Episode 3: Karen E. Scott
U.S. Magistrate Judge For The Central District Of California
00:51:53Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Today's guest Karen Scott was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California in 2015. Prior to her appointment, Judge Scott was a partner at Rutan & Tucker, LLP in Costa Mesa, where she handled civil litigation matters within the firm's Business Litigation and Government and Regulatory Law practice groups. In this episode, she shares how she became a lawyer, and how her time in practice informs her work on the bench.
Relevant episode links:
Judge Karen E. Scott, Constitutional Rights Foundation, Apeirogon
About Judge Karen E. Scott:
Judge Karen E. Scott
Karen E. Scott was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California in 2015. Prior to her appointment, Judge Scott was a partner at Rutan & Tucker, LLP in Costa Mesa where she handled civil litigation matters within the firm's Business Litigation and Government and Regulatory Law practice groups.
Judge Scott received her B.A. in Comparative Literature, with honors, from Stanford University. She also received her J.D. from Stanford University. For many years, Judge Scott has volunteered with the Constitutional Rights Foundation of Orange County, a non-profit organization that provides law and civics-related educational programs to Orange County students.
Transcript
Judge Scott, you serve as a Magistrate Judge in the Ninth States District Court in the Central District of California. Let's talk about it a little bit about before you came to the bench. How did you first decide to go into law or to be a lawyer?
I did not have anyone in my family who was a lawyer, so it was somewhat of a new idea in my family. I was very fortunate that when I was growing up, I recognized pretty early that I was a good student and liked reading, writing and public speaking. I was fortunate to be born in a generation of women that when I displayed those talents and expressed those interests’ that people suggested to me that I might want to be a lawyer. Even in elementary school, I had that idea in the back of my head that it might be something fun, but I didn't know anyone who was a lawyer.
Who suggested that to you? You were very young at that time. You were in grade school.
My mother tells a story about my kindergarten teacher suggesting that. I don't independently remember that, but according to Mrs. Wong, she thought I should be a lawyer because I was good at getting the other children to agree to do what I wanted without anyone getting mad at me. I had an older sister who was going around telling people she was going to be a doctor, so I thought I at least needed something equally impressive to tell people. It was a small dream early on.
The first attorney that I remember meeting was the attorney who volunteered to coach our high school mock trial team and that was Greg Prickett. He's now a judge in the Orange County Superior Court. I remember being very impressed, not so much as a high school kid. You don't know so much about legal prowess, but the fact that he seemed very happy in his profession.
You could tell that he thought he was doing meaningful work. He was a prosecutor and enjoyed his colleagues. He was willing to come out and volunteer to coach the high school mock trial, which is a huge time commitment. That made a very positive impression that indeed law might be something I wanted to pursue. When I went on to college, I majored in Comparative Literature, which was not something that I chose because I thought it was going to open up lots of job opportunities going to law school, but at that point, I was pretty confident that I was going to try law school and see where it led.
You saw these people and people were telling you their reasons for why you might want to go into law. What were your reasons that developed over time?
I don't know that I had a very good understanding of what lawyers did until you get pretty far down that path before you start to read cases or have any exposure to proceedings in court. The more I did, the more I started to understand that lawyers were, in essence, problem-solvers. That was very appealing to me.
I was someone who liked to try and wrestle with the facts and figure out what happened, what would be a fair result once we could agree on what happened and we had to figure out what to do about it. All of those things appealed to me. I continued to enjoy reading and writing. Those were always hobbies of mine, even when it wasn't required for class. It ultimately turned out to be a good fit for the aptitudes I had and my personality.
You're extremely analytical too so that's very helpful for what you're doing as a judge, but also in your practice as a lawyer. Let's talk about that then. You decided to go to law school. What kind of law did you determine you wanted to practice?
I did not have a strong sense of exactly what that would look like. When I was looking around for summer associate positions and similar opportunities, I was attracted to the idea of a firm where I could rotate through a number of different departments and see what was appealing. That's what I ended up doing.
I chose the firm more because it had a public law section, which was the type of client rather than the type of work that was appealing to me at that point. I thought, “What better way to spend your time and talents than trying to help school districts, local governments and those kinds of entities?” I ended up doing entirely civil litigation, but generally, for government clients.
My perception of civil litigation before getting into it might have been lawyers screaming at each other, which would not have been appealing. Once you get in, you start to realize that there may be a little bit of that sometimes, but it's not normative and it's usually not a very good strategy to employ on behalf of one's client. I was very excited to find out that a lot of civil litigation is problem-solving, diving into piles of documents and witness testimony and trying to unravel a set of facts and figure out what happened.
Was that Rutan & Tucker that you went to straight out of law school?
That’s correct.
Did you clerk for a judge or consider clerking for a judge at any point?
I did not. In retrospect, it would have certainly been a great thing to do. It comes back to not knowing any lawyers. When I talked to people about career opportunities, I was very cognizant of the fact that I was going to graduate from law school with a mortgage loan and no house. I was happy to start getting into a position where I could pay back some of my student loans. That was where my focus was. If it had been presented more as an educational opportunity rather than a prestigious opportunity, I might have paid more attention. At the time, I remember thinking like, “I think I can jump right into working for a paycheck.”
In your current role as a judge, you at least have that role with your clerks and a new generation of being able to have a great education, working with a judge and seeing from that perspective how the cases are perceived, analyzed and decided. Until you join the bench, you never get that opportunity again. It informed how you practice and it's such an important role that judges play in educating and teaching new graduates what it's like.
It’s one of my favorite parts of being a magistrate judge. It's an embarrassment of riches when I look at the applications I receive for clerkships and the things that people have done, even before and in between college and law school. They are bright, enthusiastic and it is fun to work and talk with them about how to analyze legal problems and write legal briefs.
Do you have a mix? I wanted to ask this because some people have a mix in their chambers and some more experienced lawyers or people who have served in the capacity for a few years and they have a new person cycle in for some fresh perspective but at least there's somebody with a little bit more experience. That wasn't true when I was clerking. We were all pretty new, but at least we got some insight from the outgoing class of clerks, such as it was for a couple of weeks.
It's pretty typical of other magistrate judge chambers in the Central District. I have two law clerks and half of a staff attorney. The staff attorney is someone who's been here for a while and has experience with the issues that we typically deal with. With the other two law clerks, judges have a choice to have one of those be a career position or to have both of those be a term position. I have someone who started as a term clerk but ultimately transitioned into a career clerk. I've been benefiting from her experience, but I have one position that renews every year.
That's a great combination. That's a newer thing, but it seems like you get the best of everything that way.
I feel a little bad using the term career because it sounds like she's chained to her desk.
One of my friends was a career clerk on the Ninth Circuit for several years and went into practice and teaches at Loyola Law School. There are other things to do after that. How did you then decide to become a judge and what did that process look like?
I remember when I was working on various litigation matters, having to fill out one of those forms like the senior partner gives as an associate that like, “What are my goals and objectives?” That's not a good use of time, but it can be, especially once you get out of school and you don't have the automatic transition from grade level to grade level that you may become less intentional about the growth that you want to accomplish and how you want to grow your practice.
I remember talking about wanting to learn more about a federal court that, at that time, I was mostly practicing in state court and to even get to a point where I could try and become a judge. I was very fortunate that my firm supported me in those efforts. Learning about federal court happened in spite of myself because at that point, I was doing a lot of class action litigation.
They passed the Class Action Fairness Act, which allowed nearly all of the things I had been doing in state court to migrate over to the federal court. All of a sudden, I was appearing on behalf of clients all over the country and doing settlement conferences and discovery hearings with magistrate judges. That was my first exposure to that type of judicial officer.
I know personally, arguing in the federal appellate courts as well. That's a pretty broad array of experience. That diverse experience in the different courts at different levels is a positive background to have for applying for a judgeship. That's wonderful. How did you decide to apply for a magistrate judgeship?
It was a good fit with my background, having developed experience in federal court and having not developed a whole lot of experience in the trial in spite of spending my entire career as a civil litigator. That was a by-product of doing so many class actions that the motion for class certification was very hard-fought, but usually, that determined the case. Oftentimes, it wasn't much to go to trial over once the class certification issue had been resolved.
I had a chance to do a number of settlement conferences with magistrate judges and I thought that would be an interesting thing to do as well. You always have a little bit of trepidation, thinking like, “Are they going to think I'm far too young and inexperienced?” You put your name in the hat and see what happens. I filled out the application went through the interview process.
A lot of civil litigation is problem-solving and diving into piles of documents and witness testimony, and trying to unravel a set of facts and figure out what happened.
I was fortunate enough to be recommended by the Magistrate Judge Selection Committee to advance and interview with the judges. Ultimately, unlike other federal judges that are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, magistrate judges are voted on by all the district judges in our district. I was pleased when they voted and offered me the position.
It was helpful that you had appeared in front of any of them in the class action cases and they were familiar with your work and your collegiality.
I would say, anyone who's trying to think about applying for a judgeship that you need to have a good reputation for things like collegiality, stability and integrity. You can be a fantastic lawyer who's working very hard in your office, but if you don't get out and meet some people, it's going to be difficult to have people who want to support you if they're not familiar with you.
That's a common thread amongst people who are on the benches that they have an interest in community service, which they act on throughout their careers. It's a real interest and authentic. They want to serve in various ways. To your point, it's important that you do that so that people met you at least once or have seen your name when they're reviewing applicants.
I was involved in the Constitutional Rights Foundation, which has a lot of judicial volunteers, but it also runs the high school mock trial program that I was involved in high school and thought was a great experience. That was a very natural fit for me. I was also fortunate that one of our prior magistrate judges here in Orange County, Judge Gandhi, he and I met when we were opposing counsel on a particular case.
We had respect for each other and it's officially a civil relationship that we kept in contact and talked about. I talked with him when there was an opening available here in Orange County. It was very helpful to have established that relationship and not taken a position while litigating against someone that they were your enemy.
That is nice to have when your potential future colleagues are interested in helping you join the bench because they think it would be nice to have you there. You would be a helpful addition instead of an unhelpful addition. That's always good to have that reputation. Was Judge Gandhi there when you joined? I didn't know if he left before you got there.
We overlapped for a little bit.
Having been a magistrate judge for several years, is there something such as the most unexpected part of being a judge? You have an idea or a vision of what you think that role is going to be, but what does it like? Is there something that surprised you like, “I didn't know I'd be doing that?”
I don't know if this relates specifically to how one is a judge. I was surprised when I got into this role and started interacting with criminal files for the first time, both in doing initial appearances for federal defendants and reviewing non-capital habeas corpus petitions for state defendants to have a little bit of anecdotal insight into what crime looks like. You think, “I have some understanding of that based on media accounts and whatnot.”
It was surprising to me to see how many very sad and tragic events had happened, not because of some master plan to steal money or get ahead in life, but a lack of impulse control often fueled by drug addiction or an alcohol problem where nobody had thought like, “I'm going to get the gun and this is what I'm going to do.” It just happened. It’s very sad.
It makes you think about what could we do better to try and disincentivize that kind that isn't about affecting how one thinks because it's not the product of a great deal of thought but reducing the opportunities for people to be in situations where that lack of impulse control leads to violence and tragic results. It’s understanding that oftentimes those files looked different than you might expect.
That's a whole area that you have not done before either. There's a big learning curve and also having the experience of seeing it over time and you can pattern where certain cases develop.
We are skewed to see more things that involve drugs than we might if we were in state court but I had thought, “Maybe it was 30%.” I hadn't thought it was 80%. I haven't done any scientific research to verify any of those statistics, but it seems very prevalent.
That's a side of your community that you wouldn't see otherwise either. That can be surprising too, like, “I didn't know all this was going down here and now I see it.” You also have an appellate aspect as the magistrate judge in terms of the agency determinations. There's an interesting mix in the things that you do as a magistrate judge.
The folks who will review Social Security determinations when someone is denied disability benefits. They have the right to appeal that denial up to federal court. Oftentimes, they'll have lawyers who will represent them on a contingency fee. We're fortunate that many of the members of that bar are willing to consent to magistrate judges. Oftentimes, the magistrate judge ends up being the judge who's handling the case for all purposes. We get to review long medical records and try and figure out if the administrative law judge's decision is supported by evidence in the record.
Is that part of what you enjoy as the variety of work that you're doing? It isn't a focused judicial position on only certain types of cases. It's all of the cases in all parts of their life cycle.
One of the things that magistrate judges do is civil discovery disputes. In that arena, you could get any civil case. We have patent, copyright, trade secret, civil rights, Federal Tort Claims Act, maritime, airport and environmental disputes. You name it. That was always one of the things that I liked about being a civil litigator is whatever case you were working on, you got to learn a lot about that industry. The difference was, as a civil litigator, I would get a file and live and breathe that file for years on end. In here, I might pick up 6 or 7 files in a day. You get to see an even quicker and broader array of different cases that are coming in.
Something that's frequently discussed is the caseload of the district courts, which you're a part of. Have you seen trends in that regard since you've been on the bench? Has it always been busy or has there been a constant increase over that time?
Our district judges certainly have always been busy. There's a number of empty seats. Our chief district judge gives us the State of the District Address every year at the Judges’ Night and talks about how many seats are empty and what progress there is in filling those. That's always a constant issue. With COVID, the court suspended jury trials in March of 2020 and only has begun conducting those again with masks and other health safeguards in place.
There is a long list of criminal defendants who are trying to get into the schedule to have their cases go to trial. Since those cases typically have priority district judge’s schedule, it can make it a little bit more difficult for civil litigants. We have seen a bit of an uptick in folks who are willing to consent to a trial before a magistrate judge and that is definitely a way to get your trial scheduled on a date certain and maybe a little sooner than you would if you were trying to compete with a felony calendar.
We certainly have at any given point in time and the hundreds and hundreds of cases that are assigned to us. For many civil cases, if the parties never have a discovery dispute and if they decide to use a private mediator, I may never see them, even if my initials are there in the case name. For others, we see quite a lot.
It tends to have a certain character overtimes. Some need more help along the way. You were very active, as you mentioned, in the Constitutional Rights Foundation and other ways of serving prior to joining the bench and had certain positions of leadership in that regard. What do you think is your best leadership lesson or example of leadership since joining the bench? There are a lot of things that you are constrained in doing as a judge that you could do in practice.
One thing that has stood out to me is when you become a judge, you start to instantly become a little suspicious that everyone's agreeing with you.
You're so much smarter. How did that happen?
Maybe I'm not doing this right, but is anyone going to tell me? The lesson from all that is humility and to continue to be open to learning and be teachable because you know that there are a lot of things that are going to come up for the first time that is not familiar to you from practice and are new issues. It is wonderful to have skilled attorneys who can file briefs and present arguments that help educate you because, ultimately, I'm trying to be very open to hear the facts and the law that I need to hear in order to make a decision.
The notion of the leader as being the guy who stands out in front and never admits that he did anything wrong is going to be the opposite of what makes for a good judge that you hope that when you finally arrive at your final decision point that it’s correct and you've done your best to get to a correct decision. It’s the humility and recognizing that you need to be educated along the way and to have an open mind.
I don't think that would be the first answer for a lot of people, especially the way you described it. It's true, humble but also a lifelong learner in that regard that you're curious and you want to make sure that you're considering everything in making a decision. That's how you were before you joined the bench. You were that person, which is what made you a great choice for a judgeship. Speaking of that, what advice would you give to law students or lawyers who might be considering, “Maybe someday I might want to be a judge.” What advice would you give them now that you've gone through the process?
As we talked about earlier, you want to be very aware of your reputation. That can be positive things like being involved in the community. It can be small things. We had lots of experiences. I was at a civil firm for twenty years and we would have people come. They would be there a few years and leave. You never knew if they were going to end up in the district attorney's office, working for a local law school, as a career research attorney at the courts or eventually working their way up to a judicial position.
It was very helpful to have established that relationship and not take a position while litigating against someone that they were your enemy.
You want to recognize that all the relationships you form have the potential to be important, give them the care and attention they deserve and not think that anyone you run across is expendable or unimportant. Whether it's opposing counsel, clients or whoever you might run into. Things have a way of working out in the future that you often wouldn't anticipate at the time. Also, with social media and those things that you should be careful. It's not at all unusual if we're reviewing clerkship applications to google people's names and you should be aware of what might come up if somebody does that.
Especially for younger folks, that can be a question. That seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe a great post in the long term. Let's turn a little bit to practitioners. Let's say lawyers who are appearing in front of you. What can they do to be most helpful to you, whether it's in a motion or arguing to the court? What's helpful to you in making your decision?
I suspect that my answers are not revolutionary in any way in a brief. What is helpful is clarity. I would like to see very clearly and quickly what relief you are asking for and what’s your authority for asking for it. It's very frustrating to get the discovery motion and be on page two when there's all this discussion about contentious meet and confer conferences without some understanding of, “Do you want me to compel a response to interrogatories or requests for admissions? Are you looking for sanctions?”
If I can't tell that quickly, then it becomes harder to fit those other facts you're telling me into the framework to understand how to analyze them. Particularly with things like sanctions, we'll have people put in a throw-away sentence that they want sanctions without talking about how much, for what and on what basis. All of that is helpful as the judge who has to explain the reason for the decision and the statute on which the award might be based. Especially in discovery motions, sometimes there are a lot of pages that are spent repeating rules about relevancy or privilege.
It can be helpful if it's a novel concept or you want to try and demonstrate how your facts fit in very closely with the facts of some other case. If it's the thing that you could cut and paste into any discovery motion, the chances are we've got our own version of that. That's probably not something that needs to consume a lot of time.
At oral argument, we have the luxury at the federal court to manage our schedules. Sometimes, we'll take arguments off the calendar. Sometimes, we'll keep them on. If we have kept them on, it's often because we have questions that we would like the litigants to answer and those questions make a difference to the analysis that we started to formulate. My best advice here will be if the judge asks you a question to try to listen and answer it.
It may be contrary to your talking points, but if you can nevertheless give an answer and then pivot to your talking point, at least I understand that you've understood the question. You've done your best to answer it and you haven't missed it or are simply telling me that you're not going to give me an answer. If that's the case, you're leaving them to guess that the answer may not be favorable and that's why you don't want to answer the question. If that's not true, you don't want to leave that impression.
In listening to you talk about motions about written submissions, it sounds like there's a corollary to at least what appellate justices say. My experience as an appellate advocate is helpful. The first paragraph or two is you're orienting the court what case is this, what procedural setting is it in like summary judgment or dismissal jury trial, what is the key issue and what you want to be decided so that you can orient yourself because the judges are very busy. They have lots of cases coming through. If you can be clear about what this is about and what the court is going to be asked to decide, that's very helpful in the frontend. It sounds like you're saying something similar.
I recognize that in the context of discovery motions, here in the Central District, we have these unique rules that require that they be sent in the form of a joint stipulation or there's a discussion about what all has to be included in that. There's a bit of an art in trying to figure out how to group the discovery together so that if you have one argument about relevancy, you can present it without cutting and pasting for each of the 42 requests for production that the argument is being raised for.
If you have one argument about the relevant time period, think about how to raise that. We’ll get motions that sometimes have some pretty basic issues where someone will have pasted the interrogatory and the response into the brief. The fight is over whether it's vague and ambiguous. There's a defined term and no one has provided the court with the definitions. Those are things that you're cutting and pasting. You might be cognizant that you need to need to include those if that's relevant to your motion.
I have a question in terms of when you write opinions or extended orders in cases. What is your process for doing that to the extent you feel comfortable sharing in terms of your own independent work? How much do you work with your staff on that? How do you use the party’s filings and your own research to put that together?
It varies. We try to customize the process to the product we're trying to create. Sometimes, we can read through something and have a sense of which direction it's going. Clerks can be launched on a draft and they're doing well there. As a magistrate judge, one of the other types of matters that we deal with a lot is self-represented civil rights lawsuits. Some of that is trying to decipher what the self-represented person’s claims are and what they are asking for. There's a level of patience and detail where you're trying to come through that and find that out.
It may not be something that requires a lot of complicated legal analysis, but it does require a fair reading of what they're saying and trying to identify all their claims. For something like that, my clerks are very helpful. For other things, sometimes I'll sit down and write the first draft and have them help me proofread it. Sometimes, vice versa.
It depends. Certainly, in the arena of civil discovery, since that was something that I did quite a lot in practice, I’m happy to jump into some of those and write the first draft. Sometimes, we offer a procedure on our website that allows the parties to avoid the cumbersome joint stipulation process that we were discussing and instead file short letter briefs to reserve a hearing on much shorter notice and have a telephonic hearing with me.
If we do that, oftentimes I'm reading the briefs, making outlines and questions, and hoping to get to a point where at the end of the call, I can announce a ruling on the record that the parties will have it right then and can order a transcript if they need to. That can be a very efficient way of resolving very discreet discovery issues. We've had issues with COVID about where do the depositions take place and how do the depositions take place. Some of those things are well-suited to that resolution.
It's efficient, and it lets people carry on litigating their case in an efficient way with some discrete questions, as you mentioned. That's good to have that other procedure. I wanted to ask you as well. You mentioned a little bit that in terms of mentors and sponsors playing a role both in private practice for you and with you joining the bench and maybe even since joining the bench. I feel that's something we don't talk about publicly very much. I’m curious if you had any stories of that or how people helped you along the way.
When I was at Rutan & Tucker, the first couple years I was there were unusual in that I was staffed on one large case, which was defending the city of Anaheim in a series of landslide lawsuits that involved hundreds of homeowner plaintiffs. The lead attorney there was Mike Rubin. I did a lot of work under him for the first couple of years. He was terrific. He trusted me to go out and take homeowner depositions. There was one year I did 70 homeowner depositions.
He was very encouraging. He was someone who said, “If they're going to start a Young Lawyers Division over at the bar, you should go and offer to help them start that.” To have that introduction, to be able to go over there and meet the staff members and the people who were leaving the bar at the time. I end up being the founding president of the Young Lawyers Division. That was great. I don't know that it would have occurred to me to go out and do that without somebody else pointing that it would be a helpful thing to go and do.
I did a lot of work with Layne Melzer, who is now a judge at the Orange County Superior Court. He was always very good at doing reality checks where he would say, “This is the law and these are the facts.” He would bring a bit, “What about the people involved? How are they going to react?” That's an important question when you're trying to solve problems ultimately.
Having the experience of seeing it over time lets you see patterns or certain kinds of cases develop.
That's an important point that you mentioned in terms of having mentors and sponsors who nurture you within the firm, but they're also interested in the bigger picture for you. They want to nurture you and have you be the best that you can be in your career, whether that career ultimately means you're going to leave and join the bench or you're going to go to another firm. They're interested in your growth overall.
That sounds like when you're talking about Mike Rubin, that's what he was interested in. He wanted you to get the skills within the cases at the firm, but also, “I want more people to know about how great you are and what you can do. The way to do that is to get involved in the community. Here's an opportunity with the bar.” That's a beautiful story that encapsulates what good mentors and sponsors do. Thanks for sharing that. Sometimes, people hear that and they go, “What does that look like? What does that mean when somebody helps you?” It's helpful to describe that.
Sometimes, within the firm, you might be assigned to someone, and it was assumed that it was a person to vent to or air grievances to. While it's helpful, that could be helpful to have somebody in that role that it may not be what mentorship looks like.
It's important to mention that because some newer lawyers, particularly in firms, are drilled into them like, “You have to build your hours.” Yes, you do, but you also need to take care of yourself and your future. That involves more than just filling the hours.
That comes back to being intentional about your life plan. You think about, “How am I going to build these hours and how many hours am I going to have left for physical health and personal relationships?” Those things are important for your long-term career satisfaction.
How was that different since you've joined the bench? It's still hard work. It's a very busy calendar. Is it different for you and that you have more control over that calendar?
You do and that is helpful. I also think that you have a little bit more intellectual freedom to figure out what you want to spend time on because no one's ever going to come back and say, “How can you justify doing two hours to research that?” I want to stay late and spend two hours researching that thing that might come up again, or maybe it turns into a bunny trail and it didn't have any relevance. I've done it. I've satisfied my curiosity and learned something. It's not an issue that I was being inefficient with someone else's time. It's my own time.
You've got the comfort level when you're deciding something. If you need to do that to be comfortable with making the decision, then you're going to do it.
There's always a tension where clients want the best result with the smallest bill. It would be difficult trying to figure out how much time we need to spend because there's always more time that could be spent, but if it's not translating into results, the client may not be very happy with that.
There's always a balance in that regard in the private practice realm but you don't have that now. What's your favorite experience since you've been on the bench?
I don't know that I can pick one, but the two general categories that come to mind is I certainly have enjoyed working on conferences. I’m learning a lot through that process, seeing how different dynamics come into play and things that look rather hopeless at about 9:30 in the morning can end up settling later that afternoon. Seeing how that evolves and being able to help get people into that place where they are able to resolve their disputes. That's been very rewarding, particularly.
One of the things that magistrate judges do is civil discovery disputes.
Sometimes, the parties are very far apart, and they'll both say, “We want to hear a mediator's proposal.” You feel a lot of pressure that you're trying to evaluate, “What is the number that this case could settle out and what would be fair and realistic.” If you can come up with a number on both sides and say, “Yeah, we can accept that.” You feel like that's been a good exercise and wisdom brought to bear on solving that problem.
One of the other things that have been very interesting to me is being involved in initial appearances where you have opportunities to make bail decisions or decisions about whether people are going to be sent to drug treatment facilities or things of that nature. You recognize as you're making those decisions or even planning search warrants that you're having a very significant impact on the individuals involved there. From that standpoint, you feel very invested if you are able to see a good result that comes out of that. Again, you feel like that was a good way of bringing resources to bear that we're able to make a difference in that situation.
It's interesting that you mentioned first the mediating and settling because that sounded like that was something way back when your kindergarten teacher had mentioned that you were very good at that. Now, you have the opportunity to do that. People tend to feel that they've been treated fairly by you and that you've listened to the positions. That's helpful in judging, but it's also helpful in mediating and resolving cases. People feel fairly treated in that process. I thought it was so funny that it was a full circle to the beginning with that commentary.
I see that as a significant role of a judge as you may be the person's only contact with the judicial system or their first contact if they are going to go on to trial later eventually. If they're in front of you for a settlement conference or if they are self-represented and you're handling their case to make it clear that you are impartial and interested in giving them a fair shot at presenting their case. You're going to listen to it and treat them respectfully.
When I look at how my other colleagues are handling those things, that is a very high value among the entire bench here. People recognize that it's important to make sure people understand that it’s not the perception of what's going on but that’s the reality of what's going on and the core value to the folks on the bench because that would be so.
Are you ready for a little lightning round?
Okay.
You talked about this a little bit but we're just going to encapsulate it. What's your top tip for brief writing and argument in front of you?
My top tip for brief writing is to be clear and concise. For arguing, it’s going to be to answer the questions.
That about boils it down, but a lot of judges will say, “That was very well done.” Which talent would you most like to have? It could be a superpower, skill or talent that you want.
There are days where I feel like if I could supernaturally discern truth from a lie, it would be great.
What is the trait that you most deplore in yourself or others?
I try and guard myself against complacency that sometimes one can get comfortable or feel like things are going well. You don't ever want to forget that while it might be your 100th time in court, that litigator, it's their first time in court. You would never want complacency to get in the way of them feeling like they have your full attention and they are bringing something that matters. My husband and I go around our neighborhood and pick up trash. I will say, “Woe to the litterer.” Not that it’s very likely. I don't know that as a federal crime in most places, but that is something that bothers me when I see people throwing their trash out their windows into the community.
Here you have a choice. Who are your favorite writers or what is your favorite word?
My favorite writer probably changes every year. The book that I finished that I thought was excellent was called Apeirogon by Colum McCann. He's an Irish writer. It's a very artistic look at the true stories of two men, one Israeli and one Palestinian, who both lost their daughters in violence in that part of the world. It’s their personal stories and how they're using their personal stories to try and help people think about what could be done differently to try and work towards peace. The author weaves that into pictures about mathematics and migratory birds and tries to show the connectedness of things. It was very thought-provoking and beautiful.
It's the connections and interweaving of things that writers are able to do that. I would never have thought of that, but it was well done and helped make a point of the story.
It was not legal writing. It was not clear. It has its purpose and beauty in trying to show you that the words can be used as tools for many things.
I wasn't limiting it to legal writers. Who is your hero in real life?
I don't know that I have a celebrity hero. There are so many people out there that I recognize are living their life embodying the values of courage and integrity. All of those people are heroes. I don't know that we know about them from watching the news, but I'm sure you can think of people in your family, circle of friends and business that do those things and inspire people. When I think of heroes, that's what I think of.
You don't realize how much each individual person has an impact on others and sometimes a positive impact, but you may never know that you had some influence doing.
There are teachers, pastors, judges and all folks out there doing good work to try and help the people they come into contact with.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you want as a dinner guest?
It might have to be Sandra Day O'Connor. I remember very distinctly learning about her appointment. She always had a special place in my imaginations. She had gone to Stanford and I went to Stanford. She was kind enough to come back and judge one of our moot court competitions when I was there. I got to see her do that.
She told the story about graduating high in the class and not being able to get a job except as a legal secretary. I want to thank her for her persistence, but for folks like that who were willing to do a lot of things that were uncomfortable and challenge a lot of boundaries that we wouldn't have made the progress to where we are.
I went to Stanford and was an undergrad as well. I was at some alumni event at Stanford and had this, “Oh my goodness,” moment because Sandra Day O'Connor was standing next to the cheese tray. I swear it could have been Elvis or somebody else. I was like, “It's Sandra Day O'Connor.” It was pretty cool. I did have an opportunity through a friend to have dinner and talk with her. She was amazing, as you indicated. We're going to end with this one. What is your motto?
To the extent I have one, it might be, “Love is the name of the game.” A motto isn't necessarily professional but it comes from personal life as well and spiritual places. When I think about what it is that should animate, give you purpose and help you get out there to try and make things better, all of that comes under the umbrella of loving other people, your community and trying to serve them the best you can.
There should be more love in the world in that regard. The community and humanity would be much better off for it, but it can be very hard to maintain that feeling towards your fellow humankind. That's the struggle, not getting into anger or vengefulness, but staying true to you and your heart and having that love for things.
It's not to be at all dismissive of the fact that there are terrible things that happen and people who say and do things that are hard to understand. That is the challenge.
It can make a difference staying in that state and trying to stay in that state. Even if sometimes it might be more aspirational, it's good to have that be the goal overall. Thank you so much for sharing with us and for spending time talking about your journey to the bench and law practice. I appreciate you doing this and I'm glad that others will get to discover what a special person you are too.
It was my pleasure. I commend you for embarking on this project. Hopefully, we'll get some messages to some ears that wouldn't have otherwise heard those messages and have some positive effects.
There are many different journeys that people have taken so that somebody can see that in their life as being more realistic or probable. It demystifies it a little bit. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Thank you.