"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Nathan R. Scott	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Orange County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.2 - 24 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 19 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

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Nathan R. Scott

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA48675
Rating:9.9

Comments:
Judge Scott listened intently during law and motion and asked pointed questions, demonstrating he had clearly looked at the underlying authority and formed a preliminary understanding and opinion on the issues. We flipped tentatives on certain occasions and vice versa. He actively ruled on the issues put before him, and was not against admitting he was in the wrong.

We presented technical legal issues and complex factual issues which he understood and was able to appropriately rule on. He provided detailed rulings. I agree not comfortable with making dispositive rulings and was often lenient with opposing counsel; most likely to shield from appeal. But when it came it down to it he was strong and confident in reaching judgment.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA41905
Rating:2.8

Comments:
I concur with the other opinions suggesting that Judge Scott will do whatever he can to dispose of matters without having to rule on the merits.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA37233
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Civil Litigation - Private

Judge Scott is not comfortable with making dispositive rulings. Although it is tempting to attribute this flaw to a his intellect, the reasoning behind it are more likely political, as he is trying to climb the latter and get out of state court. Scott is smart, but lacks integrity and character. He has a notable academic background but a mediocre professional resume (relative to his academic background). He is quick to sanction parties (Plaintiff's and Defendant's) alike when facing a discovery motion (which he will grant every single time), as punishment for giving him more work. This judge will actively derail your case by refusing to make dispositive rulings. He fears being overruled by the higher Courts and employs a strategy of not giving litigants anything that they can appeal. He is a lazy jurist with little respect for the rule of law. Unfortunately, nothing more but a Political bootlicker. If you know the name of the party, you know how he is going to rule. Highly recommend filing a C.C.P. 170.6, unless the facts of your case fall under the approved narrative of his political party. If that's the case, stay and things will go your way.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA35013
Rating:4.7

Comments:
Judge Scott is not inclined to grant dispositive motions. He is quick to deny motions based on technical grounds, even when he has the authority to use discretion. As to discovery disputes he issues server monetary sanctions. Be careful

Litigant

Comment #: CA34172
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Pro per female. Although ruling was QI he treated me with respect, kindness and compassion.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA31424
Rating:9.8

Comments:
I had a great experience before Judge Scott. I found him to be very smart, knowledgeable, and evenhanded. He helped accommodate the parties with the MSC process (one party was pro per). I am a woman attorney and I did not experience any sexism, etc.

Other

Comment #: CA30165
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Not surprising he would rule against liberty he is a member of the democratic party also known as the party infanticide the California people put him there via California demarcate abortion king Jerry brown just ask the unborn how there life and liberty was

Other

Comment #: CA29668
Rating:1.0

Comments:
It's obvious he is a partisan judge... Appointed by Jerry Brown and here to do Gavin Newsom favors... The numbers don't warrant the shut down... Major democrat boot licker...

Other

Comment #: CA29662
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Truly let down the people of Orange County today.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA24322
Rating:2.1

Comments:
No understanding of even the most basic of Civil Procedure. Obviously does not read the Motions, Oppositions or Replies (must have research attorney write up tentative rulings) as he has little knowledge of the issues during arguments and appears to have no desire to reach a just decision. Would highly recommend filing a C.C.P. 170.6 and run, not walk from that Courtroom

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA16110
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Scott is very smart and takes the necessary time to fairly review the parties’ positions. Even though I may have disagreed with some of his rulings, he was fair and unbiased in the application of the law. With the other reviews, I was concerned as a female attorney, but I can say without hesitation, that I saw no bias in his handling of the case or the parties in the case. In fact, he went out of his way to be fair and impartial and to see that the litigants themselves and their witnesses did the same. His courtroom staff was a pleasure to work with and helped make the stress of trial as pleasant as possible.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA14265
Rating:9.0

Comments:
Surprised by the comments. Had divorce in front of him. One of the better judges I have been in front of. He gave parties all the time they needed and when we appeared for trial (the husband folded and gave my client what she was asking for all along - half of his pension - which she deserved) he wasn't angry (husband wasted all of our time for 2 years). He read the file and was always prepared.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11995
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Had the misfortune of him being the duty judge the Judge Glass was on vacation. I had to do an important ex parte requesting permission to file an oppositon to a dispositive motion, one day late. CCP 473 factors were met. Judge Scott denied it, without taking the bench and almost certainly without ever having read the papers. Lazy jurist, whose laziness necessitated an appeal and tremeandous expense to my client.

Litigant

Comment #: CA11969
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Scott was the judge on my family law/child custody case in 2015. Not only was he extremely unprofessional,rude and condescending, he went out of his way to be belittle me in front of the entire courtroom. It was the second hearing and he started off by telling me, "you got a haircut" to which I politely replied, "thank you for noticing" (out of courtesy & nothing else), to which he replied, "I'm not saying I like it, I just noticed you cut it". Um, oKAY. Was that even necessary? Of course it wasn't, but this is just one sample of how he treats litigants, particularly women. I was pro-per, my ex had an attorney (a "for the fathers" attorney). The case was given the title of a "high conflict custody case", which I still don't know why that was because the only thing that I had conflict with was that my ex wanted our daughters to live with him one week on and with me one week on, for them to go to school by his house in Santa Ana and for me to do all the driving back and forth from Fullerton, which I didn't agree with. So the judge ordered minor's counsel (that beastly experience is a whole other story). Long story short, being pro per and a woman, I was not allowed to speak at the hearing other than to say a few words that were completely taken out of context by both the minor's counsel and judge Scott and was stripped 100% of custody of my two daughters. There were no extenuating circumstances, I was not deemed unfit, I was not given due process. I was simply disliked by the minor's counsel for having the audacity to challenge what she had told me and by judge Scott obviously for being pro per and the mother of the case. I have lost all faith in the so called judicial system and I hope to God this judge pays for all the lives he's ruined by his crass mentality and lack of due process to all involved.

Other

Comment #: CA11955
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The most piece of s... judge ever! I served my country for 8 years working with Homeland Security and this scum bag judge takes my joint legal custody away from me because I was against my child taking ADHD medicine that his mom wanted to put him on. Now he's a teenager and a honor roll student that stopped taking those dumb meds. This judge need to be fired! I would not hire him as my janitor .

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11517
Rating:3.3

Comments:
I handle a good deal of litigation across a wide swath of California, not just the coastal zones but along the interior and Eastern counties as well. I've been litigating for over 20 years, and before that did a fair amount of clerking and research work. I've been in this business one way or another since 1983.

Judge Scott's current assignment on the civil bench in Orange Superior Court appears to be his latest landing zone. I've seen a lot of comments about his family law days, and cannot comment about his abilities in that division of the Court. However I have had a chance to observe his demeanor, his candor, and his scholarship in civil.

I'm not impressed. He has an impressive CV, an incredible background with a Harvard law degree, and some credentials from the Court of Appeals. For all of that I see him as being weak on complex civil matters, and the more complex it gets the more unlikely he will ever rule, or if he does, will do so with hesitation. He does eventually rule, and the rulings are questionable but often may be harmless error. Anything that's beyond his reach or field of comprehension seems to me, falls to the side. He has a good grasp on some pretrial rulings, seems to try and make a good decision. But I am just not going to sit here and say he's the finest they have to offer. He's got the credentials for the job, but as I said, I am not impressed.

My views may change in the future, so I can't say that he may not get better at civil. I hope he does. He seems to have all the right stuff. Just doesn't seem to have the will to do it.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11311
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Having practiced all over the West Coast, I was exceedingly surprised at Judge Scott's utter lack of civility towards litigants, blatant insolence which appeared to be uniquely directed at female counsel, and general discontentment. He rushes through motions and refuses to hear more than 10 to 15 words from counsel, effectively denying due process to the party who contests his tentative. This is quite unfortunate as this judge's impressive CV would suggest he is far more qualified than he actually is. His CV does not take into account his temperamental unfitness for the demand and authority of his post.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11310
Rating:1.2

Comments:
He frequently behaves somewhat volatility, has denied counsel the right to present or argue their motions, is condescending and demeaning towards female attorneys, and frequently behaves somewhat volatility; he openly displays a biased and a highly unprofessional temperament.

Litigant

Comment #: CA9568
Rating:8.0

Comments:
Reading some of the prior comments, It's unfortunate when people on the losing side of their case blame the judge for their bad behavior and ultimately their demise. I Have a divorce case that's been drawn out over three years. We had a recent hearing on a repudiated mediation agreement. The judge appeared clear headed, reasonable, and rational. He understood the facts, and was an excellent judge of cedibility. He was in control of his courtroom, and was fair with the witnesses. My only disappointment was his transfer to civil prior to the conclusion of my divorce.

Litigant

Comment #: CA9503
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This Judge is horrible, hates women and has a very bad temper. He doesn't know family law well enough to be a judge. He needs to go back to school or start in a lower court. Families suffer from his decisions! He was so pro male in my divorce case it was pathetic. He even talked to my husband during a break, then acknowledged it in court and refused to recuse himself from the case. Needless to say I had to settle this case out of court at over $200k in divorce fees. He never ruled in my favor even though he should have when it came to discovery of document etc. Can't ask a Judge to recuse himself or you will pay the consequences so no justice for me.

Other

Comment #: CA8457
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He gave a full custody to a father who had been sexually abusing his daughter. After receiving documentaton from CPS workers and Police Reports. Is he a sick woman hater who enjoys making women and children suffer? It seems so. Who put this guy in charge? You made a mistake, obviously. So, why does everyone sit around and do nothing to protect these poor kids?

Other

Comment #: CA8370
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Politically driven, bias judge with no regard for the black letter of the law. Takes the easy way out. A disgrace to justice and the court system.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA7907
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He's beyond scary. He took my daughter away from me and she is devastated and suffering. He ruined my life and my kids. I'm so sorry. I wish there was something to be done. I watched him in open court hand custody to a father even though the mother, the child's therapist, and CPS said the child was abused.

He's out for blood in regards to taking custody from mothers.

Other

Comment #: CA7857
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Hes scary, mean and appears it is obvious he hates women, big ego and he has my life in his hands right now. I am scared to death because these blogs confirm what I have thought all along. He is the worst judge I could have gotten. He does not care about law. He scares me because he appears to just rule based on his day and not on the law!!!!

Other

Comment #: CA7841
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Be very careful as a woman with this judge. It is beyond obvious he dislikes women and guides the men in questioning with open leading questions for them to sound great. Even if there's proof of lies, abuse etc it won't be viewed. The woman won't be questioned and the very person who almost took her life still gets the control and his narcissistic ego further stroked by an equally arrogant judge. Very immature extremely disturbing all around.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7554
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Nathan Scott should be removed from family law. He should be sent to oversee Worker's Compensation cases, or somewere far away from the lives of children and families. He is insecure, rude, arrogant, condescending, and does not know the law. He expects the attorneys to spoon feed him code sections and case law which he is expected to know, since he is a Family law Judge. He fails to protect children from allegations of sexual abuse. How many more children need to be victimized by his incompetence??

Other

Comment #: CA7437
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Judge Scott - gave text a book ruling for a case and did not take into account the extenuating circumstances. He is recommending that a vibrant, smart, great 11 old girl be taken away from her mom and given to her dad. She is very happy with her mom, doing great in school and is well adjusted. His logic is she needs to be with her 18 sister who is going away to college and a 17 yr. old sister. Does the judge honestly believe teenagers want to hang out with their pre-teen sister. The decision to have her live with her father will ruin the future of this child. Judge Scott reverse your decision on the Pugh case before you destroy the future of this 11 yr old!

Litigant

Comment #: CA7279
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Nathan Lane disregards COURT APPOINTED psych reports, testimony of CPS and police staff and gives visitation to admitted pedophiles.
Run for your damn life do NOT under any circumstance allow your case to be heard by him. Call for his disbarring and jail time for Scott.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA7266
Rating:3.5

Comments:
No regard for pro per.
If his honor desires lit, go on the Civil side.
Rude to parties. Threatens parties from the bench at check-in.
Doesn't do all of his homework.
Does not behave like a judge but more like an trial attorney.
Former Sr. Appellate Attorney to 4-3, but not getting the learning curve in Super Court.

Other

Comment #: CA6907
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He is a very rude person, it seems he does not like women and he gives favoritism to men. He does not listen in court, he makes his decision wrong or right and does not care to fix it, as a result a wife beater that wants to continue the abuse does not pay child support and Mr Scott is OK with that because he let him. Well done sir... explain that to the hungry kids!

Other

Comment #: CA6512
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Horrible Judge. Has no regard for children and the harm he's putting them in. Should not be allowed to make decisions for young children. Does not care if there are CPS cases, does not care about the best interest of the child. Embarrassment to the system.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6488
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He is in Family Law. Very immature. If you represent husband you are better off. Doesn't seem to have a clue but certainly does show bias. No regard for protecting children even when a mandated reporter gets involved.

Prosecutor

Comment #: CA6323
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Completely inept at handling child involved cases. Wondering who this judge knows and how he got this seat. He is dangerous and wondering how many children will die under his watch.
Inability to practice the law fairly and with bias.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA6238
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Unprofessional and biased against women.
Immature and does not know what he is doing.
Disregard for the law.
Unfair.
Biased.
Racist.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA6237
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Immature, foolish, Inept, unsophisticated, nervous judge who seems unsure of himself at all times. Biased and unfair. Goes against cps advice and federally mandated reporters warnings. Immature.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6235
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Join he class action lawsuit to disbar this judge

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA6234
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Call the California bar and get this judge disbarred ASAP.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6233
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Disbar this judge.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA6232
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Recuse yourself sir from your seat. Shameful bias towards men and blatant disregard for the health and welfare of minors.
Class action to disbar this judge imminent.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA6231
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Disgraceful uneven distribution of justice.
Disbar this judge before a child is killed under his watch.
How did this judge get appointed? He is a disgrace to all Hispanics everywhere. Morally bankrupt.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6230
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Demonstrates extreme bias against women and has no consideration for the safety or welfare of minor children.
Has this judge been investigated to see he many children have died under his watch?

Court Staff

Comment #: CA6229
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Based and does not provide fair and equitable justice to women.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA6228
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Not fair, biased against women. Racist. Masochist. Where did this judge come from he is illiterate and irrational.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA6227
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Disbar this judge

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4960
Rating:1.3

Comments:
He is very insecure in himself and how he is being viewed by older attorneys, to the point where he can get defensive and lash out. He makes too many mistakes.