"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

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. Esther P Kim

Comments

Other

Comment #: CA48895
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Kim is a remarkable person. Completely deserving of my praise and admiration.The definition of who a judge should emulate.

Other

Comment #: CA47033
Rating:1.0

Comments:
As a family law advocate, this person from some of the hearings I have attended with clients and some family members should not be presiding over anyone. She is unfair and does not do her due diligence to allow people to defend themselves properly, especially in restraining order cases. She has a lot of people who are not victims but are the abusers themselves that are maliciously and falsely prosecuting the people they abuse without having to present any real tangible evidence to prove their allegations. When they go in for renewals, the real victims being accused of being the abusers don't get to present any evidence or witnesses to refute the request for renewals of restraining orders. They just go by what the actual abuser that was granted the order had said previously and allowed them to continue to be harmful to others by also abusing the use of the restraining orders to get people arrested falsely or to do things to the detriment of the alleged abuser under the veil of the restraining orders.

Because of her repeat performance of doing such a terrible thing, we are working with other attorneys and organizations to encourage a change in how restraining orders are attained by requiring actual evidence and not just the word of someone without proof. We are also looking to have included that the judge who does not do their due diligence in their decisions about restraining orders should face lawsuits.

She is a terrible person and she needs to go. We will be making sure that she does not get voted back into her position when her current term ends.