Hon. Patricia M. Lucas See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Santa Clara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.4 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 6 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. Patricia M. Lucas


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA19149
Rating:1.0
Comments:
she not read the case, she accepted fake evidence from another party, she ignored all my requests and not estimated evidence, she denied my request for continuance, because police asked to stop hearing

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA14150
Rating:2.1
Comments:
Case was removed to another county for inability to get a fair trial in Santa Clara County. Lucas and the criminal court clerks ignored the removal and cotinued to prosecute the case in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Now at least Lucas and all the criminal judges involved can be sued for denial of due process per 42 USC 1983, 5th Amendment and Cal Const Art 1 Sec 7 in fed court cross complaint. One judge sued in his personal capacity has embezzled public funds for his private law suit by conspiring with the state DOJ for DOJ representation in violation of Cal Const Art 16 Sec 6 :no public funds shall be used for private purposes. The DOJ atty will be disqualified for criminally providing legal defense in private lawsuit,.

Litigant

Comment #: CA14099
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Evidence proved that Vanessa Zecher had violated CRPC by aiding opposing counsel to obtain an order injurious to her own client and Zecher emailed that the judges were 'ill-tempered, ill-prepared or just plain ill" to frighten her client into settling. 2010 Lucas endorsed Zecher for judge, so Lucas denied a prefiling order to a wrongly declared vexatious litigant to prevent an appellate review of the order Zecher fraudulently helped enter. Lucas had arrested a demonstrator lawfully picketing family court on a public sidewalk. Lucas has forgotten that she swore to uphold the constitution.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA13572
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Even though I work at the courthouse, I condemn Judge Lucas's illegal actions against civilian protesters. She should be recalled and removed off the bench for being biased and blatantly violating people's First Amendment rights.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA12279
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Lucas has no respect and bias towards self representing litigants, she would rather you hire an attorney she has control over rather than for someone to question the status quo and rather than having to actually do some thinking, as she sits up there on the bench looking like a dead oak-tree asking the defendant county counsel if plaintiff can do that. Why is a judge asking the defense attorney if Plaintiff can do that? what she was asking county counsel was, if Plaintiff could impose discovery sanctions against his former attorneys, which he did do.

Litigant

Comment #: CA5775
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Giving bad impression about judiciary. Not at all impartial. Biased against individual versus corporate/banks. Strong animosity against pro se litigant who out performs lawyers. Not well verse in law and does not seek to apply law once her deficiencies are brought to her attention. She is also very hostile to the disabled and discriminatory.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4866
Rating:2.3
Comments:
She behaves like a queen in the courtroom. Do we Americans want to go back to old English law?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4859
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I received food stamps. I did put the check mark to indicate that she received food stamps. I also stated under oath that she received food stamps. I requested to waive both court fees and additional court fees. However, my additional fee waiver was unjustly denied by Judge Patricia M. Lucas. In this case, I did follow both rules by which to request fee waivers. I do receive food stamps, so, by law, I was allowed to request both fee waivers at the same time. The court wrongfully denied the waiver of additional fees, without any legal grounds for doing so.

Litigant

Comment #: CA3643
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I completely agreed. She is always biasd against pro se litigants. She acts like a queen in the court. She doesn;t care about the laws and justice.
she is the worest!

Litigant

Comment #: CA2822
Rating:1.0
Comments:
totally bias against pro pers....her ruling was overturned by the court of appeal. She was ordered to hear the case on the merits....Lucas then abused her discretion as a judge by refusing to rule on the clear evidence presented.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA1496
Rating:2.8
Comments:
She was terrible as a family court judge, feel sorry for anyone having to appear before her in a criminal proceeding