Judge Ethan P. Schulman

Judge Ethan P. Schulman has served on the San Francisco Superior Court since his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown in March 2013, bringing over a decade of experience on the bench to complex civil litigation. His judicial profile is defined by two overarching characteristics: a willingness to hold large corporations accountable to the letter of California statutory law, and a firm insistence on procedural transparency and compliance. The AB 5 litigation against Uber and Lyft stands as the most prominent illustration of the first characteristic — Judge Schulman issued a preliminary injunction requiring the companies to reclassify their drivers as employees, a ruling that demonstrated his readiness to apply statutory mandates against powerful corporate defendants even in politically and economically consequential circumstances. This is not a judge who will be deterred from enforcing the law by the size or influence of the parties before him. Equally significant is his documented rebuke of attorneys who sought to seal class action settlement records. This signals that Judge Schulman views public access to court proceedings as a baseline expectation, not a courtesy to be negotiated away. Attorneys who approach his courtroom with reflexive confidentiality requests or who treat procedural rules as formalities risk drawing his direct criticism. His presiding over the Uber rider sexual assault trial in 2025 — a high-stakes jury trial that resulted in a defense verdict — further demonstrates his capacity to manage complex, high-profile litigation to verdict. Overall, Judge Schulman presents as a jurist who is intellectually rigorous, procedurally demanding, and skeptical of corporate arguments that seek to circumvent statutory obligations. Attorneys appearing before him should expect close scrutiny of both the legal merits and the procedural propriety of their filings.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Schulman should anchor their arguments firmly in statutory text and legislative intent. His AB 5 ruling demonstrates that he will apply California statutes as written, even against well-resourced defendants with compelling policy counterarguments. If you represent a plaintiff challenging corporate conduct under a California statute, lean into the plain language of the law and its legislative history. If you represent a corporate defendant, do not rely on equitable or policy-based arguments alone — you must engage the statutory text directly and provide a legally grounded basis for your position, not merely an economic or practical one. On procedural matters, assume nothing will be overlooked. Judge Schulman's rebuke over sealing requests signals that he actively monitors compliance with transparency obligations and court rules. Before filing any motion — particularly motions to seal, motions for protective orders, or settlement approval motions in class actions — ensure that every procedural requirement is met and that the legal basis for any confidentiality request is airtight and narrowly tailored. Do not file boilerplate sealing requests or rely on stipulations between parties as a substitute for proper legal justification. In terms of courtroom demeanor, Judge Schulman's profile suggests he respects attorneys who are direct, well-prepared, and candid. Given his willingness to publicly rebuke counsel, attorneys should avoid any appearance of gamesmanship or procedural shortcuts. Present arguments concisely, cite authority precisely, and be prepared to answer pointed questions from the bench about the legal basis for your positions.

• critical

  Audit All Sealing and Confidentiality Requests Before Filing

  Given Judge Schulman's documented rebuke over improper sealing requests, every motion to seal or protective order must be reviewed against California Rules of Court Rule 2.550-2.551 and supported by specific, non-boilerplate factual and legal justification. Do not rely on party stipulation as sufficient grounds.

• critical

  Prepare Statutory Text and Legislative History Analysis

  For any case involving California statutory claims or defenses, prepare a detailed analysis of the statute's plain language, legislative history, and relevant appellate authority. Judge Schulman's AB 5 ruling demonstrates he will apply statutes as written and expects counsel to engage at this level of specificity.

• critical

  Review All Local Rules and Standing Orders for Compliance

  Before any filing or appearance, verify compliance with San Francisco Superior Court local rules and any standing orders issued by Judge Schulman. His procedural rigor means that technical deficiencies will not be overlooked and may result in on-the-record criticism.

• important

  Prepare for Pointed Bench Questions on Legal Basis

  Based on his profile, Judge Schulman is an active and engaged jurist who will probe the legal foundations of arguments. Prepare for detailed questioning on the statutory or common law basis for every significant position you take, and have clear, concise answers ready.

• important

  Assess Preliminary Injunction Viability Early in Litigation

  If representing a plaintiff with a strong statutory claim, evaluate preliminary injunction strategy early. Judge Schulman has demonstrated willingness to grant significant interim relief. Conversely, defendants should prepare robust opposition to preliminary injunction motions from the outset.

• Nice

  Research Any Prior Rulings in Your Case Type

  While no analyzed rulings are currently available in this database, attorneys should conduct independent research through Trellis, CourtListener, and news archives for any additional rulings Judge Schulman has issued in analogous matters, particularly in employment, class action, and corporate accountability cases.

• ›Do not file or argue for sealing or confidentiality without a fully developed, narrowly tailored legal justification — boilerplate requests have drawn public rebuke and should be avoided entirely.
• ›Be direct and precise in oral argument; Judge Schulman's profile suggests he values concise, legally grounded advocacy over rhetorical flourish or extended policy arguments unsupported by statutory authority.
• ›Arrive fully prepared to answer detailed questions about the legal basis for your positions — this is not a courtroom where vague or general answers will satisfy judicial inquiry.
• ›Treat procedural rules as mandatory, not aspirational — Judge Schulman actively monitors compliance and will not silently overlook deficiencies in filings or courtroom conduct.
• ›Maintain professional candor at all times; his emphasis on transparency suggests he is attuned to any appearance of gamesmanship or attempts to obscure unfavorable authority or facts.