"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. Stephanie Sato

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA55072
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
An [Redacted by Ed.] judge with poor Comprehension of Family Code. She will go out of her way to deny access to a Mandatory attorney’s fees for less well off parties. She is [Redacted by Ed.]unfair and fails to follow basic rules of the court. Seems to believe that she can deny people all their rights, while supporting abusers. She chums around with lawyers and is far too interested in lawyers getting access to money they have not earned.

This judge granted $50,000 in legal fees to a lawyer who was only retained for four months, and only was in court for a total of two days. She agreed to the disposal of community property massively under value, permitted one party to embezzle $100,000s and continued to hear a case when she was disqualified from doing so. You would be hard pressed to find a more [Redacted by Ed.] judge.

Fundamentally, she is another dangerous family court judge in a County where they appear to pride themselves in violating basic rights, and depriving people of their own property. The only thing to do is to continue to complain and expose the abuse of process in the family Courts in California.