to have her as a trial judge whichever side I was on. I've seen the other comments here, and should say that, at least in the case I tried before her, the opposing lawyer felt exactly as I did about her. The trial lasted a bit over 2 weeks, so our exposure to her was significant.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2803
Rating:1.8

Comments:
Worst judge I have ever appeared in front of in the more than 25 years I have been practicing law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2131
Rating:2.0

Comments:
My firm and my client (plaintiff) are not from Riverside. The other side's firm and client (defendant) are from Riverside. Her rulings on evidence were insanely lopsided in their favor (like literally 95% skewed their way). In addition to just being wrong much of the time, she would rule in their favor if they made an objection and then rule in their favor when we would make the exact same objection in the same circumstances. She also let the defense present 100% of their case in chief during our case in chief, allowing them to call 4 witnesses out of order, which totally screwed with our presentation and was completely unnecessary and disrespectful. At a certain point, we were simply entertained by the patent unfairness. That's how bad it was. In fact, I came to the conclusion that she was simply "padding the record" because she knew she was going to rule in our favor, and I started to take comfort in her awful, awful rulings. She seemed like she was bending over backwards to make sure her ruling for us could not be appealed. But we lost - in a case with some of the best facts I've ever been to trial with. I am stunned and appalled. The worst judge I have ever known. Maybe it's because we were from L.A. and got hometowned. Maybe she has a terrible defense bias. I don't know, and I don't care. I will 170.6 her as long as I live. On the upside, she was surprisingly patient and allowed counsel to argue points extensively (it was a bench trial). However, that benefit is mitigated by the fact that she has a horrible memory/attention span and does not seem to understand basic legal points (especially the rules of evidence). And to add insult to injury, she constantly made faces - as if to say "WTF are you talking about" - at us and our witnesses when we would make arguments she didn't understand.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1823
Rating:7.0

Comments:
Judge Trask means well. She tries hard and seems to have a bit of a defense bias. She allowed a defense attorney to argue points that should have been left to the plaintiff as part of plaintiffs' case in chief. However, she did appear to acknowledge her error once she figured out defendants' strategy. Her law and motion rulings are well thought out, she let's you argue each fact/legal point and gives every attorney their shot.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA290
Rating:9.9

Comments:
Smart, understanding, great temperament and sense of humor.