Hon. Joseph M Quinn See Rating Details
Superior Court
San Francisco County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.3 - 4 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 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. Joseph M Quinn


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA40148
Judge Quinn appears to hate his job, life, and all who appear before him. He is easily enraged. Appears to think all counsel who appear before him must be chastised; has no respect for counsel or parties. His rulings reflect his anger rather than the merits before him.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33838
I appeared in a guardianship matter and Judge Quinn was quick tempered, exceptionally rude and dismissive. He needlessly yelled at me and made clear that he did not understand a very basic procedural issue.


Comment #: CA25721
I was charged with Felony Assault for throwing 1 punch-- an excessive charge to say the least, but be that as it may, the attitude of Judge Quinn during mu arraignment indicated to me that were my case to go to trial (First offense, not likely to be found guilty) - There was no way I was going to get a fair trial. The man shouted at me, berated me and left me no recourse but to go through Veterans Court.

He abused his power, allowing the prosecution to bring evidence to my arraignment while I was not afforded the same opportunity (My father was in the room and could've cleared the matter with one question)

Needless to say, the man ruined my life by not allowing MY mistake to be rectified and corrected.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11434
I appeared in a contested civil harassment restraining order case recently; both sides had counsel.

Some courts will allow both sides to put on their cases fully. I have had that experience in two Bay Area cases recently.

Judge Quinn makes it clear he is unhappy about his docket. He is out of sorts and approaching the border of rudeness, as is one of his staff members. He is short with counsel when there is no need to be, and when counsel were uber polite with him and his staff.

He imposed absurd time limits for evidence even though both sides had video evidence and multiple nonparty witnesses.

I suspect that he knew he was going to grant relief, and therefore knew he would not deprive any party of their rights by refusing to allow full evidence or even an offer of proof. He should have gone about doing that by telling the parties and counsel at the outset what his inclinations were, and letting them litigate any issue. I won, but the other side had a due process challenge based on the inability to present its case fully.

He was presented with evidence of very serious harassment, but he provided relief for only a short period of time without evidence that the harassment would end.

I won the case, but will 170.6 him every time henceforth. He has a poor demeanor, and is not really interested in the evidence or arguments. He is easily the most contemptuous judicial officer since Judith Saunders.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10078
Quinn gave an incredibly shoot from the hip ruling, with little understanding of the appellate cases involved. Truly seemed to not understand the law, although it may have been sheer laziness in not reading the cases as he asked for cites to cases that were explained in the briefs. Does not seem overworked, and did not have a busy courtroom, yet acts like he has no time. High strung temperament.