Nevada Supreme Court Justice

00:45:58

Subscribe and listen on…

Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts

Watch Full Interview | View Show Notes | View Transcript

Justice Elissa F. Cadish, a member of the first-ever female majority on the Nevada Supreme Court, shares her path to the bench, including a federal judicial clerkship that brought her to the state, private practice, appointment to the state trial court bench, and a nomination to the federal district court bench.

Relevant episode links:

Elissa Cadish

About Elissa F. Cadish:

Justice Cadish graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania in 1986, receiving her Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in Political Science. She received her law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1989, where she was a member of the Virginia Law Review and was honored to be awarded the Order of the Coif. After graduation, she moved to Las Vegas and clerked for two years for Hon. Philip M. Pro in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

In this episode, I'm very pleased to have joined the show, a Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, Elissa Cadish. Welcome.

Thanks so much.

Thank you so much for joining the show and sharing your journey to the bench, to the Supreme Court, and also serving on the bench in the district court of Nevada before that. We'll talk about how it is that you get those positions because that's one of the civics lessons of this show is it's so varied from state to state, whether it's elected, a combination, or it's appointed. I look forward to hearing about that as well. First, I wanted to start with what inspired you to become a lawyer and go to law school?

I've wanted to be a lawyer since I was about 10 or 11 years old. What I remember is a dinner table-type conversation about cases that were in the news for whatever reason, and talking about the importance of making sure everyone's rights were protected and that there was a fair process. That idea, that concept of justice and protecting rights stuck with me. From then on, I went right down that path going into college as a Political Science major and going right to law school after that. Once I got to college, I did take a couple of college-level courses on Constitutional Law within the Political Science department, and I loved them. That confirmed that I was on the right path.

Did you have lawyers in the family? How were you having these discussions at dinner?

No, we didn't. Neither of my parents graduated from college, but my dad in particular had a strong social justice leaning, and we had talked about things like that. He was very interested in the news and he would read the newspaper every day. He felt strongly about the importance of civil rights. When I was young, in the late-'60s and early-'70s, it seemed like a lot of these issues were being talked about.

That was the time when there was a lot of discussion of that and a lot in the news. It makes sense to have those discussions around the dinner table as well.

It was more generally about fairness and not having discrimination based on race, sex, and those issues also. I remember those conversations.

That's an interesting aspect that's been embodied in the various episodes of the show too, in terms of tangibly seeing women's entry and progress into the profession and how that has paralleled where the law itself was going in terms of developing rights and treatment of others. There's a parallel and certainly, Justice O'Connor's appointment to the court in the early-1980s had an influence across the board in terms of women on the bench and women entering law schools and things like that as well.

I remember when she got appointed. That was a big deal in the news and it did help encourage me to keep proceeding down the path I was on.

It's interesting when you said that in college, you think you're on the right path, but taking those Constitutional Law classes to make sure, “I like this. This is the right path.” It's good to test your hypothesis and proposition as you go along.

I was one of the lucky ones who confirmed what I wanted to do. There were many people who don't go on a straight path to what I thought they were going to do. I was one of the lucky ones that I kept going down that path and I enjoyed it and did well. It confirmed where I was headed.

In graduating from law school, did you have a particular idea of what law you wanted to practice or what setting you wanted to go into?

By the time I was finishing up law school, I had the idea that I would work at a large firm in a big city probably doing commercial litigation. That's what I had done during the summers during law school. I was a summer associate at large firms. After my first year in Cleveland, and then after my second year in Washington, DC and New York, I thought I was going to go back and do some kind of practice like that, but I also wanted to do a clerkship.

I ended up coming out to Nevada initially because I got a Federal clerkship here intending to go and do that practice after the clerkship. As with so many things, and although I continued on the path I was on, things did go off the plan a bit when I came to Nevada for a two-year clerkship in 1989 and then never left.

I was like, “You're still there.”

I’m still in Nevada many years later. I enjoyed my practice here. I was able to raise my family here. It turned out to be a great choice, even though it wasn't what I anticipated.

I think having a plan is good, but being open to variations of the plan is also important. Tell me about your clerkship as well because that's an important experience, at least. Having clerked, I think it's so important in your development, as a lawyer, and also the close relationship that you have with the judges that you work with.

I came to Nevada for that two-year clerkship with Judge Pro, who, at the time, was a United States district judge in Las Vegas. He's retired, although he and I have a different definition of retirement because he's doing mediations and arbitrations all the time. It was a great experience to clerk with him. I saw how hard he worked, and how prepared he was for all the hearings and trials that he had. He was also involved in the community in the ways that he could be as a Federal judge. He was a role model and he's still a friend of mine and has continued to be a mentor throughout my career.

I think that helped direct my path, where after that clerkship, although I was going to go out and practice in commercial litigation, which is what I ended up doing. I knew I wanted to be a judge eventually because I wanted to be a judge like him. To do things for the right reasons to study the law, but not lose track of the practical effects of the decisions being made. It was a great choice that I was lucky to fall into.

There are many aspects and influences of working for a remarkable judge and that is one of them. It’s the long-term mentoring that you have, but also an appreciation for what a judge does and the impact on the rule of law in society at large. The positives of that and looking up to someone who's in that position and doing it well can inspire you to say, “I would love to have the opportunity to serve the way my judge is serving.”

He influenced me that way. I saw how fair he was and that he was in control in his courtroom, but was never disrespectful or condescending to anybody there. I wanted to be like him.

You're interviewing and you're hoping to guide a particular clerkship, but I don't think you realize sometimes that until you're there working with a particular judge, you're like, “This is not only a great fit, but I am so lucky to be working with this person.”

I didn't know much of anything about him except that he happened to post an opening at my law school and he was willing to do the interview by telephone because I was back East and I didn't have a lot of money to travel for interviews. He was willing to do the interview by phone. I figured I had nothing to lose by applying and I could go anywhere for two years. Certainly, I didn't anticipate the lifelong friendship and relationship we would have.

I'm glad you talked about that because I do think that law students may or may not consider doing a clerkship, but if they are for one reason or another, they don't always understand that personal aspect of it in the very long term. The special relationship that happens as a result of that not to mention that you have a really interesting perspective from that that you don't get again until you are on the bench yourself, which is, decision-makers, looking at your filings as an advocate. What is helpful to them? How does the process work? Helping the judge with those decisions is invaluable coming out to be a young litigator.

It conveys to you what is important to a judge and what isn't important, what arguments will help you, and what will hurt you. Those are important lessons. Before going out and litigating myself so I could see how little attacks on other lawyers did for you in that context. It's tempting to go there sometimes, but it doesn't help you and it can hurt you.

It doesn't move the ball forward. If you didn't have that experience, you wouldn't necessarily know that in the same visceral way you do when you come out of a clerkship. You're like, “Just set that aside. Let's make the decision we need to make. It doesn't help me to think about that.” The two-year clerkship's interesting because often, it's one year, but some of them are two years.

I always felt like the first 4, 5, or 6 months I was getting up to speed in the clerkship and just as I was getting my stride, the one-year clerkship's over and you're gone. I think there's a benefit to the two-year clerkship. You have that ramp-up period, but you have a longer period where you can share your knowledge.

That was true for me, and it helps the judge as well. He had two law clerks at the time. They were staggered two-year positions. When I was a judge in district court, I had one law clerk, so I would just bring in clerks for one year but now with the Supreme Court, I have two law clerks. Now, I do what he did at the time and I have two-year staggered terms. It helps them and it helps me. When I have the experienced law clerk helping to train the newer law clerk, it helps to have some continuity and make sure we continue to do things the way I like them to be done.

It makes a lot of sense management-wise for the chambers. You got the spark to join the bench from your clerkship with Judge Pro. Tell me about that. How did that journey start and where did you first apply or become elected? I guess that's the question, first, for the district court.

I had the spark, but I practiced for quite some time. I wanted to make sure that I knew enough and was experienced enough before I would try to be a judge. As all our state judges are elected, I was hesitant to get involved in that process and have to run. It wasn't something in my comfort zone and it was scary to think about having to run to be a judge.

Eventually, I got to the point where I wanted to do it, and I thought, “If this is what I want to do, I'm going to have to be willing to do that.” Although all of our judges are elected, if there's a midterm opening for a judge, which in this case there was one because a judge retired during their term, we have an appointment process to fill that opening.

It was an opening in the district court, which is our trial-level court in Nevada, the general jurisdiction court. There's a commission on judicial selection, which is chaired by our state chief justice, and then there are people appointed by the bar and by the governor. It has to be a diverse group from around the state. They interview the applicants and select the top three candidates. Those three names go to the governor and it's up to the governor to select one of them for the appointment.

I went through that process in 2007 and was named one of the three finalists. I interviewed with the governor and was ultimately appointed by the governor to that open district court seat in the summer of 2007. I had to run to keep that seat in 2008. I was on the bench for a few months and had to file during that next year's election. I did draw an opponent. They have contested races here.

They're nonpartisan races, but attorneys can pay the filing fee and file and run. I had an opponent that year and it was a learning experience. It was scary for me and definitely out of my comfort zone. I gradually learned how to do it and ended up winning the election. I met a lot of people in the community and learned a lot that year.

California has a similar provision that if there's an opening, then it's an open election. It's nice to have that. At least, you initially went through the vetting and having the appointment, and then having to do the contested election, you got a combination there instead of going directly to the election.

It made it easier to run that first time because I was the incumbent when I was running as opposed to circumstances where a judge chooses not to run for another term and it's an open seat so anyone can file for it. That's a little harder. It was nice that I was the incumbent for that first election race. We get elected for a six-year term. I won the election to a six-year term in 2008, and then I came up again in 2014 for election, and I was very lucky and certainly, pleased to not have an opponent at that time. Running unopposed is great. I recommend that you are able to make that.

It's a little less stressful in that regard. That is something important to think about because as you said, you feel you have something to contribute in that position, but maybe the way to get there if it's election might not be your exact perfect comfort zone. You have to make the assessment, “Am I willing to go out outside of my comfort zone because I think I can contribute a lot in this role, I'm willing to do that.” Also, is it something you found there wasn't at least an appointment on-ramp and then the election, which I think would be a little more in my comfort zone personally? I can understand that.

It made it easier. The skills that make someone a good judge are not necessarily the same skills that make you a good campaigner for elected office. To be a good judge, you need to be someone who is thoughtful and considers all the different aspects of something before making a decision. You have to be able to be outgoing and go out and talk about yourself personally when you're running for office and that is completely different.

The skills that make someone a good judge are not necessarily the same skills that make you a good campaigner for elected office. To be a good judge, you must be thoughtful and consider all the different aspects of something before making a decision. 

Especially if you're a more private person in yourself. That can be a little more challenging. What I have heard from people who have gone through the election process for the State Supreme Court level too is that because they went out and met so many different people in their state in so many different areas, they felt like they learned a lot about the concerns.

Where people were in the state and what was happening to people in a much broader way within their state that they felt was helpful and also contributed to their sense of responsibility in a way. Once they had the position, they're like, “All of these people with these various concerns that they've shared with me, I feel that mantle of responsibility for particular people that I've met,” as opposed to just a general thought about the residents of the state.

I agree with that. It is a good thing to have to get out and meet and interact with people in the community and ultimately when I ran for the Supreme Court statewide. Having to go all over the state, was still a great learning experience after being pretty familiar with Las Vegas where I had been for many years. The rest of the state of Nevada is not Las Vegas and there are different concerns, different important issues, and perspectives. I think it is important as a public servant and being in a public position to have recognition and acknowledgment of the people who, in a sense, you represent. You're there to serve the people and it's important to know what their concerns are and how their lives are.

That's what I've heard. It is like, “It may not have been our first choice to do this because it's outside of our comfort zone, but it was illuminating.”

Yes, it was and you learn how many people are out there who do such important work that isn't public employees per se, but people who do all kinds of things to contribute to the community and it’s wonderful to see. It makes you feel good about the community when you see how many people are active, involved, and engaged.

Often, judges enjoy being on the trial bench and they enjoy that because they're the buck stops. You're the decision maker, but at the appellate level, there's consensus building. There's more than one person making decisions, which is, helpful in our system where you're making law for more than just the parties in that case. A lot of people will say, “I'm happy being a trial judge because I like this and I'm not interested in that other role.” What interested you about the appellate bench?

I did enjoy being a trial judge and the activity of a morning calendar. We'd have lots of matters on the calendar and people are coming in and out. Especially on the criminal side, I would get to know a lot of the attorneys who were before me regularly. I did enjoy having those regular relationships with them. The idea of being on the Supreme Court was attractive to me because I enjoy digging into a legal issue, especially one that is not clear on its face where you have to research and think about it. You have to see what other states have done and how would this work.

I enjoyed law school and having that academic perspective on issues and talking through what could the rule be so the idea of doing that at the Supreme Court level was attractive to me. I enjoy being here. I enjoy having that opportunity to dig into these important legal issues, think about them and analyze the case law, statutes, or whatever is involved. I like going to a conference and talking to my colleagues about these cases. I enjoy that process.

Sometimes, it's frustrating because in the district court, you make the decision and whatever you say goes. Here, you need to have the majority on your side for that to be the decision. That can be challenging and frustrating at times but I also do appreciate getting others' perspectives and hearing from my colleagues. We all have our own different and unique backgrounds. That's why you have multiple justices on a Supreme Court like ours so you have those different perspectives and you can take into consideration where they're coming from and I love that analysis.

I think that's right because you want to do the 360-degree evaluation when you're deciding a case that's going to be precedent for the state. You want to have considered all of the different angles of it, and people bring different experiences to their role on the bench that can help illuminate that in different ways.

It's been an opportunity to learn about different areas of the law. In the district court, I was presiding over civil and criminal cases but not, family cases for example. Now, I've learned also about family cases because we deal with those as well. We've also had several and I'm sure we're going to have more water law cases, which was an area I didn't practice in and didn't know about before but are so important in our state, especially with the drought we've been experiencing. There are important issues, especially for the folks in our rural areas who are involved with farming and ranching. That's been an important learning experience and a chance to contribute to that important area of the law.

There's also been evolution in your judicial system and the appellate system too because it was the Nevada Supreme Court and that was it but now there's an intermediate Appellate Court. That's an interesting time to be on the Supreme Court when that's happening.

Since 2015 only, we've had the Court of Appeals. We have a different model than most states though because still all of the appeals from district court get filed with the Supreme Court Clerk's Office, but then we have what's called a pushdown model, which means from the Supreme Court we decide which cases get pushed down to the Court of Appeals.

We have rules in place that establish certain categories of cases that presumptively go to the Court of Appeals and some that presumptively stay with the Supreme Court, but then there are some that aren't presumptive one way or the other and it's a discretionary decision about that. This largely falls to our chief justice who makes those screening decisions with input from our screening team within the clerk's office.

We still have all the appeals getting filed with the Supreme Court, but some of them get decided, at least, initially by the Court of Appeals. It's also a little different because our Supreme Court is seven justices, but our Court of Appeals is three judges. In systems that are more like the Federal system, you have more Court of Appeals-type judges and fewer Supreme Court but as a result of the process by which we finally got it approved and got that help that we desperately needed, that's the way our system is set up.

I see that when states have had the one Supreme Court Appellate venue for so long. There's a lot of overwhelm from that because people are using the court system more and there are more cases that as you said, trickle down to an intermediate court of appeal. Sometimes, it can be that sense of imbalance and you're like, “There's only a few on the Court of Appeal, but there's a lot more in the Supreme Court.” That’s the creature of how it happened but it's a sign of people turning to the justice system more for solving problems and for a change in population too with more people being in Nevada.

Our state has grown tremendously over so many years and with that, came a growth in the caseload. Originally, when our state first became a state, we had three justices on the Supreme Court, then it went to 5, and then it went to 7. That's where we still are, which helped some but still, the number of cases was way too much for those justices to deal with every single case that comes from any aspect of the law around the state.

It gives you more breathing room, but also a little adjustment in the role of the Supreme Court selecting which cases to keep and deciding truly the ones that are of statewide importance or conflicts or things like that as well.

In the cases that get filed with us, we push down about a third of them to the Court of Appeals, which are generally the cases that are error correction type cases as opposed to issues of first impression. The rest of the cases that we keep to be decided at the Supreme Court were the ones making the initial decision. We're not reviewing another Appellate Court, which is different than the Federal system and then many state systems where we're the first appeal, but also the last appeal.

That's a whole other level of responsibility there. You are the first stop and last stop.

In the district court, when I wasn't sure that I was doing the right thing I would do my best, look at everything and try to make the best decision I could, but there was some amount of comfort in knowing, “The Supreme Court will tell me if I'm wrong.” Now, I am on the Supreme Court so we have to work even harder and dig deeper to make sure that it's the right decision because there's no one else to tell us we're wrong if we are. We do our best to make sure we're right.

The Supreme Court has to work even harder and dig deeper to make sure that it's the right decision because there's no one else to tell us we're wrong if we are. So we do our best to make sure we're right. 

There's only some narrow band of cases if there's some Federal constitutional issue or something like that where somebody might file a petition. Other than that, that's right. Everything rests, with you and your colleagues. What advice or things do you find helpful in terms of oral argument or brief writing that helps make your decision-making process easier that you'd like advocates to do?

I think it's important for appellate attorneys to focus on the standard of review. I think that a lot of cases are won or lost on the standard of review. If you are the one appealing, you're going to want to frame the issue as a legal issue that the court is going to review de novo. Whereas, if you are the respondent and trying to keep the lower court decision in place, you're going to want to frame it as a factual determination.

It is where we have an abusive discretion standard because often we're going to be deferring to a lower court's finding or a jury's finding depending on the case and something like that. I think attorneys don't spend enough time thinking about the standard of review and I think often almost, I look at that section of their brief as perfunctory, but I think it's important and it definitely can make a difference in how we look at a case.

In terms of advocacy beyond that, I guess to be clear about exactly what you're asking. If you're the appellant, what you're asking to overturn, what decision, and make sure that you give us the point in the record where you point it out. That error at the district court level, where do you raise it with the district court because again, if you didn't do that, it's pretty rare that we're going to be able to reverse on a plain error standard. I think those issues are important and aren't focused on enough.

Coming in for oral argument and I will say the vast majority of our cases get decided on the papers without oral argument. If we do have an argument, you've got to be prepared and I definitely would advise you to do practice sessions with people firing questions at you. Our court tends to be a pretty hot bench. You don't just come in and make your argument. You need to be prepared for that and understanding the weaknesses and how you're going to respond to questions about those is what I would recommend.

That’s a key point because, in some courts, it's up to the parties whether they get an appellate argument, but in other courts, it's not. It's up to the court. It's not in every case and the appellate judges generally have a particular reason why they want to have an argument and why they would like to have that conversation with you that would be helpful in the decision-making. It's important to be respectful of that as a lawyer.

Sometimes, it’s a complex issue with a lot of nuances and we want to have that opportunity to question the lawyers about it. Sometimes, maybe it's not clear to us what exactly happened at the court below or why things right happened the way they did. Sometimes, even if it's an important case, we may recognize that it's an important case, but the briefing enough is sufficient for us to be able to have our thoughts and make our decision based on it. There are not that many arguments that we have. Probably, we only have maybe 100 cases a year or so that we have an argument on and we certainly rule on a lot more than that.

The point you made about the argument about why you would want an argument. Sometimes people think, “It's an important case or issue, so there should be the argument,” but it does depend on what kind of issue it is and whether there's more understanding or development of the record or as you said, understanding like, “We want to understand what happened.” We want to be clear of things that aren't clear from the record to make sure you have the full context when you're making the decision. In some cases, even if they are important issues, maybe you feel that you've seen everything. You're like, “We have what we need to make the decision.”

It depends on how law-driven it is versus how fact-driven and a lot of different factors. Frankly, sometimes a case may not be completely clear because it's not that well-briefed by the attorneys. Sometimes, that may warrant bringing them in to clarify their arguments, but sometimes that may lead us to say, “I don't think they're going to help us much more.”

That's a good point. You're like, “It would be helpful, but I'm not sure it actually will be.”

There are a lot of different factors that go into making that decision and there's no scientific formula to decide whether to have an argument or not. For example, with our cases that are on bond, meaning all seven of us on the case, the chief will make the initial decision whether to set it for an argument or put it on for a conference discussion without argument. If a couple of us think we should probably argue this case, then generally that's what'll happen. With our panel cases, each year, we have 2 panels of 3 justices. The chief is the one who's not on a panel. Among the panel justices, the three-panel justices will vote on whether it'll be set for argument or submitted for a decision and discussion after a conference without argument.

It highlights the importance of briefing. The appellate briefs are so important on many different levels.

It’s important and that whoever's writing those briefs should be taking their time to lay out the arguments. In the district court, often, there are attorneys who don't do a great brief, but they count on being able to come into court and convince a judge. At our level, you can't count on having that opportunity so the brief needs to be well-organized and focused. You have to make sure you lay out the supporting authority for your position.

It's very important that whoever writes those briefs should be taking the time to lay out the arguments. 

What kind of advice would you give to someone who might think down the line in their career that they might want to join the benches as well?

I think it's important to work hard to be the best lawyer you can be before moving up to the bench and to make sure that you are building a reputation in the community for someone who is thoughtful and pays attention to detail. Obviously, as a lawyer, you want to be a good advocate, but also to be a judge down the road, you should be a trustworthy, courteous, and professional colleague to even people who are on the other side of your case.

I think people who get too associated with the one side, and I'm not saying that your practice as a prosecutor or defense attorney or you may be a plaintiff attorney on civil cases, and that's fine. However, not to be one of those attorneys who's so identified with that side where you're attacking people on the other side. I think you need to show that you are a fair-minded person to help you, whether you end up proceeding through an appointment or an election process. It's important to have established a reputation as the kind of person that you would want on the bench.

There is a commitment to the law in a larger sense and also to serve us in the community. Those are often threads that I've seen across the various episodes of those who have joined the bench. I understand your point about being an advocate. That's great. You're very good at what you do and those skills will be helpful when are writing opinions and doing work on the bench. However, knee-jerk arguing one particular side or seeing everything is the right way to look at it but it's a very different approach.

You want to have that reputation of someone who is professional, courteous, and can get along with other people on the other side and not where you treat whoever the other side is as if they're useless or they're not good people. There were people that get so associated with one side or the other that it's hard to see them as being fair as a judge.

I appreciate you for joining the show and having our chat in this episode. Also, learning about your journey particularly resonated with me because of the influence of the judge that you worked for on your journey. I can relate to that and I hope that it'll inspire others to apply for clerkships if they weren't thinking about it because it's transformative.

I'm happy to get applications for clerkships, by the way, if I can put a pitch out there.

That would be great. You have clerks now, so you get to pay it forward through that as well. Also, it varies because the court is different. The California Supreme Court until the last few years had career attorneys who served as research attorneys for the court, but now there's a mix between that and term clerks who are recent graduates. There are opportunities to clerk at the California Supreme Court out of law school which didn't exist previously. It sounds like you have the term clerk situation in Nevada.

Each of the seven justices gets two-term clerks. I suppose any one of us could decide to keep on one of those clerks longer, but we haven't done that. The court also has staff attorneys who deal with certain categories of cases and are more long-term attorneys who work with us.

It's good to have that mix. The continuity and people who have dealt with issues long-term within the court and the fresh perspectives and ideas that you get from having the clerks come in for a couple of years. That connection to the next generation of lawyers is invigorating to the court.

I love my law clerks and I try to pick people who are smart and able to do a great job, but there's still someone brand new right out of law school and generally, hasn't had experience in the legal community. I can share my background and experiences and how that impacts the cases they're working on, but the staff attorneys also who've had more long-term experience can give that perspective as well.

I think the combination is powerful just like you have the different perspectives of the judges on the bench too, but to have the combined knowledge and experience is helpful to the court. You have a lot of cases and a lot of work to do, so it's good to have both of those. I'll end the episode with a few little lightning-round questions if you have a few minutes. The first question is, which skill would you like to have, but don't?

I wish I could sing. I love music, but I can't carry a tune. I have tone quality at all. I think it would be fun to be able to sing.

There are music creators and music appreciators and we need both. Who are your favorite writers?

I tend to read a lot of mysteries. For years, I read a lot of Mary Higgins Clark’s mystery books. I went through those, and I've read several legal thrillers by John Grisham and some other writers like that. I guess those are the ones I would identify.

It's fun to have a little escape escapism through the law in those books. It's nice.

I don't get to read for pleasure too often because I'm reading so much for work all the time but I do enjoy it. Especially if we're going on vacation, I'll read 2 or 3 books in the course of a week sitting by the beach or the pool relaxing.

It can be hard. I know in law school I took a hiatus from reading anything other than things I had to read for law school, but I miss that. I like good writing in a variety of areas because you learn things. As an appellate lawyer and brief writer, I'm constantly looking to improve the writing and the storytelling and all of that. Sometimes, you can get some great ideas from good writers of fiction or other things, just not legal at all. I still try to read some of that and then translate some of those great techniques that I see in those into legal writing trying to continue to grow and change and things like that. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party?

I would pick, at the moment, President Obama. I think he had such an interesting background and set of experiences. It would be so interesting to have the opportunity to explore his thoughts about things and what he thinks looking back on his life. He's super smart, but also he's got real charisma.

That sounds very personable. It seems like he would be a fun dinner guest. The last question is, what is your motto if you have one?

I'm not sure. It's a punchy motto and it goes back to something we talked about. On the one hand, set goals and work hard to achieve them, but the caveat that goes along with that is you may need to change your goals either because you have decided it's not what you want or because for whatever reason, it's not going to happen. Sometimes you can work hard and things get in the way and it doesn't happen. You need to be willing to be flexible, set new goals, and work toward those.

Sometimes you can work hard, and things get in the way, and it doesn't happen. So you need to be willing to be flexible and set new goals and work toward those. 

That goes into the category of resilience. You need that in order to keep going. I think that the difference between the people who are successful is that everybody has challenges and things don't turn out the way you might have expected, but you've got to pick yourself up and move forward. Also, find other avenues for your skills, talents, and things like that. Also, be open to that.

We can work hard to get in a certain direction, but sometimes things happen and you can't say, “I didn't get that. No, I'm not going to do anything.”

I think so much of that is true with regard to joining the bench. There are a lot of things that you can do as that's in your power to be an excellent lawyer and to have collegiality in the profession. All of these various things, but there are many other factors that go into joining the bench or a particular bench that you don't have direct control over. I roll with it.

If you're the best candidate, but you don't get appointed, you find other ways to serve.

However, because of that entropy in the process doesn't mean you don't try either. I think that sometimes people think, “Everything magically came together.” It is not true. Yes, there's some magic to the process, but it's not all sparkle leading to it.

You need to put the effort in, the work, and everything that's required to put yourself in a position to be able to get to that goal to start with.

Getting to that goal is everything that's required to put yourself in a position to be able to write.

As you said, redirect when necessary. I think that's a good overall strategy and approach. For people to recognize that everyone has challenges or things don't turn out the way we might have imagined, but it's what you do next. Justice, thank you so much for joining the show and having this discussion. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot about the Nevada Appellate courts too, so I appreciate that.

Thank you for having me. It's been a pleasure talking with you and being on the show. Hopefully, I encourage more young women to follow the judicial path.

You can also apply for clerkships perhaps with you and your court. I hope we can encourage that also.

I'm always looking to expand the pool of applicants.

Thank you so much, Justice.

Thank you.