Hon. Susan Bryant-Deason See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.5 - 16 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 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




What others have said about Hon. Susan Bryant-Deason


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5749
Rating:1.6
Comments:
If, in all of your years as an experienced litigator, you have never seen a rude and condescending judge sit on the bench...step into Bryant-Deason's courtroom. She loves talking down to attorneys - it makes her feel much better about her own miserable life.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4659
Rating:2.7
Comments:
Judge Bryant-Deason is without a doubt the rudest judge that I have seen in 36 years of practice. Her biases will become readily apparent almost immediately. I will normally not use a 170.6 on a mean, nasty judge who is smart and arrives at logical conclusions. Is she such a person? I do not know...yet.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4546
Rating:2.6
Comments:
I had a civil case with her. We made a stip to go to binding arbitration. She refused to sign it. We settled so as to not have to deal with her. The only good thing that I can see is that when one of the defendants deposited money with the court, she made sure that I got all my fees out of it. She sanctioned me for not showing up to a motion that had nothing to do with my client.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4527
Rating:1.1
Comments:
I would have given her all zeroes if it had been possible. She is absolutely the worse judge that I have ever appeared before in 28 years of practice. She mocked me ("Don't you know the law?") even though she was absolutely wrong on the law. Also, she did not even pretend that she had read my motion, or that she wasn't biased in favor of the other side. I really can't believe that she is a judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4212
Rating:3.6
Comments:
This judge is bad news. She made up her mind in favor of the plaintiff and made it clear to the litigants and the jury how she felt. We were able to defend the case (a trumped-up minor incident turned into a major incident), despite her biased rulings. For example, she allowed the plaintiff's psych expert to examine the plaintiff, and find that the plaintiff had PTSD, but then refused to allow the defense expert to do the same because it would have been too traumatic, and was going to allow the plaintiff's counsel to comment on the fact that the defense expert had not interviewed the plaintiff. Then she allowed the plaintiff to play the full video of the plaintiff's deposition, then allowed him to testify live in court as well. There were numerous other rulings equally wrong and biased. I won, and I'll still ding her every time. If you're a defendant, just say no.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3407
Rating:2.0
Comments:
She is the worst judge I've ever encountered. A rude, mean, biased, awful judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3406
Rating:3.1
Comments:
Truly awful, biased and unfair. Blatantly so.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2807
Rating:6.3
Comments:
Hard working and cares about "getting it right." She often gets it wrong, however. She is equally surley, condescending and disrespectful to litigants and attorneys from both sides. Maintains complete control of the court, even determining where parties and cousnel must sit, stand, etc. Questions witnesses, and reads jury qeustions to witnesses before sharing them with counsel. Refused to grant summary ajudication on a cause of action for which the plaintiff submitted no evidence or argument; she simply found "issues of fact in dispute" on everything. Somewhat plaintiffs' oriented (she won't grant MSJs/MSAs), but not greatly so.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2697
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Overall, I find this woman disrespectful and apparently mad at the world with her high and mighty attitude. In my 4 years of practice, I have NEVER been spoken to in such a manner. I am a female attorney and did not want to believe that my gender, age or looks had anything to do with her blatant disrespect towards me. After reading other reviews, my suspicions have been confirmed. I will refrain from speaking what is truly on my mind about this "judge," but let's just say that her condescending tone and bad attitude should not be permitted in the court room. Our jobs are hard enough as is. No one should be spoken to in such a manner, let alone counsel. I hope to God I never have to see her face again.

Other

Comment #: CA2450
Rating:1.0
Comments:
A disgrace to the bench.
A disrespectful egomaniac.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1500
Rating:3.4
Comments:
Seems pre-disposed, oddly enough, against female attorneys. I've appeared before her, and (of course) have sat through her calendars waiting my turn - and it seems to be her tendency to disfavor women and favor men. In fact, she tends to be downright intemperate with women. It is a puzzling tendency.

She has a self-important air that is troubling. She is not intellectually interactive. She appears smart, but I am troubled by her gender favortism.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1489
Rating:5.8
Comments:
Slightly idiosyncratic personality. Has her likes and dislikes. Don't call her 'Judge' say 'Your Honor'; and don't use the word 'Yeah' instead of 'Yes'.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1346
Rating:8.3
Comments:
Hm. Maybe it's because she liked me that I thought she was fair. But she lectured me on doing something against local rules, and I still think she was impartial, logical and smart.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA1206
Rating:2.4
Comments:
She rules in favor of who she likes, regardless of the law. If she likes you or dislikes your opposition, great. If not, 170.6 for sure.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1195
Rating:2.4
Comments:
Thinks she is God