Hon. Mary E. Wiss See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Francisco County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   7.9 - 6 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


Please type what you see below:

  

What others have said about Hon. Mary E. Wiss


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA52992
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge had no intention of making an outcome based on evidence or providing outcome based on reasons pertaining to what info was brought before her. Provided no reasons for denial of my claim. Wasn't for me from the start I believe it was discrimination and based on reasons of personal nature not for the case itself. I AM NOT RITCH AND I AM NOT THE NORMAL OR IN THE CORRECT LIKING FOR THE OUTCOME TO BE FOR ME.JUDGE HAS NO SHAME OR EITHICS AT ALL. ANYONE WITH OUT A BRAIN CAN JUDGE BETTER THEN HER. NO REASON FOR ANY LEGAL OR OTHER WISE REASON CAN EXPLAIN HER NOT BEING FOR MY CASE. SHE HAS HATRED AND IS NOT A GOOD PERSON.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA52985
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge had no intention of making an outcome based on evidence or providing outcome based on reasons pertaining to what info was brought before her. Provided no reasons for denial of my claim. Wasn't for me from the start I believe it was discrimination and based on reasons of personal nature not for the case itself.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA48798
Rating:6.3
Comments:
Judge Wiss is not a good fact finder. Her decision seems arbitrary. I doubt her judgment is fair.

Other

Comment #: CA42639
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Seems to act as a stand-in or figurehead for others -- see comment CA5. Also personal biases control legal rulings. If you're advocating a non-controversial position, this judge could be better than one of the more mean-spirited judges in San Francisco

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA41990
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Wonderful judge; wonderful temperament; smart!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA39260
Rating:10.0
Comments:
"Gold Standard" and "a real professional" have it right.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA35445
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Gold standard Judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1257
Rating:9.5
Comments:
Even temperment, fair, respectfull of litigants and their attorneys, great at settlement, a real profesional.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Worst judge on the state bench. Tries hard, but no intellect whatsoever. Cannot grasp issues of any complexity. Means well, but is extremely biased. Terrible trial judge. Seems to be a nice person, but also has no control of her courtroom. Lets attorneys ramble without controlling them, allows disruptive and abusive litigation tactics. Changes her mind frequently, encouraging attorneys to drag things out. Unfortunately, she should never have been appointed to anything more than traffic court.