"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Thomas W. Wills	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Monterey County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 2.6 - 4 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: - 0 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. Thomas W. Wills

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA52702
Rating:1.1

Comments:
If you are young and/or female this will be the best 170.6 you will ever use. Openly sexist and unfair in his treatment of young female attorneys. Has little to no understanding of the Rules of Evidence and zero regard or ability to adhere to well established caselaw.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA42866
Rating:3.8

Comments:
Tends to sunset in the afternoons - forgets easily then so best to put on best part of argument or case in the a.m; very pro-defense (especially if it involves the County or any governmental entity); very sarcastic in front of the jury but then will be better in a.m. He will try to sway the case towards the side he favors (depending on who the attorney is, and usually local). Very nice demeanor otherwise, but generally has a bias against 1) women; 2) outsiders (especially from L.A.) 3) young lawyers male or female - but this bias is less prevalent in a.m. When he gets cranky in afternoon, don't take it personally; I don't think he means it. I think California owes his a great debt for his many years of service to the bar and the bench -- but it is time for fresh blood in the Monterey courthouse.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA40064
Rating:2.3

Comments:
Well past his prime. Should retire. A Monterey County Good Ol Boy who takes care of his old attorney friends and it shows in his rulings..

170.6 from now on

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA38970
Rating:3.2

Comments:
Plaintiff litigated a meritless case for two years. Defense was prevailing until the assignment of Judge Wills. He proceeded to appoint a receiver over an LLC the plaintiff was not even a member of, was dissolved, and had no assets to manage. The receiver, under his management, cost the estate several hundred thousand dollars. This is just one example of the bias towards the plaintiff he showed. He ruled against a demurrer on the basis of duplicate claims in two different lawsuits and then turned around and found legal and factual basis to consolidate the two cases. The plaintiffs counsel threatened to ruin the reputation of a defense witness and put him in the hospital. All the court did was ask counsel if she did that instead of holding an evidentiary hearing for witness tampering. It goes on and on.