Episode 103: Dawn H. Beam
Mississippi Supreme Court Justice
00:46:45
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Join MC Sungaila as she talks to Justice Dawn H. Beam about her journey to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Beam is the fourth woman to serve on the state’s highest court, and the first woman appointed from the Southern District. Find out what she learned in her journey, her tips for up-and-coming lawyers, and how she is making a difference when it comes to child protection, mental health, trauma, and much more.
This episode is powered by Bradley.
Relevant episode links:
Mississippi Supreme Court, Children's Justice Commission, Chief Justice McCormack - Previous episode, Free To Thrive
About Dawn H. Beam:
Dawn H. Beam
Justice Dawn H. Beam joined the Mississippi Supreme Court on February 16, 2016. Gov. Phil Bryant appointed her to fill the unexpired term of former Justice Randy Pierce. She is the fourth woman to serve on the state’s highest court, and the first woman appointed from the Southern District.
Justice Beam, the daughter of a minister, was born in Marks in the Mississippi Delta and as a child lived in numerous communities across the state. She graduated from Caldwell High School in Columbus, Mississippi. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in business from the University of Mississippi, and a law degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law. She was admitted to the Mississippi Bar in 1989.
She has spent most of her legal career in the Pine Belt area. She was elected to and served for three years as county prosecutor for Lamar County, and for five years as a chancellor of the Tenth Chancery District, which includes Forrest, Lamar, Marion, Pearl River and Perry counties. Her work as a chancellor and as a county prosecutor included protection of abused and neglected children. After her appointment to the Supreme Court, she continued work for the protection of children and families as co-chair of the Commission on Children's Justice and co-chair of the Commission on Guardianships and Conservatorships.
She makes her home in Sumrall. She is a member of Sumrall United Methodist Church in Lamar County. She is married to Dr. Stephen Beam. They have five children. Justice Beam and her husband are very active in their community.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to have joined us on the Mississippi Supreme Court, Justice Dawn Beam. Welcome, Justice.
Thank you. It's so good to join you.
Thanks so much for being here and willing to talk about your journey to the bench and your legal career. Before we get to that part, I wanted to start at the beginning. How did you decide you wanted to go to law school and be a lawyer? What inspired you to do that?
I was the first female in my family to work outside the home. Education was important to my family. I have two older sisters that graduated, immediately got married, and started having a family, but I've always been a hard worker. There wasn't any question that I was going to work. The question was where. My passion is to make a difference. After getting an undergraduate in business, it seemed like a natural fit for me to go to law school and see how I might make a difference in the world.
That's pretty amazing to be the first in your family to get that level of education.
I probably should say females. My brother has a Doctor's degree in Theology. My dad has a Doctorate. For women to step out was a significant thing.
What timeframe was that?
This would have been in the early '80s. Mississippi is a little bit slower than the rest of the world.
On the other hand, what I've learned from different guests on the show is that timing matters in terms of where things work culturally, whether it's in the families or with the larger culture, because even for people who went to law school in the early '80s or the late 1970s, that experience is vastly different than those who went to law school or graduated when I did, which is the early 1990s.
There were so many stories of things that happened earlier, but there was a sea change in the 1980s. When you're here and when you're going into your career matters. I was surprised at how much of a difference in a decade there was and how lucky we are to be in the timeframe where we are to be able to do what we want to do.
I was the first female in this area to be elected to a trial judge position and only the fourth female on the Mississippi Supreme Court. We are behind things, but at the same time, there is lots of progress. Once I became a trial judge here, several women followed. I always get excited when I go to law school and see so many females in the law school class doing so good.
The number of women in law school now is very different from even a couple of decades ago. First, I'm interested in a lot of your firsts or early trailblazing on the bench. That's pretty impressive, but I'm also interested in what practice you did do prior to the bench and what caused you to think, "This would be a great way to make a difference to be a judge."
My favorite job ever was practicing law. I loved every minute of it. I loved nothing better than scooping up somebody that needed help and being able to put order to their lives and then see them at Christmas time or whenever. It was so exciting to see people's lives change and to have been a part of that. I married a wonderful man and did not have to necessarily make a living anymore. We have done missions in Honduras and things, but we realized that right here in Mississippi, there were a lot of challenges. We started looking at what we could do to help address some of those.
I first ran for county attorney that prosecutes in youth court and injustice court. I won that by one vote. It was a big deal. In Mississippi, you go door to door. I decided that the first thing I needed to do was get them to pass some rule that you had to answer the door with clothes on. In any event, that was a lot of work to initially get involved in politics as a county prosecutor. I was able to see how I could make a difference there. As time went on, my husband and I said, "What else can I do?"
I thought about the legislature. I asked a very wise friend judge of mine. He said, "You need to be a judge." I thought, "I don't have all the answers. I don't need to be a judge. I'm a people person." To be an effective judge, you have to put a distance between yourself from those that you're dealing with. That did not appeal to me, but I did find that because I had the right demeanor to join the court, I was elected. The job is fulfilling to see that I'm making a difference. It's a lot of fun. I enjoyed the experience of being able to have hands-on with people. To be an effective judge, you have to have that distance.
Especially when the judicial positions are elected, it's so very different. The people skills and all of those things that you need to be elected are different skills in part than what you need when you're on the bench.
People need to know that when they come to court, they're going to get a fair deal. It's important for a judge to protect that independent no-vested interest in anything. People need to have that confidence that they can get a fair trial. That's always on my radar.
Not everyone is before the Supreme Court. The people who encounter the justice system need to know or have a sense of fairness within it because that's the importance of maintaining the rule of law, a sense of order, and a sense of confidence in the judicial decision-making too.
That goes for the trial judges that are lower level. They want to know. If I'm wrong, fix it, but if I'm right, I'm counting on you to say that as well. I jokingly say I don't know how I ended up on the Supreme Court because I was a trial judge for five years. I had 1 or 2 cases that were ever appealed. I thought they didn't even know I was down here. A good judge protects the records so that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals can do the right thing. When you've got all the information before you, and when lawyers do their job, it makes our job a lot easier.
Different states handle things differently. Some have appointments to their Supreme Courts, but others have elected positions. That's an interesting civics lesson and a distinction in itself between the different states.
It's certainly an argument to be had both ways. Accountability is always good. I was appointed by a governor and then ran about a year and a half later.
Is that because you have an immediate retention election after the appointment? Is it different?
No. The person that I replaced went on to a different job. He had a remainder of his term. I got appointed and then was elected after that. The only female on the court was leaving the court. She had already told the governor, "If you're going to have a female on the court, you're going to need to appoint one." The person that was leading was the only former chancellor. You also had to be from South Mississippi. There weren't many females from South Mississippi that were chancellors. That's how it all worked out.
That's interesting. I was going to ask you about that. Everybody has a different story about how they come to attention for appointments or things like that. That's funny. Timing, being in the right place and having the right experience are sometimes what do it.
For young lawyers or young female professionals, it's so important that we do our job correctly and conscientiously. I was a single mother for a long time during my professional life as a lawyer, but I never allowed that to be an excuse not to do my job and not to be timely. You can do lots of things at the same time, but it's important that we do our very best and not let that be an excuse not to do our best.
It’s so important for young female professionals to do their job correctly. Don’t let anything be an excuse not to do your best.
That's a good point because that's how you are open to opportunities. You're doing a good job, and you get a reputation for doing that so that you would be considered. If you had been in the right court and the right region that they were looking for but hadn't been working as hard and had that reputation, that might have turned out differently.
There are certainly political connections and financial influence. I had neither of those, but I had a reputation for getting the job done. There's no substitute for that.
That's a good point, too, because I want people to not take themselves out of the running before thinking, "Either I don't have connections, or I don't have the right experience because only prosecutors are ever nominated for positions." It's not true. There isn't one way.
Think about who you want to be judging you. I want somebody that understands where I'm coming from if I was the litigant before me. All of my life choices play into that, and certainly being the only female on the court. Certain areas of Family Law, children and youth, and the elderly are my passion, but it takes all of us, especially on the appellate level bringing our different experiences. We don't want everybody to have come out of a large law firm. I was a sole practitioner for a large part of my life, but folks saw that I took care of business every day. That's what I would tell people that are reading. You can do lots of things as long as you work every day to accomplish your job.
You raise an important point to you in terms of the diversity of experience on the bench. Certainly, having a woman is great to have that personal experience but also the practice experience. It's helpful to have judges who have different experiences before coming to the bench and different kinds of law they're familiar with because it is collegial consensus decision-making. It's good to have all those different perspectives when you're making those decisions.
None of us can know everything. I don't know a single judge that doesn't want to get it right. In particular, at the appellate level, I benefit from justices who have an experience in medical malpractice. My only experience is I'm married to a doctor. All of that comes into play. What makes our judicial system so great is that we protect the integrity of the court. Lots of people are committed to making it what it is now.
I hope that you have another woman joining you soon. That would be nice.
Me too.
What I've heard from my friends who are trial judges and then joined the appellate bench is that it's different being a trial court judge. You're still seeing people every day. It's a little bit less monastic. The buck stops here. It's the one judge who decides, but once you're on the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, it's a whole group of folks deciding things together. Sometimes that dynamic can be a little surprising. You know it but then encountering it is a different thing. Did you find any surprises or adjustments between the trial bench and the Supreme Court?
When I was a trial judge, I was always right, at least for a year or two. It was great to be able to see people every day and to feel like you're at a local level fixing people's problems, but there's so much pressure, in my opinion, to be an effective Supreme Court justice. You've got to have a vision, not just for now but for how a decision is going to impact litigants from now on. That's huge. I try to look at it in all different ways to make sure that I'm not missing something.
It takes a lot of people skills to get a majority. It is give and take. There is no perfect opinion. A lot of times, I'll have to give a little bit so that I can get another vote. You try to get it as tight and as good as it can be, knowing that people are going to be using that down the road to argue their cases. Consistency on the Supreme Court is so important. We don't need to have knee-jerk changes in the law. It needs to be well-thought-out.
That's an important point, especially at the Supreme Court level. You're deciding the case in front of you, but you're also deciding a bunch of cases that aren't in front of you because of that decision. It's setting a precedent. You need to think about all the implications of it that may not be obvious from the particular facts that happen to be in front of you in that case. There's the importance of the institution also and how quickly you move the law forward or not in particular cases.
I was used to people being on the same side. Up at the court, there are days when we've got 8 or 9 opinions. It's a different world. You have to be a good listener and not just a good thinker. They're there because they have had experiences as well.
As a judge, you need to be a good listener and not just a good thinker.
Tell me about that listener part. How does that work when you're discussing things with your fellow justices?
One thing is you have to take each case on its merits and be willing to listen to someone else's idea even when you think you are right. There have been times when I was convinced one way. Through discussion and listening, I changed my mind. That's a good justice because nobody has it all together. None of us are perfect. Whether it be listening to the oral argument or listening to another justice, let it be gray at first. Don't let it be black and white. Let the law, facts, and discussion help make it clear what the law should be.
People often think about how judges ask questions and talk, but they don't always think about the listening part. It's listening, processing, and being open to different ideas and arguments because one person doesn't have all the answers from the outset. You want to be open to considering the impact of a particular decision on people who aren't directly in front of the court. You want to be able to vet all of that and consider all of the different aspects.
Before I went to the court, the Supreme Court had overturned our TPR or Termination Parental Rights statute. It resulted in about two years of children being caught up in the system. I'm not going to say they were wrong. I'm saying that decision had long-term effects that impacted people's lives. That was unfortunate.
It's being aware of that potential impact as well on real people. In terms of this listening that we have talked about, what do you think is most effective for those who would be advocating in front of your court and arguing their pieces for their clients? What would be some of the most effective things they could do that would be helpful for you at oral argument?
One thing is to present your strongest argument first because chances are that's where the justices are already looking. When I was a trial judge, I always read my cases before I got to the bench. I don't know of any justice that doesn't do their homework before that court because the way it works is like Monday morning quarterbacking but slow. We have had plenty of time to read everything and have probably already been discussing it. Put the best argument first, not just the law but the record, because that may not stick out to that lawyer. If those justices may have seen something, I would know the record extremely well as well as the law.
Those are two important things. Even though you're deciding a case for a lot of other situations, you need to know how to be grounded in the record of the case you're working with.
There's nothing more frustrating than having lawyers not prepared because we need them. If we allow oral argument, it's not to waste of people's time. It's because we're struggling.
You don't hold oral arguments in every case that you decide. You decide whether you would like it.
That's correct. We decide whether or not to grant oral arguments. Some justices view it differently. They say, "If they want to ask for it, then we're going to do it." I tend to be a little more cautious with that. If it's something clear and I don't see any way oral argument would benefit, then I don't grant it.
That's an important point in courts where an argument is discretionary, as the advocates pay attention to that. If the court asks for arguments of any amount of time, there's something that either isn't clear or that the court wants to ask or inquire about further. I can't imagine not taking that opportunity and not wanting to be prepared for that. It's the only face-to-face discussion you get as advocates in terms of seeing where the challenges are for the court with regard to our client's position. Can we help explain why they're not a challenge? It's the only time you can have that engagement, understand where the concerns are, and hopefully be able to make clear that they're not a problem for your client.
Sometimes I ask questions not because I don't know the answer but because one of the justices on the court doesn't know the answer. I want to make sure he knows it's not just me saying it. It's the council saying it as well and reiterating it.
It's a good idea to be prepared, so you're prepared to give the answer. There's a lot of that, too, that I've noticed, which is the other part of talking to each other on the bench through the questioning part. There's some of that going on also.
Remember, the goal is to get it right. All of that plays into trying to get the best result for the litigants and Mississippi as a whole.
That's such an important point to note when you're talking about the highest court in the state or the land. There are a lot of other considerations that the court has in mind with regard to the decision. Are all of the cases discretionary reviewed in your court? Do some automatically come to the Supreme Court?
We have certain cases that automatically stay with the Supreme Court, like death penalty cases, judicial discipline, lawyer discipline, and issues with regard to public utilities. We decide whether it's a case of first impressions or not. If it's something that we need to deal with, we don't want to waste people's time and resources by having to go to the Court of Appeals and then have the chance of going to the Supreme Court. We tried to look at those closely. When I first got to the court, we changed the rule to add that people needed to state with specificity why the Supreme Court should keep the case. That, to me, has been helpful. We don't want to miss one. We don't want to send it down if it should be in our court.
What about brief writing in terms of what lawyers can write in their briefs that would make it more helpful in decision-making?
My number one thing is not to put emotion in your briefs. That's very frustrating. Folks have been fighting down at the local level. To me, it is a poor thing to do to attack the opposing counsel, "The opposing counsel says so and so." Attack the case and the issues but not one another. I have a silly story. My daddy one time told me, "Don't ever write anything down when you're upset because it will come back to haunt you." As a practicing lawyer, if I was upset about it, I might write it that day, but I would hold onto it.
Do not put emotion in your briefs. Attack the case and the issue, not one another.
There was this one time when these lawyers were being ugly to me on a Friday afternoon. This was back in the day when you had the faxes that rolled up. I took that fax. It was two male lawyers. I put some lipstick on, kissed that fax, and sent it back to them. They pulled it off the fax machine and said, "What in the world is this?" The other said, "This is the Baptist way to say kiss my ass." I tell people, "Remember that. Put your emotion aside. If you're upset, hold it for a day, and then you can do it because you can't take things back."
That's a good reminder. It can be hard to do sometimes, especially late on a Friday. You're like, "This is it." That's a good thing all the time. Write it, keep it in a drawer, and see if tomorrow you feel the same way.
The illustration may not have been very judicially professional, but it helps young lawyers remember that. It's important.
Email is so hard, too, because it's so immediate. You want to respond. You're all hot under the collar. That can be challenging. People expect quick responses too. That's a whole new fax machine or another thing, but this is a whole other speed of exchange. It can be hard to do that with emails, but it's still no less advisable. I like that story. That shows a certain amount of moxie or something like that.
Humor is a great way to negate somebody being inappropriate.
There are a lot of other ways you could have done that. There is a funny part to it. You're right. You remember that. It's a good reminder of that too. What advice would you give to someone who might be considering and want to apply to the bench or run for a judicial position? What advice would you give to them?
It's a great way to make a difference in the world. We need good judges. That is so important. Our judicial system is what separates us from the rest of the world. We know that at the end of the day, we can go to court and get the right thing done. It is a very high calling. It's important that we have judges that protect the sanctity of the law. The importance of judges being neutral hearers of the facts helps apply the law to resolve differences. It's rewarding as a judge when you can see people that were at each other throats by hearing them and bringing calm and order to it that they're able to get along.
That's particularly rewarding at the trial court level to see that. You're able to calm the waters and hopefully at least get a resolution that everyone can respect and move forward in their lives from, which itself is a gift.
It's therapeutic sometimes for parties to tell their stories. I remember lots of family disputes. Once everybody had told us why they were upset, we were able to resolve it because they hushed long enough to listen to one another.
They could hear each other because that's part of it too. You could be saying things, but if you're not hearing them and taking them in, then it's not going to be useful. It gives a little bit of distance and a container to be able to do that.
Mediation accomplishes that without the formal setting of court. Sometimes folks need to tell their story.
That's a good point. It's thinking about alternate ways to resolve disputes. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a judicial decision or go to court. There might be another way to do that. It's a different container for the dispute to allow people to air it. It's having enough distance so that people can first tell their story, which is cathartic, and then because they have told their story, they're also able to hear the other side of the dispute, hopefully in a way that allows for more empathy and at the very least moving forward in the way that's productive.
I am a firm believer in anything we can do to help people not have to square off in court. Certainly, mediation and those opportunities are great. Minimize the cost of litigation. At the same time, it can accomplish long-lasting peace, hopefully. People can work together.
It's for a broader sense of community as well. It makes it better. What do you enjoy most about being on the Supreme Court and serving as a justice in that capacity?
I was thinking about that earlier when I knew we were going to be talking. I'm reminded of the oath that we take in Mississippi. It's in our constitution. I looked it up earlier. Article 6 Section 155 sets forth the oath that judges take. We administer justice equal to the rich and the poor. My thought is that administering justice has probably changed through the years.
An example of that is that there was a time when we might have thought the judges called balls and strikes. They apply the rules, and that's it, but our world has gotten so much more complex, certainly in Mississippi, where poverty is rampant. We have generational poverty. The Supreme Court as well as trial judges, have a role to play in bringing alternative solutions to people's lives. By that, I mean drug court and mental health court. That takes leadership of judges both at the local level as well as the state level.
The role of the Supreme Court, as well as trial judges, is to bring in alternative solutions to people’s lives.
My passion is children and youth. I have worked to help judges to know how to build collaborations around the court. When I first started with the Supreme Court years ago, we had a reduction in children in foster care of about 40%. A lot of it has to do with the role of both trial judges as well as the Supreme Court. I coach the Children's Justice Commission. That looks at how we can educate judges to make better decisions.
Years ago, when I first started, 86% of our children were removed because of neglect and not because of physical abuse. We can do something about neglect, certainly in the poorest state in the union. Helping judges bring the community around the court and the child protective services to provide alternatives to removal is a huge thing.
Certainly, I feel like I add a lot to the court in making decisions on cases, but there's a lot to be said for judicial leadership in helping, whether it be child protection or criminal justice reform. Jail should be the last answer and not the first. In particular, we know that abuse, neglect, and juvenile delinquency are a pipeline to our prisons. We're trying to think outside the box on how we can better administer justice in Mississippi. That takes leadership at all levels of the court.
There are a couple of things in it that resonated with me. One is the convening power you have as a judge, particularly a Supreme Court justice, to bring people together from different areas to focus on and solve particular problems. The second thing is that there are other roles that the Supreme Court plays, which are unique to the Supreme Court as opposed to other appellate courts in the state in having some administrative or oversight aspect with regard to other courts and other parts of the system. Between those two things, you can look at things more system-wide in terms of the courts and do some of the things you're talking about in terms of what we call out here collaborative courts. They have different names in different states.
We're learning to use collaborative courts. I've heard that term because it is everyone coming together to see how best to administer justice. I work closely with the executive and legislative branches on how we can improve the court system. Judges have to be careful with this. I went back over my judicial rules of professional conduct for judges before this, too, because I didn't want to say anything that wasn't consistent with that, but it is very consistent with our rules of judicial conduct to be active in helping to improve the judicial system from an administrative standpoint. Certainly, those resources are key.
In our country, we're so polarized or divided that a judge who isn't Republican or Democrat and sees broken people every day has a huge opportunity to say, "Let's all come together with a common interest of helping provide resources so that people's lives can be changed." At the end of the day, we're there to help solve problems. The more tools a judge has in his tool chest, the more apt he is to be able to help, in particular when we're talking about children and youth but even the elderly and trying to make sure we're protecting them. The more resources we have to hold everyone accountable, that's what the court does. It holds folks accountable in those areas. It's vital, in my opinion.
That's something that Chief Justice McCormack from the Michigan Supreme Court has also talked about in terms of having different tools in the system and different ways of having different collaborative points in different settings and being able to have a whole range of ways the justice system can solve problems. One size doesn't fit all in many cases. It helps to have other options.
These issues are so complex with regard to criminal justice. One branch of government cannot solve it. It takes all of us. We have to have the department of mental health and others available to help folks bring order to their lives and administer justice effectively.
The courts are in a great position to convene in that regard, bring people together, and say, "This is a problem we need to all work together on and not be at odds about."
I tell people that the most helpless I ever felt as a judge in a black robe was seeing broken people coming in front of me and not being able to help them. Unless we have the resources to help them, then they can't make their lives better. We know from studies that children do better if they're not removed and if we can leave them in their homes. It's important that the court be trauma-informed and understand the challenges that the people that are coming before them are enduring every day.
It's interesting that you mentioned the trauma-informed aspect. I was talking with also on the show Jamie Beck who's one of the founders of the human trafficking group out here, Free To Thrive. She talked about that too. It's important when you're figuring out how to solve these problems and how to help people to keep that in mind.
It has made a huge difference in Mississippi when judges realize the trauma of removal and the trauma that the families and litigants that are before them have been through. You make better decisions.
When judges realize the trauma that families and litigants have been through, they’ll make better decisions.
It seems like the right thing, but you would rather know if you're not. You should be considering something else and making the decision. It's good to have a full understanding of that.
I used to think that I could scream, yell, holler, and beat on the bench long enough that people would want to stop using crystal meth and take care of their kids. I realized that I was adding more trauma to their lives because they lacked the ability to take one step after another to complete the case plans. When we realize what they have been through, we can help them to embrace help to improve their lives.
I've seen that myself in the collaborative courts out here. It makes such a difference in taking a different approach to that, meeting them where they are, and giving them a meaningful opportunity to make different decisions. Hopefully, you can see how that ripples within their family and smaller community. Getting one person back on track and out of recurring back into the system has a significant ripple effect across the community.
It can be a generational change if you are open to being patient and working through the problem.
I hear the frustration that can happen from being, "Why aren't you doing this?" and understanding why that might not be possible. It might need other assistance to go further along. It's helpful and less frustrating and hopefully has a larger ripple effect for them, their families, and the rest of the local community.
Judges have to understand that we didn't all grow up in this happy little family with water, electricity, and food on the table every day, and that thing, especially in our state. Once we have realized that, we have become better judges.
How did you become so interested in particular in children and families? Was that because of your experience in your family? Was there something in particular that you saw as a trial judge that made you interested in those issues?
My dad was a preacher. Certainly, a lot of my beliefs come from that. When I do it to other people, I have done it to Christ. I was a single mother. I struggled myself. I understand the struggle of trying to put food on the table and make sure that homework was done and all those things. Life happens. Bad stuff happens to good people, but that doesn't make them bad people. It means that bad things happen. I took that and tried to help other people that were struggling through that.
To me, it is very fulfilling as a lawyer as well as a trial judge to see people's lives change and to feel like you had a little bit to do with that. On the Supreme Court, we can make a system change, educate all of our judiciary and those involved in the court about things like trauma, and bring resources like mental health or make sure that adequate medical coverage is provided.
One problem we had was drug treatment facilities for mothers that were pregnant and also mothers that had young children, but as we are able to make those changes and address those needs, it is very fulfilling to see like, "I am making a difference." I would say to the folks that are considering law and the judiciary that it may or may not pay well financially. I made a lot more money practicing law than I did in public service, but it is rewarding. You cannot put a dollar figure on that.
As an appellate lawyer, I always thought the meaningful things that will give you a good feeling in the heart that you're making a difference seem to be the larger Supreme Court decision on making a change in the important area of the law, but it is equally gratifying to see a profound effect on one individual human being and then the rest of their family. It's quite moving.
Since I've been on the Supreme Court, we have looked at the law of how we protect the elderly and vulnerable children and adults. That law now does a tremendous amount to help judges to make sure that people are adequately taken care of, not just the person but also their funds. There are lots of ways that we can, at different levels, protect and make a difference in the world.
There are lots of ways, at different levels, to make a difference in the world.
That's a beautiful way to conclude. I hope that will inspire people to consider public service in different ways, including but not limited to the bench. Thank you. It was beautiful. I appreciated that.
Thank you for what you're doing to help women in the profession.
Thank you. I am happy to introduce other young women lawyers and law students, even hopefully before then, to some amazing women who are doing amazing things in the law, on the bench, and elsewhere. You're one of those. Thank you so much for agreeing to share and talk about it. Sometimes people need a little bit of a nudge or a particular inspiration that speaks to them to move forward or decide to take on a challenge. Individual stories resonate with different people. I hope that having so many stories and voices will be able to catch a lot more people to be inspired and to do good things with the law.
Thank you so much for having me. Best wishes.
Normally, I end with a few lightning-round questions. I'll ask you a couple of those. The first question is this. What talent would you like to have but don't have?
I would love to be able to play the piano beautifully and sing.
You appreciate good music and all of that. We need artists, and then we need art appreciators. I put myself in the appreciator category. Who is your hero in real life?
It's the children that I've worked with, their families, and those that I've seen overcome so many obstacles. It's wonderful to look back on those and see the victories.
Who are your favorite writers?
My husband has written one book and is writing another.
You have to mention your husband.
I love a good mystery. He does a good job.
That's so wonderful. How fun. Did he take up writing later in life? Has he always written?
He has written a number of things, but he's got a book that is being published. He's now working on another one. He and I both love a good mystery. He's very creative.
That's excellent. Congratulations to him on that. That's a lot of work to write and then publish a book. It's a gauntlet. That's neat.
Thank you.
For what in life do you feel most grateful?
It's my dad's advice, "You can write anything but be careful and hold it if you're upset." That has saved me many a time.
Your dad is pretty wise about that. It's hard to follow, but it's a good reminder. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite for a dinner party?
It would have to be my children. There is nothing better than having all of your kids in the same house. I've had dinner with some great people, but there's nothing better than having them all. They're spread all over the country now. I long for those days. We don't get together near enough. That would have to be it.
I was going to ask if they were in many different places because that is even more meaningful when you can all come together.
There are 2 in Virginia, 2 in Texas, and 1 left in Mississippi.
That is all over the US. At least it's the US. Last question, what is your motto, if you have one?
It's John Wesley's quote, "Do all the good you can in all the ways you can for as long as ever you can."
That's a beautiful way to close. I appreciate your time, openness, and willingness to share all of your insights and great ideas about how we can add some more tools to the justice system. Thank you so much, Justice Beam.
Thank you.