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

Attorney Average Rating:   2.5 - 2 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      
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. Patricia M. Lucas


Comments


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