Hon. Vanessa A. Zecher See Rating Details
Superior Court
Santa Clara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.8 - 2 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      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Vanessa A. Zecher


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA40613
Judge is extremely judgmental. She tried to say the child only had 1 mother and 1 father. When the father corrected her saying he had 2 moms and 2 dads, she back tracked. We explained that we wanted mom (non-custodial parent) to have observed drug tests since we suspected her to still be using - Judge just asked mom if they were getting her CDL. We also explained mom broke court order by bringing the child to another location while visiting and did not tell the custodial parent - judge didn't seem to care. She also didn't care that mom's current boyfriend has a criminal history of domestic violence and drug use. WHen we brought up the fact that mom has had several black eyes, burns, etc - judge just said child was not allowed to be left alone with the boyfriend.


Comment #: CA40612
She was bias towards the mother. SHe did not listen to our individual case and circumstances.


Comment #: CA28585
Rating:Not Rated
Respectfully, Honorable Vanessa Zecher, just
information, please. A client you served as an
attorney in 1998, may not always understand the
Special provisions and flexibilities of a Family Protection Trust, which excludes spouses. This
ex-client of yours, does not register she has ended up with 4 times, plus the amount of other beneficiaries because it was important designated heirloom property be kept. ($1.7 M vs $400k, latter did almost all the work). The Judicial Commission will be contacted to assure we sell one property (4554) to clear all obligations for the estate, as there is considerable work since 2014 completed by attorneys, meetings held to bring about a project, free and clear estate. Adjust
accordingly for Special Needs Trust brother with what he would really enjoy. This is mentioned because unintentionally (MBL) may have misled
SCC Judges and SSA. Not all Trust packages are the same. The Family Protection Trust has
several Safeguards, flexibilities and provisions.
What may appear illegal in regular trusts, is legal in the Family Protection Trust. Just wish to relate this to assure understanding is accurate. My
perception is that personnel in the Office of the
Legal Counsel, as SNT Brother is under SCC
Public Guardian, have superimposed regular
probate laws over flexibilities granted in the
Family Protection Trust. Serious was snagged,
USDJ/FBI informed. (18PR183681, 18-32026). Thank you for your review. (Department 13).
(Sister to MBL).

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA19841
Rating:Not Rated
I am familiar with the agenda of the reviewer who suggested extramarital activities between Zecher and Rosen. I do not approve of personal attacks unrelated to judicial performance. I am in no way in agreement with that speaker. Let's keep polemics out of reviews.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA7035
Threatening letter from her attorney 2010 takes the position that a child support settlement for below guideline and without the waiver required by FC 4065 is legal and binding if it was signed in mediation by a judge pro tem! See Carlson v. Eassa (1997) if you doubt me; she is a judge now yet does not care about a law that bars a judge from acting absent the waiver? Also does not believe in free speech on this site?


Comment #: CA6139
I was threatened by Zecher's attorney for publishing comments she made to me in an email in 2003; now I have put Judge Johnson of Canon 3D (2). In 2003, Zecher knew I refused to waive guideline CS, let other attorney have a draft of settlement entered into an order after I revoked consent; fraud upon the court. Zecher refused to tell judge. In 2010, fifty judges including that judge endorsed her run for the judiciary. Her mom was a judge too. Political ambition above duty to client? That would be a violation of the Rules of Professional conduct, huh?


Comment #: CA4556
As a family law attorney, she wrote to me that many judges "were ill-tempered, ill-prepared, or just plain ill" and wouldn't go to court. She told me that the mandatory statement re: waiver of CS was "boiler plate," and let opposing council have a settlement entered into an order that lacked the FC 4065 mandatory waiver and violated the terms of a college trust fund, and then refused to file a set-aside motion when Judge Johnson entered it into an order. She had her attorney threaten me when I posted this information online. I cited the First Amendment and my possession of Judge Zecher's e-mail.