Hon. Paul M. Haakenson See Rating Details
Superior Court
Marin County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.4 - 6 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. Paul M. Haakenson


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA7970
I’m in complete disbelieve about this article. Every single mill that produces 2x lumber sells this way and every distributor, retailer, builder, architect knows exactly what a 2x is. I’m disappointed that Lowes allowed something so well known to go unchallenged, I think it’s sad today when companies or people in spite of the facts settle to avoid further loss. 2x lumber has been sold this way since the beginning and it’s sold this way in both the United States and Canada. Shame on California for stooping this low. It’s a sad day when something so ingrained into the fabric of the way we do business can be challenged and further result in a monetary penalty, I’d love to know who Lowes actually hurt in this case. This ruling has zero benefit to anyone who would buy these products, our country is out of control

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA7969
A dimensional 2x4 is 1.5 inches x 3.5 inches. The reason being, 2x4 describes the rough dimensions before the boards are milled down to their "dimensional" (flat/even) size. So you start with a rough 2"x4" board that might be somewhat warped, crooked, rough, etc.. then it is passed through the mill, where it is planed/cut down to the final smooth/flat/hopefully not warped 1.5"x3.5"

Note that this applies to soft woods like pine. For hard woods, you typically talk in terms of the number of sides that have been Surfaced, and there is less material taken off. A 2x4 oak board that has been surfaced on all 4 sides, for example, ends up being 1 3/4" x 3 3/4"

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA5768
Rating:Not Rated
Judge Haakenson delivered a moronic ruling and fines into the millions against Lowe's because the 2x4's they were selling were not 2"x4" but 1.5" x 3.5". Is that correct? I have been a carpenter and contractor for 40 years, the entire construction industry is based upon actual 2x4 dimensions, not "nominal" dimensions. This has gone on since the 1930's. This decision will surely be overturned on appeal, and Judge Haakenson's ruling will go down in annals as one of the dumbest ever.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA5762
Paul thinks a 2x4 should actually be 2"x4", thus proving he is a complete moron.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4439
Judge Haakenson is possibly the best judge in Marin County. I've worked on both criminal and civil trials before him, and he is unfailingly prepared, understands the issues of each side, and is sensible and "liberal" in jury selection parameters (good with questionnaires if they're well written). He grants cause challenges if there's actual, you know, bias (unlike other judges on the Marin bench, who don't care and just tell you to use a peremptory). A good guy.