Hon. Elizabeth Lee See Rating Details
Superior Court
San Mateo County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Elizabeth Lee


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA13145
Not a great judge, to say the least. Appears to not handle her Courtroom with the grit and judgment required. Weakness of position and complacent with the party she favors, up to the point of shutting down the other side: granting objections without consideration, demonstrating limited tolerance and patience to listen. This Judge is not competent regarding juvenile matters.


Comment #: CA13128
I experienced this Judge in Juvenile Court over almost a year. She is certainly biased, not respecting the rules of law, even with attorneys, and not exercising independent Judgment. She revealed her true color at multiple occasion making frustrated and misplaced comments proving her unilateral thinking and not letting / shortening witness time who do not go in the direction she will favor. She has very little empathy and lack of respect for parents and grandparents of the children she is supposedly protecting. I have personally seen her discarding witnesses' opinion and testimony in favor of others, being consistently late and disrespectful of people's time and Court's budget and totally incompetent as far as Juvenile matters are concerned. She clearly appears to let her emotions, thoughts and biased perception overweight the rational decision making and respect of the rules of evidence that she should apply in her decision making. In her court there is no respect for the notion of Family, neither the one of justice or presumption of innocence. Finally, she is an adept at being late and taking pauses for extraordinary amount of times.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10360
Why is she even a judge? She is a professional award seeker. In 35 years of practice I've never seen a judge with more "awards" plastered in every inch of her chambers. Maybe there is even one for passing potty training, but I didn't look that closely.
Shows up to work at least 15 minutes late on a daily basis. Has no idea about law or procedure (somebody told me she was a Federal prosecutor so that would explain it.)
Obviously hasn't read most pleading submitted. Appears she rules based upon the research memo she receives, problem is some of those people are law students.
Biased, almost racist and elitist in many ways. Friends who have tried cases in her Department said they committed malpractice by not papering her (170.6 CCP).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8733
Sorry to hear the comments by "Litigant". The only qualification for her appointment was being an Asian female. There are countless qualified people of all backgrounds who could serve, but that isn't the criteria being used. On average, Judge Lee shows up to work 15-minutes late every day. She has highly politicized her judicial office and pulls the race card when things don't go her way.
It's malpractice not to exercise a 170.6 challenge whenever possible.


Comment #: CA8021
Judge Lee is a woman with a criminal law background who should have been vetted better before being allowed onto the civil bench. A number of attorneys agreed that her discovery motion ruling in my litigation evidenced incompetence, and may have had a fatal affect on my case, such that I stand to lose my life savings. I cannot recommend this jurist at all.