Hon. Emily T Spear See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 4 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. Emily T Spear


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA49420
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Finally, this Bad Judge Emily SPEAR has been Publicly Outed by the CJP --for pissing off other judges. But if you think she treats her co-judges bad, think how bad she treats the people who find themselves subject to her rogue judicial behavior. Next, the Commission should throw this rotten jerk, Emily Spear off the Bench!

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA49242
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Get This Dishonorable Woman OFF THE BENCH
The Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly admonished Judge Emily T. Spear of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2023/09/Spear_PR_DO_Pub_Adm_9-6-23.pdf

Litigant

Comment #: CA49150
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Emily Spear Publicly Admonished by Judicial Commission 9/8/2023.
“In light of the number of incidents of misconduct, the judge’s lack of insight into the seriousness of her misconduct, and the fact that some of her misconduct reflected a lack of integrity…, the commission has determined that a public admonishment is the appropriate discipline.”
Spear was found to have displayed rudeness, disrespectful conduct, profane remarks, manipulation etc...
METNEWS: Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Armando Durón, commented that "Spear, at 36, acts like a teenager and tells little white lies.”

Other

Comment #: CA47699
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Emily T Spear is terrible judge, she know nothing about family court.
When both parents turn in dissomaster calculations Emily say she don't know father's dissomater calculations about.

Other

Comment #: CA46725
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Emily T Spear is a young immature judge that does not deserve to be on the bench because she doesn't understand the law. She violates ethics of the judicial cannon.. Spear is also listed on LARECALLS.com as one of the worse judges in California. There is a movement to get her recalled off the bench. Sign the Petition
https://larecalls.com/we’re-watching

Other

Comment #: CA38252
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The Judge did not know the law and going as far as to ask the opposing attorney how to rule in a case against the Respondent/defendent.
She would not permit the Respondent to provide evidence or speak on their behalf.
She allowed temporary orders to become active orders without hearing the case.
She would not do her due diligence to review the declarations of the Respondent.