Hon. Lee B. Tinney See Rating Details
Superior Court
Snohomish County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.9 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 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. Lee B. Tinney



Comment #: WA1447
Discriminates between sexes. Does not hear both sides. Comes to conclusions uninformed of facts. Uses made up text messages as evidence.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1426
It is beyond me how or why the quality of the court commissioners in Snohomish County is so uniformly sub-par. I have appeared before Tinney several times. Each time she is irritable, lacks a judicial temperament, and displays her inability to comprehend basic legal concepts. It is clear she reads the materials, which is somewhat appreciated, but she seems to have a need to make up additional requirements based on the limited practice areas she is familiar with, even when there is no basis under a statute or other legal authority. This only increases the time, frustration, and expense for everyone, even when a matter is unopposed. Watching the pro se/protective order calendar, she is like her colleagues in that she is rude and condescending to pro se parties, and it appears she denies motions for protective orders just because she does not like some of the parties who appear before her, even when they have complied with the procedural requirements. F+. She has absolutely no business being on the bench and should be removed.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1139
Horrible. Went before Cmmr. Tinney on a routine civil collections matter due to ex parte having denied motion for garnishment judgment stating "amount of judgment exceeds amount withheld by employer." (Well yes, that is usually the way it goes since few people make enough to where the employer withholds the entire writ amount in one paycheck...) Tinney was rude to the point of being abusive, demonstrated that she did not understand even basic things about judgment enforcement, had not read any of the materials filed, and while she ultimately signed the garnishment judgment, said in an incredibly condescending manner, "if this is unclear to me, maybe that is why ex parte rejected your motion." I watched her rule on others' motions and her lack of judicial temperament was evident in her demeanor and conduct towards those lawyers -- and most of the matters were unopposed. There is no reason she should be on the bench at all. Grade: D-