"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. Alexandra D Quam

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA56196
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This commissioner is gravely unqualified for her position. She consistently oversteps her boundaries by attempting to introduce irrelevant past marital history in a misguided attempt to create discord, despite its lack of relevance to the case. She disregards crucial facts, even when these are supported by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), and blatantly ignores presented evidence.

During our hearing, my ex-partner was caught in multiple lies—at least 20 instances—and yet the commissioner failed to address any of these falsehoods. Instead, she proceeded to grant undue leniency without requiring any factual documentation, effectively enabling a pattern of deceit in her courtroom. This disregard for the truth undermines the principles of justice and fairness.

Her handling of this case displayed a complete lack of competence and legal acumen. Based on her inability to uphold the law and fairly evaluate evidence, it is clear that her position as commissioner is misplaced. Her prior role as a court facilitator may be better suited to her capabilities, as this position demands impartiality and a deep understanding of legal proceedings—qualities she has failed to demonstrate.

It is deeply concerning that someone in her position can so blatantly ignore legal statutes and proper procedure. This is a serious issue that demands immediate review and action within the legal system. Such negligence cannot go unaddressed..