Hon. Shelly J. Averill See Rating Details
Superior Court
Sonoma County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.4 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   4.0 - 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. Shelly J. Averill


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA28522
A true asset to the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA18829
I am a private practice Family law Attorney who had the recent experience of going before her representing a client who hired me because Im not from Sonoma County. When I went before her representing my client I immediately saw why. Sonoma County seems to be a county where they favor thier own. She was completely evident of that fact. I witnessed things that I have not witnessed in the big city area where I practice law. In order to give her the benefit of the doubt, She seemed to either be not as educated in the area of law and California Court procedures like most judges are, however if thats not the case then litigants especially pro se litigants are not going to be treated fairly and according to thier rights in her court. I find that extremly disturbing because in most cases there are children who are the subject of these cases and its quite possible they could be suffering because of her negligence and lack of education, or what I fear as a lawyer with a law degree who was taught the importance of legal ethics and impartiality, is that her disregard for both may be causing her to make unjust findings and orders and judgements that are causing kids who are at her mercy alot of suffrage. While family law in California is not as scrutinized by the constitution and litigants rif=ghts as criminal and other types of law, I urge those fellow legal professionals who deal with family law to remember, that they are still dealing with peoples lives and moreover that it may be a more important area in the fact that you are handling litigants familial livlihood. While family law can get overwhelming its very important to recognize what your purpose is and respect the people you deal with and if you cant to know when to take a break. I feel that this is what she may need because she seems to just speak without watching what she is saying or not think of the legal rammifications of her actions which from what I saw was an often misscarraige of justice, failure to remain non bias and plenty violations of California Court Rules. In my field we as legal professional have the legal duty in the interest of justice to speak up on incidents where a fellow lawyer or Judge is abusing thier power, which is why I am commenting. Godspeed to all


Comment #: CA18827
She is not a Judge that I would want my case to come infront of if I was on her bad side or didnt have an attorney. I was with a friend who had a court hearing infront of her and Id never been before but decided to tag along. The court room was packed. So I was bored and wishing to get out of there with no interest, until I started to see how she treated people without attorneys. She seemed to favor those who had them and the ones who didnt she shut them down when the tried to talk, and I thought she was wrong in the way she handled these people. So trust and believe if your ever fighting for custody or getting a divorce, get a lawyer or she is gonna treat you direspectfully and she favors represented parties. I started to count as I watched and about 6 cases had attorneys. about 4 cases had no attorney for either person. Of the 6 with attorneys 2 both people had them. She treated these cases respectfully and seemed to live up to her duties as a judge. both parties walked away ok, of the four other cases with attorneys only one party was represented and it seemed to be the mom who had an attorney except one case. the mom in those cases seemed to be treated fairly and the unrepresented dads were railroaded. She talked to them like they were stupid and even though a couple seemed to have really good points she didnt care. The dads that were represented in the cases were treated ok and the women who had no attorneys were definitely treated better then the guys who didnt. I LEFT BEING THANKFUL I WENT INFRONT OF BOYD. Id say she is prejudice and does not like parties without attorneys ESPECIALLY DADS. Good luck guys.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA13844
Rating:Not Rated
Third string legal mind. Did not graduate from a fully accredited law school and it shows. Over-impressed with herself and engages in bullying behavior on the bench. Gives the "home court advantage" to her friends in the legal community.


Comment #: CA8550
Uninformed but fair