Hon. Randolph Rogers See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   9.4 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 5 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. Randolph Rogers


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA6551
Rating:1.0
Comments:
As an outside observer viewing Judge Rogers in court, it is apparent watching MORE THAN 1 CASE, Rogers had his mind made up beforehand for a "personal agenda" not the truth. He ignored testimony he did not want to hear, frequently stating "Let's move on".How can you ignore pertinent info like phone records/emails,police reports, etc.,unless you do not care about truth? During custody cases, he has yelled at children, making even teenage boys cry.Rogers told one young man, ignoring his testimony AND WISHES, "Shut up. I know what's best for you!" I agree with other comments that Judge Rogers makes up his mind prior to the case, disregards evidence, IS BIASED, is rude and a bully. This is California in 2015 not Mississippi in 1912. Now, who does Judge Rogers favor, is the question. I have heard Rogers on many occasions complain about his ex-wife.(On record)Judge Rogers had a contentious divorce blaming his wife in court about lots of stuff. Does he hate women/minorities or does he just pre-pick a winner at random? Marsha Clark must have had Judge Rogers in mind when she said LA Superior Judges have minds made up before a trial. Yes, Judge Rogers needs to be investigated(mentally unstable?)Curious, if there is a common thread of prejudice. I am a white,senior,male and believe women/minorities could be victims of Rogers. Terrible judge and worse human being!!! Dissenters,we need to network!

Other

Comment #: CA6536
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Awful. If you end up in his court run. You will not get a fair judgment. He makes up his mind before you even present your case. My case was backed up by SFE's, minor's counsel, police reports, CPS and yet this judge refused to take any of it into consideration. Do not let this judge hear your case. You will be sorry.

Other

Comment #: CA6299
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Horrible. He needs to be investigated. I was before him on 12/15/2014 Case 14SA1049 as a plaintiff. first he refused to receive financial documents outline of money paid to defendant and expenses to to me because of defendant (receipts and invoices. It was apparent that he had already made a decision about key claims. My claims were backed by Los Angeles County official Housing Authority inspection reports, Building Health and Safety code violation notices and Department of Consumer Affairs case notes that were subpoenaed and before the court. He ignored the conclusion that all these agencies had come to and that he was bound by law rule on. He refused to receive my outline and pictures that supported and confirmed the findings of the government agencies. He received for consideration the defendants documents that were sketches, pictures and e mail print outs with no chain of custody and that were in conflict with the evidence presented by the government agencies. I have written him for an explanation and am waiting for his response. I do not expect I will get one that is favorable. anyone that has had this type of issue with Judge Rogers should look in to making a formal complaint to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6191
Rating:9.4
Comments:
Yes he can be tough on witnesses if they lose his confidence but he respects lawyers who are prepared and well versed. He works hard to understand complex matters and do the right thing by taking his time to carefully review the evidence and is willing to change his mind if the evidence so dictates. on complex civil matters he is by far one of the best judges I have seen in terms of analysis, hard work and judicious temperament.

Other

Comment #: CA5882
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This is the worst Judge in California history. I was in his courtroom Monday 09/29/2014. I was the defendant in the case, I have no idea what was wrong with this guy, but he believed the plaintiff word and never looked at the evidence, he told me he did not need to see anything from me because he believed her. She lied about everything except her name. This has to the worse judge I have ever met.

Litigant

Comment #: CA5344
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Judge did not seem committed to fining the truth of either testimony or evidence. He did not even bother to inquire the reason why the charge of fraud was brought against the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted false testimony fraudulent
evidence and gave testimony that indicated likely intent to commit fraud and Judge issued no warnings and no probing questions to reconcile conflicting testimony.