"The Robing Room: AZ State Judges

Hon. Tracey Westerhausen	See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge Superior Court
Maricopa County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.5 - 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 ()

* *

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. Tracey Westerhausen

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: AZ2533
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She does not follow the law when it comes to family court. One of the parties in a family court case was told to submit a motion for attorney fees when the other party was found to be unreasonable by Tracy herself. She ended up ruling in favor of the respondent because she wanted the petitioner to wait until trial. The petitioner asked for respondent to be sanctioned after omitting pertinent evidence to the case. She unfairly ruled against petitioner and prevented him from submitting anything during trial. Thus, by default the respondent won because the other party could not afford a trial he had a good chance of losing. Petitioner was able to financially abuse the other party by extending the trial for 2 years. Custody and legal decision making were taken away from a father trying to be in his autistic sons life when he had raised him for 10 years.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: AZ2490
Rating:2.0

Comments:
She was my attorney in 2013 and gave me up to the prosecution. She took $25k and after my sentence told me that she "had to give me up to the prosecutor" so that he would deal with other clients. When asked to show a record of her work, she refused to show any documentation. She was nice up front, but did absolutely nothing for my case.

Litigant

Comment #: AZ2470
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Her #1 priority is resolution. Fairness matters little. Close scrutiny of issues won't happen. She's all about getting these family matters resolved quickly.

Litigant

Comment #: AZ2354
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Negligent. Overlooks key facts and loses the point. Allowed multiple violations of proceedings, thus creating injustice and unequal treatment of both parties in the court room. Given the fact she is currently in family court, her lack of professionalism, tardiness, serving injustice, not justice, hurt the most vulnerable parties - children.