Hon. Ramona G. See See Rating Details
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.9 - 12 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)

What others have said about Hon. Ramona G. See


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9983
Nasty, uneven tempered, ill-willed, attorney hating monster who is incompetent and clueless and she should never have been placed on the bench -- and those are her good points.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8978
Clearly she does not like being a judge. The problem is that she forgets that she is a judge; not just some county administrator. The fact that decisions she makes actually affect peoples' lives is lost on her. Angry. Ineffective. Clueless. 170.6

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8514
Judge See is tough but fair. She is reasonable, offers a generous amount of time for both parties during oral argument, and patiently listens to the arguments. She had a strong grasp of the issues and case, and appears to read and review all court docs. One of the five best judges I’ve been before.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8032
Judge See is without a doubt the least consistent jurist I have appeared before. Her rulings are all over the map and she rarely adheres to the rules of civil procedure. You can expect to wait months for rulings on any substantive matters as she takes everything under submission and never rules from the bench. She also does not hear oral arguments on any ex parte applications. Her demeanor is generally unpleasant and it is not clear that she reads anything prior to taking the bench. It generally seems that litigants and their counsel are at the mercy of her clerk. If you have the ability to file a 170.6, I strongly recommend it. I cannot say that I found her to be biased towards plaintiffs or defendants, just generally bad at her job and seemingly indifferent to that fact.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7850
All the bad comments are true: does not understand the law; does not understand evidence; does not give a crap about her job.

She is not qualified to be a judge. She does not read the papers and puts no effort into her rulings. She acted affronted that I wanted to argue. She doesn't understand what evidence is. (Plaintiff submitted none - and I had to tell her that it was an evidentiary hearing, not a demurrer). Despite that, she denied my motion anyway. It's going up on writ, where I am certain it will be reversed.

Terrible judge - maybe the worst I've ever seen.

I'll be peremptorily challenging her from now on. This is not the first time she has completely screwed up a ruling on one of my firm's cases.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7730
I'm a little surprised at the comments saying that Judge See is "pro-defendant." Being a plaintiff's attorney, (at leasst in my experience) she has certainly shown compassion to the "little guy" fighting the excessive motions and procedural delay tactics corporate defense attorneys employ while attempting to crush the opposition both financially and emotionally. While I do agree that (again, in my experience) she does not stray from her tentative, I have always found her orders to be thorough, with little to no ambiguity as to the reasons behind her decisions.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7404
Tried to tell me in open court that one party's breach of contract cannot excuse another's performance...

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7219
Arrogant, dismissive of both sides,generally unaware of mitigating law , unwillingly to change tentative in face of clear error. Forces unnecessary appeals;

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4839
This judge is incompetent.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3993
I have only had one case before Judge See, but I did sense that she was a bit pro-defendant in my case (I represented the plaintiff). Defendants filed a demurrer, which she set for hearing approximately five months out (which may not have been her fault given the funding issues with L.A. Superior). In ruling on the demurrer, she essentially punted, placing a stay in effect while a related matter was appealed. I do not think the stay was appropriate given the circumstances, but that was her ruling. She later overruled the demurrer once the stay was lifted. She was also decidedly indifferent to one defendant forging another defendant's signature on a substitution of counsel form. Since the matter was one sounding in fraudulent conveyance, I had expected her (or any other jurist) to take the matter very seriously. She did not think it was worthy of an ex parte application or a hearing.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3586
As unpleasant a judge as I have encountered in 30 years. She turned a fairly straight-forward PI case into a nightmare with the whackiest ruling I've ever gotten from a judge - a ruling that was reversed on a writ petition. She apparently has no concept of what constitutes evidence. Perhaps the only good thing about the re-organization of the courts is that she will not be my trial court judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3276
Arrogant, unqualified, dismissive of counsel and litigants, especially Plaintiffs, clearly in over her head and hides it with a show of haughty disdain. She makes tentative rulings and never wavers from them, no matter how wrong; it is a waste of time to use oral argument to move her from the tentative; just use oral argument to make your record for appeal. She will often take weeks, if not months, to issue a final ruling on a law and motion matter, yet it is invariably the same as the tentative ruling, verbatim.
Based on my personal experience, and according to everyone I know, she is biased in favor of defendants, especially insurance companies. For Judge See, the law exists to protect the interests of the rich and powerful, and everyone else is a waste of her time.