Hon. Michelle Tong See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Francisco County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.0 - 8 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 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. Michelle Tong


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA53202
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Tong is the worst I have appeared before. Simply put, she is unprofessional in her demeanor. Her work product is full of errors and she does not read her cases or understand them fully. She is lazy.
She does not know what she is doing. This is extremely clear. As such, she becomes defensive in the courtroom. I have witnessed her attack and silence people. She is not objective and has clear biases against certain races. It is a true shame that she is on the bench. She is not qualified.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA52512
Rating:1.9
Comments:
Does not know the law. She does not read the fillings. She is a bully when she does not know the law. Very poor judge as she does not read the filings. I have sat through 10 hours of watching her preside over multiple cases. She should NOT have been elected. She is not professional and does not do the work. Poor, poor judge - nowhere near as good as Darwin, Flores or Hwang.

Litigant

Comment #: CA48845
Rating:10.0
Comments:
She's good, smart, but don't get on her bad side, I'm glad someone with half of a brain is assigned to the SF Family Court

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA47586
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Update: Her demeanor is now slowly moving into the acceptable category, but she has another deficit that should be gone by now - she lets pro pers go on indefinitely on irrelevant or marginal side issues.

When handling a harassment or similar case, the experienced judicial officer will ask the pro pers open ended questions to see if they have a winning case or a defense as soon as it becomes clear that they want to have a long time to unfurl all their grievances.

This is especially so when interpreters are in use.

Get to the point and see if there is or is not a basis to find for the Petitioner. Yes, venting is important, but court is not psychiatry. Get to the point.

I am going to ask each of you some questions today.

For purposes of my questions, Violence means xxxx

Mr. Smith, did Ms. Jones ever use violence against you?

Mr. Smith, did Ms. Jones ever threaten you with violence?

Did she threaten violence with words or gestures?

etc.

In a few words, is there anything else you would like me to know?

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA47185
Rating:10.0
Comments:
A judge for the people. Actually reads the court documents and calls insurance companies out on deceptive practices. Fair, smart, and thorough.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA46508
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Horrible judge. Stupid beyond belief. Does not believe prejudgment interest is recoverable on undisputed and liquidated debt and refuses to acknowledge overwhelming statutory and case law directly on point simply because she is a left winger and former "eviction defender" and "public defender".

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA46364
Rating:3.4
Comments:
It is unusual for a newly appointed judge to be confused, defensive, rude and snappish, not to mention a tad closed-minded. She gives off fumes indicating that the ro calendar is beneath her dignity. She needs some work on her judicial temperament. The pro pers and their witnesses are not opponents. She is not uniformly rude, but she is far too rude at this early stage in her career. I would be interested to know if she treats clerks and staff well.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA41843
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Completely lacking in judicial demeanor, brings a serious attitude and bias to the bench. Rude. Total moron. This person is completely unqualified to be a judge. Stay away at all cost. Should be banished if that were possible. Challenge. Challenge. Challenge.

Litigant

Comment #: CA41698
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She's lazy, biased, moody, does not want to look at the points and authority and most importantly not fair. She is not qualified to be a judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA40163
Rating:1.8
Comments:
She’s very rude and has an age full temperament. Why is it necessary to yell and be rude to litigants? She was even rude and condescending to her clerk in front of all the litigants. Very unpleasant vibe on her courtroom.

Use a 170.6 oral motion to challenge her for small claims. It’s a free one time pass to get another judge. Avoid her at all costs

Litigant

Comment #: CA38326
Rating:1.0
Comments:
absolute moron. doesn't understand how banking works. i was sued for 800 dollars principal and 9500 in pain and suffering and this idiot awarded 5 grand principal. perhaps she needs to retake 3rd grade math.