Hon. Andrea C. Thompson See Rating Details
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 1 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      

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)

What others have said about Hon. Andrea C. Thompson


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8529
I had her in civil before she ran away to criminal. Refused to follow the law. I would give her a zero if I called.


Comment #: CA4610
My rating criterion for Judge Andrea Thompson is a 5. The reason why she gets a 5 and not a 1 is because she granted a restraining order due to domestic violence. The order protects my 1-year-old and myself. On Sept. 30th, 2013, Judge Andrea Thompson granted unsupervised visitation and gave more days to my baby's father! Ever since that day, my 1-year-old has not been the same. That hearing was unpleasant. He had a lawyer, and I didn't -- and don't up to this day. I gave it a month and followed the orders made, even though I disagreed with them. During that month my 1-year-old started coming home with marks: handprints on his neck and belly, scratches and two bumps on the back of his head, a swollen cheek, a cut lip. I immediately made a request ex parte, and she denied it. So finally, on Dec. 5th there was a hearing. And she didn't hear what I had to say about why I was asking to modify visitation. All that I requested was for the father to have supervised visitation and have less hours for visits instead of having 11 hours every week. I told her that I had pictures of the marks, scratches, a bruised leg, etc. She didn't even look at the proof. But she did grant the father what he wanted, which was to take my 1-year-old every Saturday and Sunday. On the other hand, he has violated the restraining order more than three times. He is aggressive and almost ran over my mother when doing the exchange of our child. My baby and I need help! My child was walking by himself, and now he needs help to walk. My son loved to bathe, and now he screams hysterically. My son gets hysterical when he sees his father. He holds tight and doesn't want to go with him; he cries and screams, and he closes his eyes the moment he sees his dad. Judge Thompson isn't paying attention to all these signs. My son isn't just another court case number, he is a 1-year-old child that can't protect himself. Granting his dad more days was a mistake, that I hope she regrets later on. But yet her last words to me were to follow the orders. I'm confused about the situation. I have sole custody, physical and legal. Why is she doing this? Is it because he has a lawyer, and because he is a U.S. citizen? Is she not listening to me because I'm not a U.S. citizen and because I'm representing myself? Or is it because he comes from a middle-class family and I come from a poor family?


Comment #: CA4409
While she seems nice enough, she doesn't seem to actually "judge" anything. She states things like "according to the UCCJEA I am to confer with the other state judge." But what the other judge "says" is not the mandatory commands of the UCCJEA. When he simply has "decided he has jurisdiction," the job of the judge is to see if he does or does not have jurisdiction. But this judge did not do that. She stated that she needs to go by what the judge "said." This is not the law, and that is where she really misses doing her job.The PKPA was brought up and supersedes the state, though both say the same thing: that this other state cannot have jurisdiction regardless of what he "decides." He did not "decide he has jurisdiction" properly. This is when a judge is to do their job and make sure that the proper procedure and mandatory commands are followed. She did not. Her actions and decisions then were quick, and I had to beg to submit evidence to prove the law (which she did not have time to review), but she made bad orders that are now endangering my children when she also could have continued the hearing, as I was the only party there. My children are now being harmed, but she thinks she did her job since she "called" the other judge. Her job was to actually judge the law and issues in front of her, not simply go through the motions.This was obviously more complicated than most cases, and her intent seems to be good, but when at the end the laws are not fairly or accurately upheld, not only did she not do her job, she has caused more complications by enforcing wrong decisions from the other state which do not meet the law. Most importantly, my children who were protected now are not, and that is where the real seriousness falls. Her decisions have now placed my children in life threatening harm, when she really should have simply continued the hearing to have more time to review the evidence, as I was the only party present and this could have been continued to protect my children. A good judge that actually judges the situation is what was needed. I think this judge likes to go through the proper motions, but she falls extremely short when it comes to actually doing the judge part, and evaluating and understanding how to apply the law in the specific situation.