Judge Lisa A. Novak

Judge Lisa A. Novak is a San Mateo County Superior Court judge appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, placing her within the moderate-to-conservative Republican appointee tradition of that era. Her judicial career has been marked by sustained involvement in serious felony criminal matters, with her docket reflecting a consistent focus on high-stakes criminal litigation including homicide cases. The cases associated with her name — the Woodside Skyline murders, the Keith Green murder trial, a sword killer sentencing, and an East Palo Alto second-degree murder conviction — collectively suggest she is a judge with substantial experience managing complex, emotionally charged criminal proceedings and delivering sentences in cases involving violent crime. Most significantly, Judge Novak received a formal public admonishment from the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) in May 2018. The admonishment cited two distinct categories of misconduct: failure to disclose a communication (an ex parte or undisclosed contact issue) and making demeaning comments. This is not a minor administrative notation — a public admonishment is the CJP's formal public sanction, one step below censure, and it signals that the conduct was serious enough to warrant public record. The demeaning comments finding is particularly relevant for courtroom practitioners, as it suggests a historical pattern of intemperate or dismissive language toward parties, counsel, or others in the courtroom. With no ruling analyses or attorney observations available, confidence in behavioral predictions remains limited. However, the combination of a CJP record, a criminal-heavy docket, and a gubernatorial appointment provides a meaningful baseline for strategic preparation. Attorneys should approach this courtroom with heightened awareness of professional decorum expectations and the judge's documented sensitivity around procedural propriety.

Given Judge Novak's documented CJP admonishment for making demeaning comments, attorneys should be especially attentive to maintaining a composed, professional demeanor at all times — and should not expect the same in return without preparation. If the judge makes a dismissive or sharp remark, the safest response is a measured, respectful acknowledgment rather than pushback or visible frustration. Experienced criminal defense attorneys in particular should prepare clients and co-counsel for the possibility of blunt judicial commentary during proceedings. The ex parte communication finding in the CJP admonishment suggests that Judge Novak has had procedural compliance issues in the past. Paradoxically, this may mean she is now more attuned — or more reactive — to perceived procedural irregularities by counsel. Attorneys should be scrupulous about following local rules, filing deadlines, and communication protocols. Any appearance of attempting to gain an informal advantage or circumvent proper channels could draw disproportionate scrutiny. Given her extensive criminal docket — particularly in homicide and violent felony matters — Judge Novak likely has well-developed instincts around sentencing, credibility assessments, and the weight of forensic and testimonial evidence. Attorneys in criminal matters should present arguments grounded in the factual record and applicable sentencing law rather than relying on emotional appeals. Defense counsel should be prepared for a judge who has seen the full spectrum of violent crime cases and may be less susceptible to mitigation arguments that lack concrete evidentiary support.

• critical

  Research San Mateo Local Criminal Rules Thoroughly

  Given Judge Novak's criminal-heavy docket and the CJP procedural finding, review all applicable San Mateo County Superior Court local rules and standing orders for her department before any appearance. Procedural missteps are likely to draw heightened scrutiny.

• critical

  Prepare Client and Witnesses for Judicial Bluntness

  The CJP admonishment for demeaning comments is a documented behavioral marker. Brief clients, witnesses, and co-counsel that the judge may make sharp or dismissive remarks and that the appropriate response is composure, not reaction. Failure to prepare for this can derail proceedings.

• critical

  Gather Practitioner Intelligence from Local Criminal Bar

  With no ruling analyses or observations in the database, firsthand accounts from San Mateo County criminal practitioners are essential. Contact colleagues who have appeared before Judge Novak in homicide or violent felony matters to obtain current behavioral intelligence.

• important

  Build Factually Grounded Sentencing Arguments

  For sentencing hearings, prepare mitigation or aggravation arguments that are anchored in specific, documented facts rather than general character appeals. A judge with extensive homicide case experience will likely discount unsupported emotional arguments.

• important

  Review CJP Admonishment Public Record

  The May 2018 CJP admonishment is a public document. Review the full text to understand the specific conduct cited, which will provide more granular insight into the judge's behavioral patterns and the contexts in which problems arose.

• Nice

  Prepare Concise, Record-Based Oral Arguments

  Given the judge's experience with complex criminal matters, avoid lengthy preambles or repetitive argument. Organize oral presentations around the specific record citations and legal authorities most directly on point.

• ›Maintain strict professional composure at all times, including if the judge makes sharp or dismissive remarks — do not visibly react, argue back, or show frustration in response to judicial commentary.
• ›Follow all procedural and communication protocols precisely; given the CJP finding regarding undisclosed communications, any appearance of attempting informal or improper contact with the court will likely be viewed very unfavorably.
• ›Arrive fully prepared with organized, tabbed materials and a clear command of the factual record — Judge Novak's extensive criminal docket suggests she values efficiency and will not tolerate counsel who appear unprepared or who waste court time.
• ›Address the court formally and avoid casual or overly familiar language; a judge with a CJP record for intemperate conduct may also be sensitive to perceived disrespect or informality from counsel.
• ›If the judge makes a comment that could be construed as demeaning or improper, note it for the record calmly and professionally if necessary, but do not escalate in the moment.