Episode 107: Megan K. Cavanagh
Michigan Supreme Court Justice
00:59:04
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Megan Cavanagh sits down with host M.C. Sungaila to discuss her career as an appellate lawyer and now as a Supreme Court justice of her home state of Michigan.
Relevant episode links:
Michigan Supreme Court, Chief Justice McCormack - Previous episode, Justice Anna Blackburne-Rigsby - Previous episode, DC Court of Appeals, Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum, Access to Justice, Justice for All, DEI, Juvenile Justice, Well-Being in the Law
About Megan K. Cavanagh:
Megan K. Cavanagh
Justice Megan Cavanagh is a lifelong Michigander who grew up in East Lansing and lives in metro Detroit. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan College of Engineering and Wayne State University Law School. Before joining the Michigan Supreme Court in January of 2019, she had over fifteen years of experience as one of Michigan’s top appellate attorneys and was a shareholder at Garan Lucow Miller P.C. in Detroit.
Justice Cavanagh is the Supreme Court Liaison to Tribal Courts, Child Welfare Services, the Well-Being in the Law Task Force, the Attorney Grievance Commission, and the Judicial Tenure Commission. She also serves on the Attorney General’s Elder Abuse Task Force.
Justice Cavanagh has served as Chair of the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of Michigan, as a council person for the Negligence Section of the State Bar of Michigan, as co-chair of the Michigan Bench Bar Appellate Conference Foundation, and as a member of the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.
Prior to her election to the Court, Justice Cavanagh was rated as one of Michigan's Super Lawyers. She was honored by Michigan Lawyer's Weekly as Lawyer of the Year in 2006 and a Woman in the Law in 2017.
Justice Cavanagh and her husband have four children.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to have joined us, Justice Megan Cavanagh, from the Michigan Supreme Court, a fellow appellate practitioner prior to the bench. We have that connection. Welcome, Justice Cavanagh.
Thank you. I'm happy to be here. I'm excited.
I'm so pleased to have you join as well because Chief Justice McCormack joined previously. It will be interesting to get two different perspectives from the same court. I think of note is that previously, we had Justice Anna Blackburne-Rigsby from the DC Court of Appeals who was one of the first mother-daughter judicial pairs at the same time in the country but in your case, it's not at the same time. It's father-daughter on the same court, having your father previously been the Chief Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court as well. That's an interesting relationship. We don't always have that here.
We had about a four-year gap. He was off in '14 and I started in '18.
That leads me to the question I tend to start with. What led you to the law? What inspired you to go to law school? I'm wondering whether your father had some impact on that.
He did. I grew up in a family of lawyers. There's no question. I have a number of cousins who are judges and a couple of uncles. I had an uncle who was also a lawyer but he was the Mayor of Detroit in the '60s. We come from a very strong family of lawyers. Some might say it was inevitable but my dad was the one who encouraged me not to go to law school.
I was going to ask about that because sometimes that can be the case. The parents say no.
He would joke because we have so many lawyers. He said, "We're the most useless families. We don't build anything. We can't fix anything. We need people who do it." In part because of his encouragement to think of some other things and then encouragement from teachers in high school, I went to engineering. I went to the University of Michigan. My undergraduate was in Environmental Engineering. At the time, there weren't as many women in engineering. They were recognizing the need to recruit women, expand, and diversify their student bodies in that of opening doors for women in engineering.
Heeding my dad's, "Build or fix something," I went into engineering and then worked in environmental consulting for a few years. I found that in working in that field, I was butting up against a lot of law and client legal opinions in that of liabilities, purchasing properties, cleaning up properties, exposures to contamination, and those types of things. I was always inclined that way but I thought also at least that I should probably know what I'm doing if I am going to be giving people what is close to legal advice.
I went to law school. I always say this. I liked working in engineering. I didn't enjoy it in school. That cautioned me against or made me think twice about going to law school because I thought like, "I don't know if I want to do that," but I got to law school. It was heaven to some extent. They taught the way I learned. They think the way I think. It was a real fit with my brain and what I enjoyed doing. It was expanding the people I meet and the things that I could learn about. I loved law school. For a couple of years right after law school, I tried to combine both degrees. I did some patent litigation.
I was going to ask whether you combined them because that technical knowledge and that engineering understanding are so helpful.
It did but what I found in practicing patent litigation personally was that I learned I loved research and writing. The patent litigation didn't scratch that itch for me. I had clerked when I was in law school for a law firm in Detroit. That was one of the few that had an actual established and structured appellate department where they had 6 or 7 attorneys who did exclusively appellate law.
I got a little bit of exposure to that. I ended up going back to that firm to work in their appellate department to get into the research, writing, deep issue diving, a little bit of fitting all the puzzle pieces together, "Let me fix a problem," and those types of things. It was a good fit but it was the same thing when I got into appellate law. I was like, "This is where I belong. This is what I do."
That's how I felt too. It's not in trial. That wasn't my personality unless we were talking to the judges about jury instructions or motions. I felt comfortable with that. In that story, don't feel like once you've done one thing, you're completely committed to that and you can't change. There's a lot of variety in the practice of law. That's one of the things I hope to show through the show. Be open-minded to other things that you might find interesting.
Most people don't even know there is an appellate practice that's unique and specialized in law school even though that's what we're doing. We're reading appellate opinions but thinking of that as a different practice. What that means and how it feels to do it in practice is something you can only get from being exposed to it and doing it. Be open to change and also that you can change. Once you've done one thing, you're not stuck in patent forever because you started thinking that is where your highest and best use was.
I don't think it's unique. You take in a lot from other people, "You're good at this. You should try this. This would be what you should do." It's well-meaning and well-intentioned. Maybe they're even right at times but trying to tune in, "Is this what I enjoy doing? Is it what I'm best at?" and finding that to pursue that and find where it is, not just what other people think you should do but what you tune into and discover or know for yourself is what you want to do.
Don't let other people tell you what you should do. Discover for yourself what it is you want to do.
I was wondering. Even if you're not practicing directly at the intersection of your engineering training and the law in patent, I would think that the thinking that you get from engineering training would be helpful in things like appellate law when you're being very analytical. Critical thinking, logic, and all of that would be helpful in creating arguments.
I remember my legal writing instructor in law school was saying in his opinion or his experience that he thought law students who had some science or technical background make good legal writers because it's very deductive and logical in premise, argument, and application. All of that is true. People ask, "What's a great thing about legal writing or advice about legal writing?" Along that line, it might seem counterintuitive. It's important, especially in appellate writing, to tell a story.
That's not always the factual story necessarily. Depending upon your issue, it may be the procedural story. It may be how we got here or what the process was so that you could see what process was lacking. Whatever your issue, you have to figure out what the story is that you need to tell for the legal issues that you're raising or the relief that you're seeking. It is logical and deductive reasoning. There are not a lot of flourishes but that doesn't mean that you can't still tell a compelling story to lead your reader to their conclusion.
Storytelling is important in appellate brief writing in particular. You mentioned the different parts of the record but another story sometimes can be, especially at the Supreme Court level, is the story of the law, the development of the law, where it should go next, and what is the natural evolution of it. It's telling that larger background story of how this law started, where is it going, and where should it go now. That's another layer to it.
It's all from the lens of what point it is or where you're trying to lead, either if it's a single judge or a seven-judge panel like we have on the Supreme Court. If it's a particular result in your case or our court, we're looking at the bigger picture and not just the application in this case but in the next 100 cases. You have to figure out what that story is but a lot of time, it is the progression of the law, "This is why it started. This is why it expanded over here but then it got brought back." It's to have that inform what you are advancing as what is either the state of the law, why it should be restricted or why we should agree with your expansion of it. The job of good appellate lawyers is to figure out where you push the envelope a little bit here or there.
A lot of the advice on appellate writing and writing the facts refers to the standard of review a lot. Make sure you write the facts in accordance with the standard of review. Your point is adjacent to that but is equally important. Write the facts with a view toward the legal arguments that you're planning to raise. If there are a lot of procedural things that are relevant and that's going to be one of your issues, then that would be the parts of the record you would highlight. That's storytelling too.
I would frequently write my legal argument before I would write my facts even though it comes first in your brief outline so that I knew what story I wanted to tell with facts. We read hundreds of thousands of briefs all the time. There are some excellent ones and some that are less than that. Maybe this is being an appellate lawyer or a geek about that but there's nothing better than how you're right there with them. You're following along with the story. You're like, "I get it. I get the argument that you're making, how you led me here, and why you think about that." It can be a very effective tool if you know where you want to go, and then back up and help you get there.
There's a seamlessness to briefs that have an overarching plan and goal. You can see it throughout the whole brief. When you get to the legal argument, you're like, "This is the natural evolution of what I read. This is what they're arguing." Sometimes you get there, and it's a little bit jarring, "Why did I get focused on this other part of the record when it isn't relevant to the particular issues being raised?"
Not every issue lends itself to a great story of the process even in our court where you think that sometimes they're fairly straightforward and simple. If you know that issue too, and your best and most persuasive argument is direct and right to the point, here's where this goes.
I'm curious. Having been an appellate practitioner and being on the bench, are there things now because of your process in decision-making and opinion writing that you would say, "In retrospect, if I were still writing briefs as an advocate, I would change this or do something different. I didn't know how important X was in a brief to help the court?"
I always had it or understood it to an extent. I have a greater appreciation for clarity, brevity, and using fewer words and much more plain and direct language, which is not saying, "Make it simple." It's harder to write less. It takes more time sometimes to write less. I saw a quote. It was one of my daughter’s. She's in high school in her English class, "You're not done when you have nothing more to say. You are done writing when you have nothing left to take out," which I thought was fascinating.
I always think of it that way, "Is there something more I could take out?" That certainly wasn't my focus when I was writing. Part of that is the perspective you have as an appellate attorney, especially when you get your case up to something like the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in our state. You're so focused on this one case and not recognizing that your audience has volumes to read. More words don't make it more engaging or memorable necessarily. A clearer and more succinct brief is probably better.
I used to pride myself as an appellate attorney that I knew I could remember all my cases from years back or what have you and even for the most part the name of the case, let alone the issue when I was arguing. I had to give that up as a sense of pride because there's no way that I can remember all the cases. That was a little bit disturbing at first because the volume is so different from how much it can be.
We know that but it's different being in it and seeing that. If I had to guess, I'll bet one of the most significant things is the volume and also the range of cases. One minute, you're reading this case. Another minute, it's that. Based on that, it would be helpful to get a centering thing in the beginning, "This is a summary judgment from whatever issue." That's like, "That's what I'm reading now. I was reading a criminal case. I was reading something else before."
It is very difficult. We have the whole gamut from everything in criminal, civil, family, tax, and foreclosure. You name it. It can be difficult to jump through. It's funny. When I prepare for oral arguments, I love to have a puzzle going because I love to go through a case, read through it, and read all the briefs. I'll work on a puzzle and let it marinate because I can't go right to the next case. It takes a little bit to do it but I tried that for a while in the beginning and then learned that I need a little bit of that. That was the biggest shock that I had.
In my first oral argument on the bench, I know what it was like to prepare for oral arguments as the attorney going in where you have one case. You know everything there is to know about your case. You have thought about every possible question somebody could ask. You know the facts, even the stuff that's not part of the record but that might be relevant to somebody asking a question, and all of these things. You know it stone cold. Coming at it from the bench, that's 1 of 12 in that call.
I was surprised and a little overwhelmed the first time at how many oral arguments changed what I thought I knew about the cases. I was so used to being set by the time you get to oral arguments. I have learned that you are way more prepared and you understand a lot more than you did at some earlier stage in a case but the oral argument is not the end for what the court is doing. It is a part of the beginning of formulating what the answer should be or how to resolve some of these questions you may have or things like that. It's part of the process. It was a little gratifying. We have always had this debate in appellate practice.
"Does the argument matter? Does it make a difference?"
It 100% does even if it doesn't change your mind. I have thought differently based on what I hear sometimes in response to a question or somebody's presentation. It's very rarely because of somebody's planned presentation but in response to somebody else's question, a response to something that opposing counsel brought up, or something like that. That has made me be like, "I didn't think of it that way. That was a hole I needed to get filled." It's the difference. I was used to it being the end of the process, and it was as an attorney. At that point, you're done.
Oral arguments do matter, even if they don't change your mind from the bench. It makes you think differently and look at things from another point of view.
That's our last opportunity to be part of the process.
For a judge, it is the start of a process because then it does factor in how you vote and then how you write the opinion, whether you're joining, dissenting, concurring, or whatever that may be. That was a very big difference in oral argument. It was probably the most nerve-wracking part as an attorney but I loved that part of it too. I always felt like it was important. It shares the same importance now on the bench but a different part of the process. I find it important.
I've always thought of it that way too in terms of, "Should you ever waive argument as an advocate?" I strenuously recommend against it because if you have the opportunity, this is your last opportunity to have a conversation, answer questions, and be in the room at the beginning of the thinking and working out the process of how the votes are going to go and how the opinion will be written. You want to have that opportunity. Everything else, you're not in. That's the end of the line for you as the advocate.
The way you said that came home. That's the beginning of our process of working it out. That casts a different perspective on the role and importance of argument, which is always up for debate among appellate layers, "Does it make any difference? Am I shouting into a void?" You're saying it does. When you think of it that way as the beginning of the process, it does.
It does, especially with an appellate bench where you have you have a multi-judge court. The decision is coming through a collective discussion process. We're all seven sitting here listening to this. We heard the question that you asked and the answer to that. That's a lot of time on our conferences or how we work or decide. If we decided on that basis, then I don't think we can decide on that because we clarified it. Some judges think that oral argument is only for the benefit of the judge. If the judge doesn't want it, then that's up to them. I don't think so.
It's tremendously beneficial for deciding cases and doing that but it's only beneficial because there are two sides to the conversation. There's somebody there that can answer the question. A lot of times, it's giving the bigger picture of how this fits in other cases because usually, the person standing in front of you has handled other cases similar or knows how that works, "Here's this rule that I want the seven of you to adopt as the law in the state. Here's how that's going to work on Friday morning in motion call of what this is going to look like in future cases." The attorney plays a very important role in that process.
Is your court conference prior to arguments or only after?
We conference after but by the time that we get to oral arguments, we have all seen it at the application stage, reviewed it, and made it through a conference to decide whether we're going to hear it or whatever it may be. We get to oral argument. They are conferencing it to vote on that following oral argument. There's a ton of conference or collaborative back and forth through the opinion writing process, "Here's the draft. This is where I was going." Somebody is like, "You should leave that out. You should add something in."
That's all part of what you were saying initially. The argument is the kickoff to all of that process, back and forth, consensus building, and discussions about different aspects of the opinion that's going on internally. Unless you're a judicial law clerk there or something, you wouldn't see that.
It took me a little bit to shift my focus from thinking that by the time you got to oral argument, you had to be settled on and know everything about where this is. You have to do that as an advocate because you want them to get to follow with you to the result that you want. When I first approached oral argument as a judge, it was like, "I have to have this all figured out. I know what I'm doing before I get on the bench." That's the opposite, which is a lot but I need to know a lot to know what to ask for, what to listen for, and what to do in that regard. I don't think I should have my mind made up. That's the biggest difference that I noticed between being on one side of the bench or the other in our courtroom.
You're saying things that are implicit as an advocate. It's part of it that you don't even think of that as being, "That's my perspective." It's done because that's the last part of the process that we're involved in. We have to have it all boiled down to present and advocate successfully. We have to do that but the bench isn't the end. It isn't perfectly formed with you when you come to an argument. It's better for the process for that not to be the case. That's so interesting because you have unique insights into those differences and how it's different to be adjudicating at the appellate level because of your appellate advocacy before. It's interesting how that interacts.
Even in oral arguments and briefings in the Supreme Court but how the practice works, we all have our bubbles. Nobody in practice can be a generalist. You have to be an appellate judge. This is how it worked in my sphere, my practice, or my bubble. In the cases I was handling, everybody was represented. Everybody knew how it was. If you couldn't get a court recorder to get your transcripts, this is what you do. There's an option you can say, "I don't need this transcript. Are we okay with not ordering all of it?"
That's not necessarily the case in other areas of practice or people who are self-represented litigants. Having an understanding of the nuts and bolts of how you even get your case up there is helpful to know but you also have to have a perspective to be like, "I had a small part of what I did and how I need to expand it a little bit to recognize that not everybody had that same experience even using the courts that I did or my clients did."
One of the things about having appellate experience previously is that it's one of the last somewhat generalist areas because you can do a lot of different subject matters. I would think that nimbleness and moving between different developing areas of the law, getting centered in it, and figuring out where this case should go in there is helpful for the bench because you're going between so many different kinds of cases. That probably helps.
I did mostly civil defense. In that realm, there were any number of cases from auto cases to MedMal, procedural issues, and contracts. I had never done criminal cases, family law cases, termination of parental rights, or abuse and neglect. You have to get them right when you're talking about somebody's liberty of whether they're going to be in prison or a victim of a crime. You're going to get justice for them or you're taking the ability to parent their child or the ability of a child to stay safe.
These are incredibly awesome responsibilities that I had no experience in doing. I knew how those things can work through the appellate process. I knew the things like a standard of review, the importance of the record, and the tools to apply to these areas but that's a reality. I don't think it's a bad thing, especially on a seven-member bench where that diversity of experience is very helpful.
Having a diversity of experiences on the bench is very helpful.
Two of my colleagues were trial judges, which is an invaluable experience. Some came from academia. Some were practicing lawyers in completely different areas than I did. They worked for the executive and the legislative branch. They have a very unique perspective on things like when legislation gets passed. What does that mean? What happened at this part of the process?
It's important to have that diversity of experience on the bench because you do have to be a generalist. There is an ability in appeals. You can go from one to the next and take these tools and what these tools do in this arena. I'm grateful that I've got six other people that I get to do it with as opposed to having a single appellate judge. That would be tough.
That's the purpose of having the multi-judge panels at that point. If you're making a rule to govern many cases besides the one in front of you, you want to make sure you've considered all of the different aspects of that, not just the parties in front of you when you're doing that. When you have such a variety of experiences in the practice of law who is on the bench with you as well, then that's helpful too because they will see different things in cases.
That's very cool. One of the differences that I've found from doing the show is that each state is so different in how judges are selected, whether they're appointed by the governor, whether there's a vetting and nominating commission prior to that, or whether there's an election. Maybe you can talk about the process in Michigan and how you got to the court.
Michigan is combined. It's an elective system for the Supreme Court. It's a little different than the other courts in the state. In the Court of Appeals and child courts, you collect signatures.
To get on the ballot, you need signatures.
For the most part but for the Supreme Court, you are nominated by one of the political parties. You get nominated by a particular party but then you are elected on a nonpartisan ballot. You don't have a D or an R after your name even though you get nominated by either the Democratic or the Republican Party. It's a little bit of a hybrid. For the Supreme Court, it's an eight-year term but then if there's a vacancy midterm, the governor appoints.
It's a bit of a combo of how that governor appoints, and then if you're appointed, you have to run at the next election and then at the end of that term as well that you have been appointed to serve to get back on the eight-year track. We usually have two seats up every year. It depends. It's one if there's somebody running to follow an appointment. I had never run for office before. I had been familiar with it. My dad was first elected in 1980 and lost the nomination at the Democratic nomination. In 1982, he got the nomination by the Democratic Party. He was elected in '82 and ran four more times. I understood.
You have seen this before.
I have seen them but they're very different. From the first time running in 1982 to running in 2018, it's a whole different world. What that looks like to run statewide is very different. Social media, the accessibility, various things, and because of the pandemic, it looked very different to run in 2020 than it did in 2018. There are a lot of downsides to not being able to get face-to-face in person but to running a statewide campaign.
We have a big state and 83 different counties. In some way, there was some increased accessibility because of being able to do some campaigning online or pop into meetings that you might not be able to get into physically. It is very difficult to run a statewide campaign to get to everybody. Generally, across the board, people have a much better understanding and appreciation for how important judicial elections are and state and how important state courts are.
The work that gets done that affects people's lives happens much more in state courts than in Federal courts. At the local level, it's even more so than at the statewide level but for whatever reason, there's this drop-off on the back of the ballot or the nonpartisan side of the ballot or people who are like, "I don't know who these judges are." My friends call me, "I don't know who these judges are. Tell me who it is I should vote for."
That's always the thing. It's getting the information out for those who are running for election in a judicial position because most of the time, most people wanting to be diligent voters will look at the list and go, "Where do I get information other than what's filled out and what they submit to the electors on the little ballot or guide I get when I go to vote? How do I find out? Are these people good lawyers? Do they know what they're talking about from a qualification standpoint?" Here in California, the local bar associations try to fill that void by doing some reviews and coming out with at least their qualified or not qualified baseline so that you at least know you're voting for someone who has that qualified rating.
It is a good thing. It's an increasing public awareness of judicial races, whether it be party-affiliated or interest groups whose membership is interested in voting, including judges on those forums or hosting forums for judicial candidates who can talk. It's a little hard. Judicial candidates can bring down a room like nobody's business. You get these other political candidates who are like, "Here's what I'll do. I'm going to do A, B, and C. I believe in this. I'm going to do this the first thing."
You get judges who are like, "I'm not going to say those things because I can't and I shouldn't. You shouldn't want a judge who's going to tell you how they're going to rule on that. We're going to be fair. You're going to get processed, have an equal shot at a fair result, and have an opportunity to be heard." It's a little difficult to translate into traditional campaigning.
That's why I was asking about that too because I think of two things. Especially being appellate judges, we're not the most outgoing folks generally in the appellate arena. You have to be out there for the election to meet the public but then that isn't necessarily one of the best criteria for the actual job of judging. You also have this other issue of people expecting certain things when there's an election. Politicians say certain things but judges don't and can't. People don't expect that so you have to manage those expectations.
I found that most people understand and agree when you point out and say, "Here's the reason why I can't say that. Here's the reason why I don't think you want a judge who says that. Here's what I can do." It is an added difficulty or a peculiarity for judicial elections but there's a lot to be said for being accountable to the voters and having to go out and meet people and talk to them. That's an important part of the process even on the Supreme Court.
Most people interact at the trial court, the district court level, or their local courts but we on the Supreme Court have administrative responsibilities for those courts. Our job is to support and help them do what it is that they need to be doing to serve the members of their public too. We need to be held accountable for that as well. It's a difficult position but I do think the accountability of having people vote for you again every eight years is important.
The logistics of it are difficult. Nobody relishes running for campaigns, trying to do their job in the meantime, and trying to get across to the state. That's not fun but we're talking about expanding bubbles and the ability to get into areas and meet people that you wouldn't meet, what concerns they have, and what positives or shortcomings in our state justice system have affected their lives. That is cool because that is something that we can help with in our position as the Supreme Court, setting rules and allocating resources.
There is a lot of value in meeting those who will be directly impacted and who have been directly impacted. When you're on the Supreme Court, you do have that administrative aspect to the whole court system itself. Through that election process, you can add to the experience that you're bringing to the bench because you're hearing things and being able to include that when you're thinking about rule-making or other things with regard to the courts. What actual challenges have you heard about on the campaign trail in terms of the court's overall function? There's something you might be able to do about that when you're on the Supreme Court.
I heard a lot on the campaign trail about people's concerns or problems like elder abuse, and the conservator and guardianship system. There are all sorts of players in that system. Shortly after I got on the bench in the Supreme Court with the Attorney General's office, Justice Bernstein, one of my colleagues and I are working on an elder abuse task force. We went around the state and did public listening sessions where people could come and tell us some of the things that needed to get addressed for that. That's an example of it.
Each seven of us have different administrative liaison roles. I'm the liaison partly for the elder abuse. In Michigan, we have twelve Federally recognized Indian tribes. Our tribal courts are independent sovereign courts that we have throughout our state and that our state courts work collaboratively with now. It wasn't something that we did before. It was my dad who started our first Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum that recognized that they are partners in this.
They are independent judicial systems that we can learn so much from in peacemaking and problem-solving models. Our state courts work collaboratively with them all the time. That's an aspect of it. That was not something that I ever had any experience with but I'm expanding the bubble to see what amazing people are doing to meet the needs of their particular communities or problem-solving courts. I'm not the liaison for that. Justice Clement is.
If you've ever been to a treatment court graduation, they're amazing. I'm always so amazed. A lot of the problem-solving or treatment courts were started by judges or judges along with groups of people who recognized a particular need in their community. They start small. They're like, "This is something. I'm seeing these people who keep coming back in my court. I'm seeing these people who are coming in as defendants and are victims of human trafficking or what have you."
We have a couple of girls' courts in Michigan that are based on this saying. The quote I always love is from Desmond Tutu, "At some point, we have to stop pulling people out of the river. We have to go upstream and figure out why they're falling in." That is exactly like what treatment courts do. I have the best job. There are so many opportunities in expanding it. I loved what I did as an appellate practitioner but I love this even more because I get to be around, learn, help, and support things that I didn't even know people were doing throughout the state. I'm grateful.
It's opening your eyes to so much that's going on in the justice system and the good work that people are doing in a lot of different areas. That's cool. One thing too I hope from the show that people will recognize is that State Supreme Courts' job is to decide to take cases and decide those cases but also, there is this oversight or administrative role that either the court directly, the members of the court or the Chief Justice have with regard to the way the system is organized overall. That is equally impactful and interesting as well to do and to be part of as a member of the court.
It has been great here. You've met our chief. I always joke. She's like the Energizer Bunny. Any idea that you had or a project that you think of in this area, she was like, "If you think that there's something to be done and you want to do it or you know somebody who can do it, go ahead and do that." In our State Court Administrative Office, there's been so much of that. We have a whole new office of people that need to support these councils and commissions.
We have the Jail and Pretrial Incarceration task force, Access to Justice, and the Justice for All Commission. We have a DEI commission and a Juvenile Justice task force. I started working with our state bar. We have a new task force on Well-Being in the Law, which is looking at wellness issues for judges, lawyers, and law students and how you can build a healthy bar and environment and support that for the long term. There are all of these opportunities. It's recognizing that the silos don't work.
Wellness and DEI fit together along with Access to Justice and how we're doing all these things. Having a whole court that's engaged in doing that and having a chief that is a leader of saying, "This is something we value. This is something that we encourage and go out and do. If it's important to you, then it's important to other people in this state. You're hearing what you have." The administrative part of the job for me is one of the most rewarding parts of the job.
What advice would you give to someone who might be thinking about wanting to serve on the bench at some point, maybe sooner or later in their career? Is there anything you would recommend that they pursue in terms of experiences?
There's a balance in increasing your awareness and your exposure to areas outside of what you have known in your practice, geographic area, or whatever that may be. It's knowing what's out there and getting some exposure to things, whether that's by reading things, going to meetings, or meeting different people who are doing work in different areas. For an appellate bench that is a more generalist court, that's important but there's a limit to that because it's that whole, "Jack of all trades, master of none." That's the way it is.
You can't be a master in seventeen areas of the law. Don't let the fact that you aren't a master in seventeen areas of the law holds you back from doing that because particularly in a multi-member bench, your unique background and experience contribute to it. It serves that role because everybody else is going to be in the same boat that you are. You can do that. Don't let it hold you back but it's a level of humility also of knowing that you don't know everything and expanding that circle.
Don't hold yourself back from thinking, "I can't do it until I've done this. I can't be an appellate judge because I haven't been a trial judge. I can't be statewide because I haven't gotten elected in my county," or whatever it may be. There are many paths to the bench. There is no particular right one. Combine it with the aspect of what I said before too. Listen to what other people are telling you but also figure out what it is that you want, what you think is good, and what you can contribute and focus on that.
That's a great summary and microcosm of what I hope the show overall helps people come to.
There isn't one particular right way. I do it at various times. You let the, "I'm not this. I haven't done this," be the barrier to going ahead and doing it. That's not like, "I'm going to go and run a landlord-tenant docket. I have no idea how those cases work." I'm not suggesting that but that doesn't mean that you have to. Don't let it prevent you from putting yourself out there and contributing what you can contribute because it's a big pool. There's a lot of room for experience. That would be my advice.
That's very helpful. Typically, I end with a few lightning-round questions if you're up for a few of those.
I'll try it.
First question, what talent do you wish you have but don't have?
I wish I could express myself either orally or in writing with perfect clarity. I never use more words than I need. I don't. I tend to go on the other side. I say more words than that. I wish I could have an automatic edit button in my head that works better so that I say less.
That makes everything you say concise and perfect.
That would be great.
That would be nice. Who are your favorite writers?
I read a fair amount or a wide range of stuff. I will fully admit it. I'm not being apologetic for it but I have learned with all the heavy and hard reading that I do in this job that I need to balance that with light unredeemed beach reads. It's a weird mystery. I haven't gotten into sci-fi too much but it's the equivalent of the puzzle. I need something to do to engage my mind but not make me think too hard.
I don't know if I have particular authors. I love David Sedaris and Louise Eldrich. I love a broad range of things. I love poetry by Mary Oliver. I have my stack of books that are work-related, "Let's read about the child welfare system and the history of this and various constitutional theories or legal thought." I have the beach read of, "She went to Nantucket to open a bakery and found love or something." I have those as well.
Each of them has its place at anything in time.
It takes a broad range of things.
Your point about the puzzle was interesting because I do think there's this mind-clearing aspect of letting things marinate. They're being work done in the back of your mind while you're doing that but you're not conscious of it. You need that break to process.
That's my new oral argument prep. That has worked well. I can let it sink in.
The puzzle thing is interesting. Normally, I go for a walk, go for a hike, or do something like that to clear things. It's being worked on in the background. It's okay. Don't worry. It's still very productive to be doing this.
I remember my boss or my mentor, the woman who started our appellate department when I was in practice. She would always talk about it. She's like, "It's never fair that we can't bill for shower time. I got a lot of stuff done."
You have those lightning, "How did things get worked out?"
It doesn't all happen in front of a computer screen.
It's all part of the process but it's not the end point in front of the computer. It might be the end point but a lot went in to get there and to put it all together for sure. Who is your hero in real life?
My kids. I'm constantly amazed by them, the world that they confront now that I didn't have to, their interest in life, their composure, and their sense of adventure. I love who they are as people as they grow older. I was always a baby person. I love babies. I still do love babies so I'm always amazed. I'm like, "I like these kids as people." They're awesome, interesting, and unique people.
They go and soldier ahead in front of things, whether it be technology or issues that they have to confront as kids, pressures, responsibilities, and expectations of them. They handle it and adapt particularly through the pandemic. They amaze me at how adaptive they are and how expressive they can be about struggles that they have and how they adapt to them. I'm in awe of my kids and kids in general but my kids are pretty cool.
It’s amazing how expressive children can be about their struggles and how they adapt to them.
Isn't that nice to be able to say that you like them as people?
Not all the time because they have their moments.
I was going to say, "I can't imagine all the time," but at a basic level, yes.
I'm amazed. The things that they have to learn, navigate, and deal with that seem so much more intense and difficult than I had to and their ability to do that with grace is inspiring.
That's nice. If you were having a dinner party, who would you invite as the dinner guest?
I would love to have dinner with the newest Justice on the US Supreme Court, Justice Jackson, to get the perspective of a new justice and all that she has been through. She's on my dinner invite.
She would be a lot of fun too. That's a good choice. Last question, what is your motto if you have one?
I'm a big fan of upstream solutions. I'm a big fan of not just addressing the problem but going upstream. The other one that I frequently recite to myself or think to myself is from Maya Angelou, "Do the best you can. When you know better, do better." Part of trying to live along those lines means that you have to be willing to acknowledge that sometimes you didn't know better, and then when you do, you do better. It's something I talk about with my kids a lot in having to admit my mistakes or lack of knowledge to them so that they see it's okay to make mistakes, own up to them, and constantly strive to learn better so that they can do better.
That's part of growth. Being in a continual growth mode is a good thing.
It applies to the law too. We have systems that sometimes are like, "This is what we did. This is what we thought." Pick whatever it is, juvenile justice, the criminal justice system, the child welfare system, or something like that. Now we know better, we know more things about trauma in foreign courts. We know things about the success of treatment courts and problem-solving courts.
We know better about how to help people as opposed to doling out discipline. We know more about prevention. We know that you can do better but you have to acknowledge that we may have gotten it wrong before when we didn't know, whether that's in my family or the job that we do with administering to courts. Acknowledge what you don't know. When you know better, do better.
Be open to change in that way. Thank you so much, Justice Cavanagh, for joining the show. I enjoyed the conversation and hearing your perspectives from appellate advocate to appellate justice. Thank you so much.
Thank you for having me. This has been great. I am a fan of your show. It's a great program and a great project. I'm thrilled to have been a part of it. Thank you for having me.
Thank you.