"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

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. Samuel T. McAdam

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA48922
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The judge's decision in my case seemed to overlook critical facts. Despite evidence suggesting the defendant was wrongfully dismissed, the judge ruled that I must cover their attorney's fees. Moreover, the case was suspended for all matters unrelated to the dismissed defendant, pending an appeal that concerned only this defendant. When I highlighted the lack of a clear Operating Agreement to justify such fees, the judge did not even request a response from the opposing side. Instead, he hastily concluded that the case should not be reconsidered. When I further pressed on the Operating Agreement issue, I was abruptly removed from the courtroom session. While the judge may have displayed fairness in other cases, his impartiality appears questionable when it involves a female minority representing herself against a powerful billionaire group.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6480
Rating:2.7

Comments:
Avoid this judge if you represent women in dissolution or child custody actions