Hon. James L. Crandall See Rating Details
Superior Court
Orange County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   8.8 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. James L. Crandall


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA13273
Rating:Not Rated
Excellent judge who does his best to be fair to both sides. Exemplary judge who represents the best in our judiciary.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA12735
I represented the defendant in a promissory note case. The plaintiff was in pro per but very capable. Judge Crandall gave the pro per plaintiff, who did not initiate an issue conference, did not exchange exhibits before trial, presented his exhibits at trial as a loose stack of documents, etc., significant latitude procedurally. This was a one-day court trial and Judge Crandall let the parties try their case, pro per plaintiff going significantly over his time estimates. However, Judge Crandall gently reminded both sides when they were leaving the core issues of the case, giving some latitude for collateral matters to be presented but keeping control of the case.

Ultimately, he ruled for the defendant because the defendant, my client, produced evidence indicating that although defendant's signature was authentic, had been "lifted" from another document because when held up in the light, aligned exactly with the signature on the challenged document. There were no experts on either side.

Judge Crandall ruled that because he was unable to determine whether the defendant placed his authentic signature on the disputed promissory note, plaintiff had not carried his burden of proof and ruled for the defendant.

Although I may be biased in this report, even before the ruling, I formed the opinion that Judge Crandall was giving both sides a very fair trial. He refused to agree with my argument that the signature was conclusively forged but held that he could not make a determination that it was placed there by the defendant, either. Judge Crandall is a very quick study as evidenced by his repeated mini summaries of the evidence during the trial, rulings on evidentiary objections, and ultimate ruling announced from the bench at the conclusion of the trial.