Hon. Timothy J. Staffel See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Santa Barbara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.6 - 1 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      
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




What others have said about Hon. Timothy J. Staffel


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9408
Rating:1.6
Comments:
Does not uphold litigants constitutionally guaranteed rights, does not uphold the laws of California, does not act in accordance with court procedure, will not assume judicial authority but delegates it to third parties not accountable to the court, drags out cases for one year or more by her inability to make a decision, does not uphold the rules of court, panders to certain attorneys consistently even when her decisions if favor of these attorneys and their litigants have been over turned by the appellate court, lacks the ability to focus and recall the issues currently present before the court, makes significant decisions based on hearsay with no evidence to collaborate, discriminates against women, in particular women objectively viewed as attractive.