"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
San Francisco County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.3 - 17 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 1 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. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA52864
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Ulmer is rude, biased and does not do read the pleadings. Makes up technicalities to justifies his decisions. He is a disgrace and embarrassment to a city like San Francisco. He needs to retire.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA52854
Rating:2.7

Comments:
The judge demonstrated that he could not be bothered to acquaint himself with the record or California law, and ruled against Plaintiff for reasons that if he had done so, clearly did not apply to the matter before him. Twice. Ulmer is a disgrace to the bench and should retire.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA49140
Rating:2.5

Comments:
Ver arrogant and rude demeanor on the bench. Constantly interrupts lawyers just trying to make a record in the hearing. Possibly sexist as have seen him being extra with female lawyers. Makes decisions based on his feelings about counsel or parties, not on the law. Someone else remarked in a review that if shown his tentative ruling was incorrect, he will find a technicality (even if imaginary) to confirm the tentative. The fact that he is the Law and Motion judge reflects poorly on the San Francisco Superior Court. Needs to retire asap.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA42865
Rating:9.4

Comments:
I am a civil litigation attorney with over 18-years of experience, including in complex litigation (i.e., cases designated complex by the court).

Overall, I have been satisfied with the attention to detail and deliberation that Judge Ulmer gives to his decisions. Frankly, his decisions are simply logical and reflective of the status of cases that come before him. If it's a demurrer, he looks for adequately pled facts and law to support a remedy. If it's a summary judgment, he looks for material triable issues of facts. Realistically, what at more could you want, particularly in a judge who is not assigned for all purposes. (NOTE: San Francisco should do away with a law and motion department and switch to a judge for all purposes department, which allows judges more insight into the history of litigation in a case, but that is a separate issue).

I hesitate to say that some practitioners have become lazy or warped under previous judges in this department, such as Judge Kahn, who would issue rulings based on the direction of the wind and/or based on his personal political connections.

Judge Ulmer did what judges should do -- render a impartial ruling based on the facts and evidence before him -- which is, frankly, more than I have come to expect of lesser judges.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA41920
Rating:3.8

Comments:
Sadly, Judge Ulmer manifests many things that are wrong with state court judges. Doesn't do his homework, when shown that he is wrong, he relies on or manufactures technicalities to justify his opinion, comes to a conclusion and then works backward to justify it. In one case, several federal judges dismissed identically pled complaints by the same plaintiff, yet Judge Ulmer thought that the identical complaint in state court was just fine and dandy -- As everyone knows, Rule 12(b)(6) is a markedly different standard from a demurrer . . .? He is currently the Law & Motion Judge in SF Superior. His tentatives are rudimentary with rudimentary reasoning (if any).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA41887
Rating:1.6

Comments:
Rude and insulting, biased, interrupts incessantly, harangues and badgers on minor points, pontificates on law without knowing what he's talking about; advocates on behalf of the side with most power and money.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA40618
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Ulmer was rude, belligerent and arrogant. Made it seem that he was doing you a favor just by showing up to do his job. Zero judicial demeanor. He does not conduct himself with courtesy or civility to counsel and thus the people being represented. He does not deserve the honor of serving on the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA38160
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Ulmer is a very fair and smart judge. He respects the attorneys and the parties. He is always on time and moves cases forward in an efficient manner. He does his best to follow the law and even does his own research to make sure he is getting the issue right.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA37247
Rating:3.2

Comments:
when hearing a MSJ, Hon. Ulmer stated on the record, "Counsel [for opposing plaintiff], you have no idea how hard it is to be a defense counsel." Hon. Ulmer had no room to listen to oral argument. He misconstrued law. On motion for new trial, he appeared to have reviewed the papers for no more than 10 minutes.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA37032
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Yikes. Clearly does not read the papers. Shows no familiarity with the cases. Way out of his league - perhaps he'd be ok in traffic court.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA36126
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Ulmer wouldn’t let attorney applicants proceed under pseudonym but had no evidentiary requirements for the State Bar as he didn’t require State Bar’s counsel to take oath or show personal knowledge regarding claim State Bar wouldn’t retaliate against them.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA35528
Rating:2.9

Comments:
During orals on an MSJ by defendant, Ulmer, J. stated on the record: "You [plaintiff's counsel] have no idea how hard it is to be a [civil] defense attorney."

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33316
Rating:10.0

Comments:
I had a complicated case against a hardball lawyer, Mark Hoshmand who represent 32 clients and I was on the other side. The judge was great,

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA30855
Rating:1.5

Comments:
Impartiality is not Judge Ulmer's strong suit. He seemed to decide the case very early in the trial and remained biased throughout. In my opinion, he either did not understand the law he was applying, or was so biased that he simply ignored the law in deciding the case.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA30839
Rating:1.8

Comments:
I consistently got the impression that Judge Ulmer never bothered to read the papers, let alone any of the cases cited in them. He never took the time or put in the effort to understand the law he was applying. Lazy, sloppy, shoot-from-the-hip judging throughout pre-trial, trial, and post-trial.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA19987
Rating:2.5

Comments:
Picks sides in advance, usually his regulars. Painfully apparent he only reads the briefs of the preordained winner and heavily draws language from their briefs, even their ad hominem remarks. If you are new to SF or his court, your client is dead meat.

Litigant

Comment #: CA14215
Rating:1.0

Comments:
18 U.S. Code 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, and 42 U.S. Code 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9549
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This judge turned the lengthy and detailed report of a well-involved pro tem judge completely on its head. He disregarded a prior court order from another judge compelling production of documents. When I cited case law, he dismissed it and told me "cases get overturned all the time." He refused to read the code section on which my motion was based. It appeared that he had some relationship with defense counsel that biased his decision to the point that I think it proper to investigate.