"The Robing Room: WA State Judges

Hon. Lani-Kai Swanhart	See Rating Details
Commissioner Superior Court
Yakima County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.6 - 1 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 2.0 - 6 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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. Lani-Kai Swanhart

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: WA572
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Only listened to mother attorney. Who had no verifiable evidence to back their claims. She had the j&s of the mothers live in boyfriend showing boyfriend was recently convicted felon. Stated it did not mstter that father had no criminal history and boyfriend was a felon. She ruled no basis to keep child away from the boyfriend

Other

Comment #: WA561
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Incompetent and arbitrary. Literally ignored drug testing results and common sense... just as I said in my statement based on 20 yrs history opposing party would total the vehicle she forced me to provide while drunk or high and they did... good thing my child wasn't along for the ride that day per her order. Its not men she hates. She hates anybody that stands up for themselves or for that matter thinks for themselves... detracts from her god-complex.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA504
Rating:3.6

Comments:
She has been in her position too long. Her feelings and beliefs are not in line with those of her community. She appears to be an elitist with favorite attorneys. Selectively enforces local rules or allocates the burden of persuasion depending on who is before her. She ought to be removed. persuasion.

Litigant

Comment #: WA487
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I have no idea how this bitter woman ended up in a position of such power over families lives. It was a real eye opener at how corrupt our legal system has become. It makes me physically ill to know this woman is still ruining so many lives even after all the complaints that are posted all over the internet. I will share my opinion every time there is an opportunity. I feel it is my moral obligation to all human life that may have to stand in front of this woman in a courtroom.

Other

Comment #: WA443
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Swanhart has no knowledge of the local trial court rules. Should not be hearing cases that her husband's business partners wife is associated with. Has no time for anything on the bench. Swanhart leaves children with parents that admit in their own declerations about abusing them. Does not address Motions and just says "I don't want to talk about this now." Swanhart gives judges, women and the human race a bad name. The rights and ideals this country was founded on do not exist anywhere close to a room this person is in. Swanhart needs to be investigated.

Litigant

Comment #: WA433
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Excellent, fair, listens to both sides, rules based on logic and what is best for children and families.

Other

Comment #: WA424
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Commissioner Swanhart does not read the petitions of both parties. She plays favorites among attorneys, and once she dislikes an attorney or parent she will turn a deaf ear to anything they have to say. This individual needs to replaced.

Court Staff

Comment #: WA369
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Lord help the families when this Commissioner is involved.

Other

Comment #: WA331
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Unfair and discrimanant. Lacks the ability to be sensitive to our counties children. Known to predertime guilt without a hearing. Overall rating is UNFAIR!

Other

Comment #: WA250
Rating:1.0

Comments:
It would appear that once she makes a decision in her family court no one or any amount of "Evidence" will be allowed to make a case against her. This is not an intelligent or correct way for rulings to be made that are affecting our children's lives forever.

Other

Comment #: WA174
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Commissioner Swanhart clearly has favorites and clearly those she dislikes. Her decisions and demeanor are horribly prejudiced in favor of certain attorneys over others. She runs her court like her own fiefdom and no one can get rid of her or affidavit her. This is wholly unfair and far from constitutional. People are stuck with her and not a duly elected superior court judge - which they should be entitled to under the law.