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

Attorney Average Rating:   3.4 - 5 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 (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33316
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
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
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
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.


Comment #: CA14215
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
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.