"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Yolanda Orozco	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 4.3 - 4 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 5 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. Yolanda Orozco

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA55060
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
in March, 2021, I had a civil action in this judge's courtroom in the Los Angeles Superior Court. I live in Tennessee but she had jurisdiction over my civil action, where the actions given rise to civil action occurred in L.A. County. However, ultimately had to sue Judge Orozco, among others, for violating my civil rights, wherein judge Orozco was not IMMUNED. Neveretheless, a fellow-judge of Judge Orozco had criminally distortrd and ommitted my presented facts to dismiss my civil action against them. All appropriate California agencies had covered my request for a criminal investigation into such

Other

Comment #: CA52503
Rating:2.0

Comments:
She did a mediation conference for my case as a retired judge in 2023. From the 1.5 hours, I could tell that she did not read the case or the prior judges’ orders. In a short time I could sense the laziness and incompetence, misunderstanding the case and basic laws.

Other

Comment #: CA36123
Rating:2.0

Comments:
This Katie Hill ruling is an egregious oversite of Hill's rights. Perhaps a competence evaluation is needed.

Other

Comment #: CA35575
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I think this Judge is biased and lazy. She needs to be in investigated because her desicions in cases just dont seem correct for a sitting judge. In the case of Katie Hill, it was obvious that she is biased in siding with a tabloid and their attachments to destroying peoples lives. Recalling her seems right.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33642
Rating:2.3

Comments:
Does not even read the briefs. Argued that a law applied, when it was clear it did not. Stated it was not established it applied, but it was in the papers.

Litigant

Comment #: CA31333
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Orozco also damaged my probate case where Attorneys took, stole from a senior citizen and from the Estate of my brother. Any rational law abiding judge would have listened and have at least read the motion that included EVIDENCE of inheritance theft in the purview of the court. Thanks to God she was removed from the bench.

Other

Comment #: CA13237
Rating:3.0

Comments:
She's adequate, about average. Her partner in the same room, Judge Elaine Lu, sure makes her look good in comparison. Orozco even looks "judicial" next to that unhinged Lu.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA12846
Rating:4.3

Comments:
It's not that Judge Orozco lacks competence - she is very smart and talented. She is, however, either remarkably lazy, entirely overwhelmed by her post, or some combination of both. She shows no signs that she reads motion papers or considers the law before making decisions. This enables abusive litigation tactics to go unchecked in her courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11110
Rating:3.5

Comments:
Not as bad as her counterpart Judge Lu in Department 77 but not great either. I think she would be a better judge in a different department. The high volume of limited civil and general disorganization of Los Angeles County court system in general makes her look unprepared but I think she is at times a victim of her circumstances. Generous with continuances but that's often because they don't even have your file in the courtroom so she's not prepared for argument. I definitely prefer her over Judge Lu but Dept. 77 in general is a mess after Judge Hammock left.

Litigant

Comment #: CA10351
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Biased, no respect for the law where she completely ignored the due process and granted an ex parte that was not served, and it did not even conform to the CRC rules in that declaration wasn't sufficient, and did not show irreparable harm, immediate danger as required under the law.

Other

Comment #: CA8146
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge is extremely rude. Does not listen to litigant. Refused to allow a person who was abused to speak. Does not apply the law. Something has to be done to clean up the courts so that injured people can get help. These people run the place and don't care about the law or people's rights. No one is stopping them or sanctioning them.

Litigant

Comment #: CA8141
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Did not want to listen to Evidence. Biased and opinions are not based on facts. Rude and dismissive.