"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Tara M. Flanagan	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Alameda County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.1 - 10 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 7 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. Tara M. Flanagan

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA54710
Rating:9.6

Comments:
Maybe it was different in criminal and family law, but I cannot believe that the Judge Flanagan who is so good in civil litigation now is as bad as the one-star reviews say...in fact if you look at them, it appears that two attorneys may have written all 17 bad reviews over a 10-year period. Think about that--in 10+ years, only 17 people thought she was so bad that they came here to gripe? And of course people satisfied with the outcome rarely find the need to speak out. She is clearly on the opposite end of the political spectrum from myself, but her politics do not get in the way of her diligent effort to correctly apply the law to the facts before her. Maybe that attorney with 10 one-star reviews repeatedly complaining about her siding with the county, simply represented a few difficult clients? Judge Flanagan is the best civil litigation judge that I have seen in Alameda County since I began practicing in this court more than 20 years ago.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA48599
Rating:1.8

Comments:
The worst and most biased judge I’ve ever seen in my over 20 years practicing law.

Litigant

Comment #: CA38337
Rating:1.0

Comments:
The bias and unprofessional attitude is astounding. She yelled at medical doctors on the stand when they were providing testimony, she was condescending and degrading. She refused to follow basic court procedure law, did not follow proper evidentiary laws and went on feelings of if she liked one person or another. She is harmful to our county, our community, to families and should be removed from this position.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA36330
Rating:1.0

Comments:
If you are a client assigned to appear in Judge Flanagan's courtroom for the first time, demand that your attorney 170.6 her. You can only do it at the first appearance. If you are a private attorney reading this out of curiosity, 170.6 her. At her best, Judge Flangan is impatient, insincere, and gratingly euphemistic in a profoundly dehumanizing way (her use of "sir" and "m'am" to refer to parties, not sure if she's ever used a parent's name). That's the best you get. At worst--which is approximately half of the time regardless of whether specific triggers happen (which include full calendars, trials, calling witnesses, setting trials, and anything other than meek smiling at her from all parties)--she is cruel, demeaning, offensive, and bullying. As a dependency judge, she mostly just does what County wants and occasionally actively sets barriers for parents. She is obsessed with the more dramatic allegations in an uncomfortably focused way, which is only surprising in that she otherwise doesn't appear to have read anything at all.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA36022
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I don't think she's dumb. I just think she's too disinterested to do her job. She doesn't really care about the facts of your case and doesn't bother to learn the law, so there's not much you can do in her department. She's just waiting for the part of the hearing where she gets to agree with the County.

At this point in her career she has stopped reading the reports for review hearings, so she has no idea what anyone wants to do. She doesn't care, though, she'll just reflexively agree with the County. I think she does finally get around to reading the reports at contested hearings, but at that point she's already committed to agreeing with the County so it doesn't matter. She dislikes when you set contested hearings because it means it takes it longer to get to the part where she agrees with the County.

In between agreeing with the County, she seems miserable and every so often you can seem to see her wonder where her life has taken her. But then another case is called and it's time to agree with the County again.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA35473
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Flanagan has recently been reassigned to juvenile dependency. She displays an open contempt for indigent parents and a complete disregard for their rights. She is openly hostile towards family reunification. If you are a private attorney, you should 170.6 her immediately. There are only two other dependency judges on the Alameda bench, both of whom are better.

Litigant

Comment #: CA13001
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Flanagan is an absolutely horrible Judge! She is extremely rude, dismissive, and belittling to parties and attorneys alike. It is so great that Karen Katz is challenging her seat on the bench June 2018. Hopefully Ms. Katz wins and Flanagan is kicked off the bench and is no longer a judge ruining lives in Alameda County and beyond.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8306
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
You better 170.3 her.. She was kicked out of family court and is now in criminal court. Men of color beware. Her judgments even confuse her own staff. She will interpret the law to screw you over. Litigants and staff alike celebrates when she was kicked out of dept 302 in alameda family law. She gives judges a bad name

Litigant

Comment #: CA7726
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Flanagan is quick tempered, ego driven, and highly inconsistent. She would rather have her way and prove that she is in charge rather than consider the welfare of the children whose lives she affects with her ruling. She has poor follow through regarding her own requirements that she imposes on litigants

Other

Comment #: CA7162
Rating:1.0

Comments:
If I could give this judge a "0" rating I would. She is terrible. She's handled my divorce/ child custody case for a year. She seen me and my Ex husband over 10 times & everytime we went she was very rude and disrespectful she never let u talk and even tho I've always been the primary sole care taker & provider for my two girls she sided with my husband with very little evidence even after he was abbusive towards myself and my kids & using my kids as a shield to get to me & put me in the hospital when I was pregnant and I filed a restraining order on him she denied my order. But my Ex husband filed a restraining order on me because he says his tires got Slashed with BTW (I did not touch) and he had very little evidence and she granted his restraining order for three years and requested that I take the 52-week battery intervention class. And was pursuing to take my kids and let them go live with my EX husband even tho he abuses my kids. All because he told her his tires were slashed. thank God they got her off of the family law bench before she was able to make that decision. BE AWEAR!!! Get this lady off the the Bench PERMANENTLY before she ruins more family's & childrens life's. She do not mean well. Her mind isn't in the right place and her heart isn't pure!!! She gets ZERO stars!!!

Other

Comment #: CA7096
Rating:1.0

Comments:
She is rude and arrogant towards men of color or men in general. She does not read the facts and dismiss any concerns that are brought up, she allowed a pedophile to move back into the home of a little girl that was be watched getting undressed by this pedophile (Hohorst)

Litigant

Comment #: CA6837
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Flanagan heard my family law case regarding a shared custody arrangement between my ex wife and me. Judge Flanagan heard us on 3 occasions and found that my ex wife was mentally unstable and ordered a psych evaluation while hivinb me full legal and physical custody of my sons.
At the final hearing Flanagan presided over for us, my ex wife hired an attorney to speak for her after the psych evaluation and Flanagan put every suggestion the attorney made into an order with no discussion. Flanagan battered me with questions and interrupted me every time I tried to answer her questions. I felt bullied and confused by her during the hearing. She ordered that my sons go back to their mother 50% of the time simply because the attorney asked for it. It seemed as though they already knew each other and had figured the outcome before the hearing even happened. Now my sons are back in the care of someone who was determined to have Borderline Personality Disorder, emotional instability, and impulse control problems by the psychictric evaluator that Flanagan herself ordered my ex wife to see. I refuse to use the word honorable in the same sentence with this judge's name.

Prosecutor

Comment #: CA6663
Rating:9.7

Comments:
I found Judge Flanigan to be VERY even handed and fair. I am in fact, completely mystified by the critical reviews listed here on this site? I think Homophobia may be the reason behind the negative reviews as she is an out "Lesbian" judge and some people think that is synonymous with man-hater ... which is not the case.
she is fair and It is obvious she keeps the children's best interest in mind at all times.

Other

Comment #: CA6278
Rating:1.0

Comments:
From the first time appearing in front of her. She clearly hates men, and especially men of color. She told me to shut up, would not listen to factual evidence, clearly does not read the filing before the case. Has a drill sergeant mentality, and has gone as far as to tell one female defendant "It doesn't take two days to have a baby or be in labor". She has placed a 13yr girl back in the home of a pedophilia, and won't allow the father any contact for a year. This father has done everything to keep his daughter safe, but due to Flanagans bias of men. She doesn't have any regards to the safety of the children.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6275
Rating:1.2

Comments:
Chronically late starting. Drill sergeant mentality. Delusions of grandeur on the bench, forcing everyone to stand, calls opposing counsel "learned counsel." Although she starts late,she still has not read the pleadings. Attacks anyone who disagrees with her uninformed pronouncements.

Other

Comment #: CA5400
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Strong judicial bias. Easily agitated and will not listen to argument, no matter how important, once provoked. Will rule arbitrarily without regard to reports from court recommended counselors. Often shortsighted in rulings made to punish those who anger her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5050
Rating:1.3

Comments:
As an attorney, I was appalled when I appeared before this judge. In my close to 20 years of practicing law, this is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared in front of. She does not read pleadings, does not allow parties to speak, clearly hates men and in general treated many people in the courtroom with zero respect.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4563
Rating:1.3

Comments:
I appeared before her for the first time last week, and my impression of her was not good. While I was trying to clarify a visitation scheduling problem that my client had, she as much as told me to "shut up." She acts like she's a drill sergeant and the courtroom is her boot camp. She has zero judicial temperament and zero flexibility. Unless I see some change in her judicial demeanor going forward, I will 170.6 her every time in the future. There's no excuse for a judge to be so rude to litigants and counsel. (Google her to find out more of her background. It's interesting.)

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3936
Rating:3.5

Comments:
Very opinionated without knowledge of the case; interprets disagreement as a personal attack. Disrespectful towards counsel. Inflexible in scheduling, unwilling to accomodate attorney unavailability.