Hon. Gloria Connor Trask See Rating Details
Superior Court
Riverside County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.5 - 8 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   7.0 - 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      

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. Gloria Connor Trask



Comment #: CA6159
I was on the jury, and found her very knowledgeable and personable.


Comment #: CA5870
I was on jury duty and had judge trask and I enjoy her as are judge

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5535
So defense biased, she objects when the defense attorney doesn't; arbitrarily limited voir dire to 30 minutes,ignoring brief on CCP 222.5, interrupting to stop any open ended questions; over ruled all 7 P MILs and granted D's, Wouldn't allow P's animation of the accident...Worst, most biased trial judge I've seen in 40 years!

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4969
I clicked the wrong category to the above post by mistake. The above post stating that Judge Gloria Trask is the worst, unfair and inept judge I have ever encountered is from a pro se litigant, not a criminal defense attorney. That is the only clarification that I wanted to make. (The court should take note of how low Judge Trask's docket load is, compared to the rest of the departments. That speaks for itself.)

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4966
Judge Gloria Trask is the worst, most unfair and inept judge that I have ever encountered! She has no knowledge of the law. Her summary of my motion showed that she did not read my reply papers. Everything that she stated in her summary was refuted in my reply papers, that she obviously didn't read. As I listened to her read her summary of the opposing counsel's motion I was astounded that she had not read my reply, which had refuted each and every point with evidence, citation to case law and exhibits.

I am a pro se litigant, and I am warning all pro se litigants to stay out of her courtroom, as she will rule against you regardless of the merits of the case.

I am a co-trustee of a trust. As per the Probate Code, I am entitled to an accounting of the trust. That is basic probate law which I cited in my motion. Opposing counsel provided boilerplate objections to my request for an accounting of the trust. I brought a motion to compel an accounting of the trust. Judge Trask not only denied the motion, she sanctioned me and told me that I am "not entitled to an accounting of the trust."

I brought a motion to reconsider the sanction award, based on the fact that opposing counsel's opposition to my motion to compel, in which opposing counsel had requested the sanctions, was never served on me -- and I showed proof of this in my motion to reconsider the sanction award. I attached the last page of opposing counsel's 21-page opposition on file with the court showing that it was missing his proof of service, and that therefore I was denied the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard to defend against the sanctions that I didn't know he was claiming against me, without having been served with his opposition.

In oral argument, I reiterated this due process violation to Judge Trask, stating that I was being charged with sanctions in an opposition that was never served on me, and of which no proof of service was on file with the court. Judge Trask responded: "Well, that is not what you stated in your motion." Even though it was Point One of my motion!

The bottom line is that she doesn't read the papers, doesn't know the law, and is unfair, inept and hateful towards pro se litigants. I think the court should be monitoring her and her rulings. If you want a fair hearing, stay out of her courtroom!


Comment #: CA4787
Pro se litigants, beware: she is unprofessional and insanely hateful towards self-represented parties. Please investigate the facts for yourself. Justice is not blind in her courtroom. Audaciously, she attempted to rename my motion, and I respectfully directed her to my pleading. She reviewed the law, and read it aloud, only to find that her tentative ruling was improper. Instead of allowing the hearing to proceed on the merits, she became outraged, stating on the record that she did not care and that she would not rule in my favor. She is by far the worst judge that I have personally experienced. What's even more curious is that she denied my 170.6! This is dishonorable behavior at its worst!


Comment #: CA4270
Extraordinarily fair and unbiased. She had complete consideration for jurors, litigants and attorneys in her court. She is pleasant, funny and interesting; even giving tours of the beautiful historic courthouse that she loves and takes such pride in. Riverside is lucky to have her!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3561
I have practiced on both plaintiff and defense sides of civil trials - I'd be happy to have her as a trial judge whichever side I was on. I've seen the other comments here, and should say that, at least in the case I tried before her, the opposing lawyer felt exactly as I did about her. The trial lasted a bit over 2 weeks, so our exposure to her was significant.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2803
Worst judge I have ever appeared in front of in the more than 25 years I have been practicing law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2131
My firm and my client (plaintiff) are not from Riverside. The other side's firm and client (defendant) are from Riverside. Her rulings on evidence were insanely lopsided in their favor (like literally 95% skewed their way). In addition to just being wrong much of the time, she would rule in their favor if they made an objection and then rule in their favor when we would make the exact same objection in the same circumstances. She also let the defense present 100% of their case in chief during our case in chief, allowing them to call 4 witnesses out of order, which totally screwed with our presentation and was completely unnecessary and disrespectful. At a certain point, we were simply entertained by the patent unfairness. That's how bad it was. In fact, I came to the conclusion that she was simply "padding the record" because she knew she was going to rule in our favor, and I started to take comfort in her awful, awful rulings. She seemed like she was bending over backwards to make sure her ruling for us could not be appealed. But we lost - in a case with some of the best facts I've ever been to trial with. I am stunned and appalled. The worst judge I have ever known. Maybe it's because we were from L.A. and got hometowned. Maybe she has a terrible defense bias. I don't know, and I don't care. I will 170.6 her as long as I live. On the upside, she was surprisingly patient and allowed counsel to argue points extensively (it was a bench trial). However, that benefit is mitigated by the fact that she has a horrible memory/attention span and does not seem to understand basic legal points (especially the rules of evidence). And to add insult to injury, she constantly made faces - as if to say "WTF are you talking about" - at us and our witnesses when we would make arguments she didn't understand.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1823
Judge Trask means well. She tries hard and seems to have a bit of a defense bias. She allowed a defense attorney to argue points that should have been left to the plaintiff as part of plaintiffs' case in chief. However, she did appear to acknowledge her error once she figured out defendants' strategy. Her law and motion rulings are well thought out, she let's you argue each fact/legal point and gives every attorney their shot.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA290
Smart, understanding, great temperament and sense of humor.