Hon. Michael Lief See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Ventura County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 1 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      
Zip
Occupation

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:

    

What others have said about Hon. Michael Lief


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA12363
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Biased. I had records in a small "text communication prohibited while driving" case. He completely disregarded evidence, elected not even to review phone bill showing no texts received/sent within full hour of time of infraction. He ignored the fact officer could not say he witnessed me "reading texts." He ignored the law at the time which did not prohibit "handling of device," which was the cause to plug into charger. He ruled merely because he "felt officer was more credible." What a joke! And I saw him give the same unprofessional, rude treatment to others in the courtroom. He seems like your typical stick up his robe, white privilege elitist. As a taxpayer, law-abiding citizen, I resent having to subsidize this poser's salary and fat pension.