"The Robing Room: WA State Judges

Hon. Suzanne Parisien	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
King County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 7 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 ()

* *

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

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Suzanne Parisien

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: WA2331
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I do not think she read the files . Issues a summary judgement in a week with zero written analysis. Dismissed the fact that the defendant missed the timeline to file the motion . Refused to delay the hearing when we could not locate a key witness for deposition , but that same witness gave a declaration for the defense . Outrageous . Her demeanor is flippant . She needs to be removed .

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA2321
Rating:1.0

Comments:
It is unfathomable how such a morally depraved individual could be appointed a judge. She gifts judgments based on her personal whim and fancy, without any regard whatsoever for law or facts. Should be in jail for self dealing and criminal abuse of power but the immunity farce goes on.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: WA2164
Rating:1.0

Comments:
A pure psycho. Should be admitted in a mental institution. Shows complete disdain for the constitution and the laws, as she makes it clear she runs her court according to the laws she makes up on the fly as she deems fit, and scorns at the statutes made by the public representatives in a democracy. She runs the Court as her own fiefdom knowing the Court of Appeals is a big joke.

Other

Comment #: WA2061
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Terrible judge. Violate state laws in court room and is racist by all means. Just a neutral review of her ruling will and decisions will show who she is. Some one should take legal action to remove her from superior court.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: WA2053
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Terrible Judge and terrible person. She neglected then abandoned her elderly father with end stage Alzheimer's disease and cancer because his money ran out and she wasn't getting an inheritance.

Other

Comment #: WA1996
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The thought process by which this judge reaches her decisions is totally mystifying. She makes up her mind arbitrarily, continues to assert jurisdiction over cases long after she should reach final orders, and fails to adhere to the appeals court when her decisions are remanded. It's a kangaroo court of the highest order when you enter her hearing room. I agree with the others who assert that she sides with fathers and punishes mothers. I have seen this happen and it undermines Washington state's emphasis on maintaining parental relations for the sake of the child.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1949
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Parisien is shockingly bad and easily the most chaotic, unintelligent, laziest, and least knowledgeable jurist in my 35 years of family law practice. She doesn’t read motions or briefs. She signs orders, then relies on reconsideration motions to fix errors; a reckless, irresponsible practice, and an extraordinary waste of time and money for parties simply looking for an informed judicial resolution they deserve. She routinely reverses her own orders, because she didn’t care to read it the first time, or other reasons known only to her.

Remarkably, she also pays little attention at family law trials. I suspect its because she doesn’t understand the law, and doesn’t care. She’ll then pick an attorney’s (inevitably the husband’s - yes, she IS biased) proposed orders and adopt them almost wholesale. Her orders then require additional reconsideration. Appellate lawyers know Parisien all too well. She’s routinely and successfully appealed. Her courtroom is an exercise in chaos, and an embarrassment to King County and the judiciary. She should NOT be a judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1892
Rating:1.0

Comments:
SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE. NOT VERY INTELLIGENT AND DISPLAYS OBVIOUS BIAS.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: WA1721
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Possibly one of the worst judges on the bench. She is rude, dis courteous and ignorant.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1650
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The hearing before this judge is a JOKE!
She is perfunctory, made decision arbitrarily and capriciously.
A shame to the legal system!!!!

Other

Comment #: WA1598
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Poor Judge, I agree on below comment. Ignorant of rules of evidence, very biased. Many attorney's do not want her as a Judge in their trial. She will decide who wins regardless of evidence. She has little knowledge of Medical Malpractice cases!

Other

Comment #: WA1132
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Ignorant of rules of evidence.
Fabricates factual findings.
Pays little attention to law.
Obviously biased.
Lack of judicial temperament.
Decides who wins, then invents basis.