"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Harry Jay Ford III	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.9 - 9 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 3.0 - 4 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. Harry Jay Ford III

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA40062
Rating:1.0

Comments:
HATES PRO PER LITIGANTS OBVIOUSLY. SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE. DOES NOT CARE ABOUT LAW, ONLY BIAS. REFUSES TO ADDRESS OR ABIDE BY NOTWITHSTANDING LAW WHEN PRO PER LITIGANTS PRESENT.

Litigant

Comment #: CA37814
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge violated his judicial oath by not reading pro per litigants complaint. Judge first read defendants lawyer's demurrer. Lawyer provoked error filing a baseless demurrer berating pro per litigant and did not address ONE authority or causes for action in demurrer. Basically stated falsely pro per litigant complaint can not be understood and is confusing and he does not know what it's about. Judge allowed himself to be bamboozled and decided NOT to read pro per litigant's complaint. This can be concluded by his "order" not containing ONE word of plaintiff's complaint and copied and pasted the demurrer, applied the wrong statute to the case and dismissed it erroneously. The case is Meador vs Elite Plastic surgery. Judge should have read complaint. Case is on appeal now and most certainly will be reversed as patients lives depend on it. Judge handed defendants a license to ignore the expressed governing law to their services that could cause the death of patients. Pathetic judge should be reprimanded and fined.

Litigant

Comment #: CA37621
Rating:9.0

Comments:
I was I. Proper on a case, where I was trying to perfect a default judgment, I gotnsettlements from two defendants the security guard company and the Ralph’s market where my car was illegally towed, but the real and most guilty of the defendants south side towing company, Sean bowers, and his reckless dishonest mother who are now out of business and for good reason we’re the subject of my default judgment. It was. A grind trying tongetnthatdefault perfected, and even though I did have more time and sstatutorily prescribed avenues, I chose to just drop it, because I could see judge ford was getting. Tired of seeing me . It was almost comical at times as I told hi. It would be easier to go to trial than perfect the default. Anyways, I watched hi. I. Law and motion. Proceedings on at least 4 or 5 occasions and found him to be hard working attentive, competent, and most importantly he told all sides that before they file discovery motions that they actually prove that they meet and confer, because that seems to be where the most legal rambling takes place and. Pearly the lawyers of today are just lying thieving selfish so,ciopaths who abuse discovvery and other legal process. I will give him a 9 because my experience was not a full insight into the judge,but I feel that he is doing an honestly good job as a judge, but results may vary. I am lloyd byers and I approve this rating

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33291
Rating:2.3

Comments:
I'm a retired civil att. from Tennessee. I listened in to a pre trial litigation Motion hearing and investigated the papers filed...for a friend of mine who represented pro-per. I must say I was shocked at Ford's ruling and ignorance of the law. I have only a few times in my career felt horror.This was one of those times. He completely ignored supporting law and evidence submitted by plaintiff, and then sided with defense counsel who had no supportive law, nor evidence, only a sworn affidavit by defendants. He is clearly either completely incompetent or hates pro-per litigants. I am horrified. This judge should not be on the bench. Reckless and downright dangerous judge. It will catch up with him sooner or later. I am shocked.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA32808
Rating:3.2

Comments:
As a trial lawyer, I am often in front of a jury and know the rules of evidence. This is Jay Ford in Santa Monica, I never remember seeing "Harry" on the bench. We had a bench trial (client had a lawyer before me.) He continually interrupted me during questioning on direct and was clearly leaning toward the plaintiff. It was clear his mind was made up well before the bench trial. Normally, I would not waive jury, but my client's former lawyer did so I was stuck with him. He was patronizing, arrogant, made improper objections and seemed to not understand that if certain testimony was not in evidence I could not argue it during closing. Very rude and unprofessional. Definitely a 170.6 if ever in from of him again. P.S. When the TSC was on calendar, I literally had to ask him to do the TSC, and it was not productive at all. He seemed very inexperienced or perhaps, just disinterested.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA32230
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
He is not very smart. A tyrant in the court room. LAZY

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA27876
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Like the last comment, I was also in court through the entire calendar, and this judge is fair, thoughtful, respectful of all of the litigants, and had obviously read all of the papers. He follows the law, but at the same time is open reason and interpretation of the law to the facts of each particular case. I am confident that my clients will receive a fair hearing of their claims. A relief to get this judge!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA23305
Rating:8.8

Comments:
I was in court for an ex parte and watched the entire motion calendar first. After over 40 years of practice, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly too many times. The bad reviews of this judge are idiotic and inaccurate. He is as close to an old school judge as you can get. Quick, practical, well reasoned, and tries to be fair. I recommend you take this judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7557
Rating:1.7

Comments:
This judge does not bother to read the law or apply anything practical. Despite refusing to allow people to exaust all their motions or procedural outcomes he would rather be King rather than follow procedure. He does whatever the UD coountry club of the Courthouse tells them since many are appearance attorneys in front of him day in and day out for fear they would paper him through a 170.6. AVOID AT ALL COSTS, file a local form from the Courthouse and bounce that self absorbed excuse of a judge. I hope people recall him like many did that other judge in Central Judge Pffeifer. This man should stay away from the bench, as any deviation from any of his order or preferences will cause you to lose your case on that alone. AVOID AT ALL COST!!

Litigant

Comment #: CA7408
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Ruled summarily without care for the law or facts. Stubborn, demeaning, patronizing and arrogant. Had to take his ruling up and got him reversed. He fought all the way when the law was clearly against him. In my opinion, very dangerous. Seemed to be very close to the partner of the large landlord law firm that seems to virtually live in his courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA7118
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Did not recuse himself until day 2 in a hearing involving a plaintiff with whom he had a long association. Claimed he did not know but the plaintiff was listed as a witness and sat in the court room. It may not have been the first time since the plaintiff has been to that court many times.
The judge has an arrogance about him and seems disdainful to the average person. I assume he is a political patronage appointee. Luckily on day two he recused and sent us to a much better judge with listening skills.

Litigant

Comment #: CA5728
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Ford will say one thing one day and the next day he will say the exact opposite- Paid off? I believe 100% absolutely without a single shred of any doubt... He doesn't read, he doesn't know the LAW - just watch him for a minute - he'll ask an attorney what the law might be and after they provide either a slanted, or outright false answer, Ford will debate the answer with himself. I have never seen him actually check any case law, or even an actual law for that matter. He'll asks questions at a summary judgement hearing - stating "the question is" and then he'll grant the motion. This is one Judge who should NOT be in a robe - he is a disgrace to the entire legal community and his actions are downright criminal

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA5480
Rating:3.0

Comments:
He asked a biased opposing counsel re what the law was, and counsel told him only a portion; the defendant ended up violating; a protective order could have stopped the defendant cold. this judge is more of an idiot than judge Hahn, but a nice guy like judge hahn

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5063
Rating:2.1

Comments:
In a case where the law was crystal clear (as in, NO facts OR law supporting the opposing party), Ford ruled for that party anyway. His ruling will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal, but that is, of course, a lot of extra work and time. Meanwhile, in denying the motion he said that his ruling was "without prejudice to the defendant filing an action against the plaintiff," as though he really believed that he could have denied the motion AND barred my client from seeking further relief in a separate action?

The man is an idiot, and a dangerous one because he wears a robe.