"The Robing Room: OR State Judges

Hon. Ulanda L. Watkins	See Rating Details
Circuit Court Judge Circuit Court
Clackamas County Judicial District 5	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 1 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 4.0 - 3 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. Ulanda L. Watkins

Comments

Other

Comment #: OR645
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She doesnt know the law I had trial for a UUMV in 2023 because I had purchased a stolen vehicle. I called the police before purchasing said vehicle and had the recorded conversation with the dispatcher submitted as evidence. The Dispatcher at clackamas county non-emergency told me he cant tell me if a vehicle is stolen and directed me to the NICB VINCHECK website and said it would tell me if the vehicle is stolen. The website said it was not stolen and had a clean title. I screen shoted the search result and submitted it as evidence. Judge Watkins did not take said evidence into consideration. the "owner" was not the registered owner of the vehicle and stated as much on the court record when brought up at trial Judge Watkins didnt know if a vehicle could be reported stolen by someone other than the registered owner so she asked the baliff who said not usually but he had heard of it happening. She found me guilty wven though I clearly showed that I had no intent on purchasing a stolen vehicle, I did everything the authoritys asked me to do and went to prison for it. So how did I Intentionally and knowingly commit this crime? she was going to find me guilty no matter what evidence I produced

Other

Comment #: OR632
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She shouldn’t be a judge. She showed up in court and her phone went off.. stepped away and came back saying she has to go downstairs to pick up a pizza for a bday party at 11:45am. Takes 1.5 hour break. My ex and his 4 witness got to testify and gave me and my MD a total of 1 hour to testify.. and my other 2 witness couldn’t. She said to me on stand “I am sorry if I am insensitive to your cancer, but we know you had cancer, we must move a long.” She also said you know working FT will be good for you because it is like going to a gym and seeing a therapist.” She also said “Woman in our age group all have brain fog…”. After court my court MD order MRI and shows ischemic areas in my brain and sending me to a neurologist. She didn’t care what my MD said. She couldn’t see the lies by my ex . He went bathroom every 30 min .. no Md notes, he felt suicidal… but with me “Are you seeing a therapist” When we came back for judgement.. she came out crying… “This is so hard for me”. “I am sorry, but I have to rip the bandage off.” At the end when she took everything away from me she said “ You seem like a good person.. I hope you find your soulmate.”
Does she even know the law? She tried to act like a doctor, a therapist, and not a judge. My attorney said she has never seen something like this. She should stepdown or go to law school again.

Other

Comment #: OR625
Rating:1.0

Comments:
My sister Diane Psaros tried to get a restraining order against her ex-husband. The judge ruled against her. Year and a half later, she's murdered by her ex-husband. That judge is partially to blame for this. She enabled him to do this and since the restraining order was denied, that monster was allowed to keep his weapons and torment my sister up until the day she died. Based on the other comments I see around the internet and what happened to my sister, she is definitely on the abuser's side. I hope she rots in hell.

Other

Comment #: OR605
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Listened to just one side of a case and after 2.5years of kids being with the sole parent after an emergency endangerment order for being physically abused. Worst judge and person I've ever met. She deserves to work at a fast food line at Mc D's. Her behavior and demeanor is sad and I'm incredibly sad to even be a resident in Oregon. May she have to pay for what she has done someday, karma sucks

Litigant

Comment #: OR500
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Fair. Took the time to explain her ruling. I felt heard. Compassionate. Treated me with respect.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: OR464
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Makes outlandish rulings, doesn’t allow key party testimony, favors abusers over child safety, does not know or care what mental health is, does not believe coronavirus is real and rules as such, allows testimony of whichever party she favors and bars other testimony. Wields her power as a judge while also refusing to hear evidence. Clearly has bias against domestic violence survivors and does not know of or understand coercive control.