"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Doreen B Boxer	See Rating Details
Commissioner Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 10.0 - 1 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. Doreen B Boxer

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA54736
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Only waiting for her pay check and too much confidence on their rulings didn’t do authentication of all documents including evidence.

Litigant

Comment #: CA53942
Rating:2.0

Comments:
This website incorrectly lists her as a judge, she is not (she is just a Commissioner, and THANK GOD).
She is a very rude ideological hack who doesn't read declarations or listen to witnesses and rules based on her ideology and pre-conceived notions.
She only respects attorneys (that she likes) and thinks Family court is Criminal court and gets crazy angry very easily.
She should not even be on the bench. She was previously the head Public Defender of San Bernardino [Redacted by Ed.] she got hired by her friends judges at the LASC [Redacted by Ed.]

Litigant

Comment #: CA38259
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Ridiculed me in court for not having money for a child evaluation; then when I said I would get the money she held up my papers and said in court "Look everybody he came up with the money in 15 minutes." Of course, I just went into debt to provide $$ for the evaluation. I had to tell her I didn't have the money. When I had provide a cashier's check to the child evaluator and didn't have the cash, I was punished for dragging my feet. This "commissioner" took my son away over a 2-hour late delivery to his mother and invoked a stay-away order over the false allegation I was keeping our son from getting needed medication for his clinical depression, when no such diagnosis had been made and no prescription for an anti-depressant was issued. I didn't have contact with my son for 8 months. Then in subsequent hearing after child custody was restored, this commissioner sanctioned me for legal fees over the false claim made by my ex that I was keeping our son from medication. My son was taken away without due process as required by law (14th Amendment Kramer vs. Santosky 1953 Title 42 of Civil Code requires an evidentiary hearing before removing child from a parent. I sat in court another time and watched this commission and complicit female attorneys make fathers prove they were adequate parents before restoring custody, when it is the other way around. It must be shown the fathers are derelict in some way, not presumed to be deficient fathers. This "judge" is a man eater. Sure, attorneys rate her highly. She has no regard for children in divorce whatsoever. One hearing I was representing myself and opposing counsel led off with a request for order. The opposing attorney said "we need an order for the father to stay away from mother's home because he is pounding on her front door day and night." This commission barked out "So ordered!" and without opportunity to say "Objection your honor" or demand opposing party provide evidence for her demand, the order stuck and made me falsely look like I was harassing my ex-wife. I have a prior comment about this judge posted below.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA38084
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Outstanding Judicial Officer. Scholarly, well prepared, excellent judicial temperament, respectful to counsel as well as litigants, even-handed, committed to equitable and just result.

Litigant

Comment #: CA37117
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge was not prepared for my restraining order case and said there was no evidence of wrongdoing, when documents were attached to the forms, including medical and police report. Completely let down by this judge who believed the lies coming from the respondent and didn't even look at petitioner's evidence.

Litigant

Comment #: CA32840
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Terrible; openly biased; ridicules litigants; doesn't read declarations; penalizes children in family custody cases; doesn't heed the law; claims declarations submitted by litigants somehow got lost (4 hearings in a row). Ordered father to have 2 hours/week visitation with child which is contrary to family law code "frequent & continuous contact" principle.