Hon. Sean Patrick O'Donnell See Rating Details
Superior Court
King County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   7.5 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Sean Patrick O'Donnell


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA984
I have seen this judge in family law settings only. As a former prosecutor, he suffers from an apparently consistent high opinion of himself, and doesn't think he has ever made a mistake. He will do his own research, and if there is a conflict between the cases brought to him by an attorney, and what he found, he doesn't even hesitate to say his is a better case, even if it really isn't as on point as he thinks.

In family law, sometimes the parties need to be pushed to reach a settlement before trial, and sometimes that means allowing them some time in a continuance. I find this judge to be very inflexible in this area. To paraphrase, it is my courtroom, and I determine the schedule of trials, and I don't care what you say, we will go to trial when I say we will, and I don't really care if you have a valid reason for a continuance. That is harsh, but he seems to have adopted that position. I understand why it is necessary at times. but there are legitimate reasons for a continuance, and he hasn't seen a reason he likes. Not the best use of judicial resources, and it makes life tough for attorneys who are trying to get their clients to a resolution. Better to say you get your continuance for a short while, but don't ask me again.