Episode 119: Kathleen E. O'Leary
00:38:55
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Kathleen E. O'Leary is the Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, and the former Presiding Justice of the Orange County Superior Court-- and the first woman to hold both positions. Justice O’Leary has also served on the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California courts. Prior to joining the bench, she served as a public defender and worked in private practice. With host M.C. Sungaila she shares her path to the bench, the importance of access to justice, as well as brief-writing and oral argument tips.
Relevant episode links:
About Kathleen E. O'Leary:
Kathleen E. O’Leary was appointed Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, in December 2011. The California State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated Justice O’Leary “exceptionally well qualified.” Her appointment was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on February 10, 2012, and Justice O’Leary became the first woman to lead the court. Prior to assuming the position of Presiding Justice, she served as an Associate Justice of the court since 2000.
Prior to her appointment to the Court of Appeal, Justice O’Leary served as an Orange County Superior Court Judge from 1986 to 2000. She was that court’s first female Presiding Judge from 1998 to 2000. She also served as a Judge of the West Orange County Municipal Court from 1981 to 1986 and served as that court’s Presiding Judge in 1984 and 1985.
Justice O’Leary has received many prestigious awards during her judicial career. She received Chapman University School of Law’s M. Katherine Darmer Commitment to Public Service Award in 2017 and the Orange County Bar Association’s Legends of the Law Award in 2016. In 2014, she received the Joan Dempsey Klein Award from the California Women Lawyers and the Orange County Lavender Bar Association’s Community Leadership Award. Other awards include the 2010 Saint Thomas More Judge of the Year Award, and the 2007 Benjamin Aranda Access to Justice Award. In 2006, Justice O’Leary received the Franklin G. West Award, the Orange County Bar Association’s highest honor. This award is presented each year to an outstanding attorney or judge whose lifetime achievements have advanced justice and the law.
Throughout her judicial career, Justice O’Leary has been active in judicial administration. She served on the Judicial Council from 1993-1997. The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts. In accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice.
Justice O’Leary attended Marymount College at Loyola University, now Loyola Marymount University, and received her juris doctor degree from Southwestern University School of Law in 1975. She is proud to have served on the Board of Trustees of her alma mater, Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles for a number of years.
Transcript
On this episode, I'm very pleased to have joined us as the Presiding Justice of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3 in Orange County, California, Justice Kathleen O’Leary. Welcome.
Thank you.
You have such a storied career, which we honored and recognized with our local Orange County Bar Association Appellate Section, and trailblazing roles as a Presiding Judge on the Orange County Superior Court and now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal. You are the first woman in both of those positions in our county. You are a very well-regarded Presiding Judge and Justice in both of those roles by both colleagues.
For many terms, you were a Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court, and your colleagues thought that was a very helpful position for you to be in. It's a tough job to have. It's good to have a very capable person in charge of the court and the administrative aspects of the courts. I wanted to start first with how did you come to the law and what inspired you to become a lawyer?
It's funny because I was a Political Science major in college and had no intention of ever being a lawyer. I wanted to get involved in diplomacy, maybe work for the State Department. I thought, some of these international conflicts, that I would be helpful in resolving these. When I finished college, I thought, “BA is not going to get me there.” I ended up going to law school. When I started law school, I didn't think I would practice as a lawyer but thought a Law degree would help me.
I externed in the LA City Attorney's Office in a criminal courtroom and was taking pleas, bar dying defendants entering pleas. I fell in love with the courtroom. I thought there was so much energy there, and it drew me into the courtroom. When I finished law school, I decided I was going to be a practicing lawyer.
Sometimes the reasons that bring us to law school, at least, keep us going, they give us a mission for being there but it may not end up being the mission you end up executing reward. You can find something else you love along the way.
I used to teach trial practice at Chapman Law School, and I always told Law students, “You come in thinking you are going to be a real estate lawyer, a sports lawyer, a civil litigator or a DA. Be open because, after three years of law school and different experiences, you may end up doing something entirely different than what you thought when you started. Seize the opportunity that resonates with you.”
That's great advice to be open to other avenues and other things that you discover along the way in terms of, first of all, what you might think that you are interested in at first, when in reality, it doesn't end up being what you thought it might be or, as in your case, you found something else that you loved.
Even as a young lawyer, if you go into something and after a couple of years you think, “I'm not passionate about this. It's drudgery. It's not good for me,” then I think you have to have the courage to say, “I'm going to try something else. I'm not a failure. I'm just going to try something else.” If you are a litigator and you want to be a transactional lawyer or you are doing criminal, and you would rather do civil, have the courage to make a decision to make a change and do something that makes you happy.
The courage part can be hard because sometimes in law school where we think, “There's one path. There's a certain path. We have to take this path. If I do that path, everything will be fine.” It's not true. There are a lot of paths that we can take in our lives, and be open to those other paths that are possible and that might be a better fit as we move along.
That's the story of a lot of the women who have been on the show. Their careers are not linear. They don't start in an area where they thought they would start. It doesn't end up where they thought they would end up. It works itself out along the way. In retrospect, it might look like it all made sense but along the way, make the decisions as you go.
Some of it is serendipity.
Yes, that's true too. Although, it's good to be prepared for serendipity to some extent if you have the skills and things like that.
You have to have a plan but you have to be flexible. You always should have some goal in mind but you should be flexible because sometimes circumstances change, and you need to be flexible.
You always should have some goal in mind, but you should also be flexible because sometimes circumstances change.
You like the courtroom, so you ended up being in the courtroom quite a bit as an advocate.
I was, as a public defender. When I first got out of law school, I thought I would be a district attorney because my father was a police officer. I thought that's what I would do. I interviewed with the Public Defender's Office here in Orange County, to be perfectly honest, for interviewing experience because I thought when the LADA's office lifted their hiring freeze, I would interview up there.
When I was offered the job here, I went through the interviews and was offered the job. I thought, “I'm going to do this,” but I wasn't sure when I started. It was what I wanted to do but I loved it. I turned down offers later to switch to the Orange County DA's Office because I loved being a public defender but that wasn't what I thought at first.
That can definitely happen in the government realm. The hiring freezes for certain periods where it's not available, whether it's the US Attorney's Office or the DA's Office, and you either put everything on hold for that freeze or you move forward in other ways. By moving forward in this way, you found something you enjoyed. I do not think that at that point in time, there were not many women in the trial courts.
There weren't a lot of women in the trial courts trying cases even. Most of the women that graduated from law school, particularly in the civil arena, were taking depositions and doing a lot of motion work but they weren't trying cases. Even the DA’s and the PD’s offices now, it would surprise most of them to think the offices are almost 50/50. When I joined the public defender's office, there were about 60 lawyers and 4 women. There weren't very many. That was two on the bench.
I remember I clerked for Alicemarie Stotler, and she was one of the very few in the DA's office at that point in time too.
She was there first. She was the first lawyer in the DA's office.
From doing the trial work and the work of the public defenders to the bench, what made you think you might want to serve as a judge?
Some people say, “I always wanted to be a judge. It was my lifetime goal.” It wasn't mine. I had been in the public defender's office for approaching five years and was starting to think, “What do I want to do next?” I was talking to a couple of private law firms that I might go out and do something different. Jerry Brown was Governor and was trying to diversify the bench with younger people and women, and people of color. People started suggesting, “You should put your name in for the bench.” At first, I had dismissed it, and then I thought, “We will see.”
I put my name in for the bench, and then within a month, I left the Public Defender's Office and joined Gary Paulson, Gary Moorhead, and Mike Horan in private practice. Six months later, I got a call. I became a Judge. I would have been very happy to stay practicing with them but another opportunity presented itself.
That's often what I’ve heard from my friends who are on the bench too, which is that somebody suggested it to them to consider. It's not something that they thought at the outset that they would do but they very much enjoy doing it. I feel like this show is my effort to nudge people in that way. If you don't have someone directly nudging you to apply, maybe through the show, they will have some sense that, “Yeah. I should consider that. Put my name in the hat for that.”
Hopefully, things have changed. Back in the ‘70s and early ‘80s, it wasn't a common thought for women to be thinking they might want to be judges. Maybe you would like to be an astronaut too but what are your chances? Now with so many women on the bench, we still have work to do but there are more women on the bench and hopefully, there are more women role models both on the bench and in practice, so the young women will see what it's like to be a practicing lawyer or a judge and be a woman.
Now with so many women on the bench, we still have work to do so the young women will see what it's like to be a practicing lawyer or a judge and be a woman.
How did you like serving on the trial bench?
I loved serving on the trial bench. I loved being on trial, particularly with good lawyers. Trials are such a dynamic process. You don't know what's going to happen next. Even though the lawyers will lay it a certain way, and then it takes a twist or turn, and you have to decide cases split second. You've got a jury in the hall. They've sprung this complicated legal issue on you, and you are not going to have two days to research it. It's like, “I'm going to take a fifteen-minute recess and come back with a decision.” I like that. I thought it was exciting. It kept you on your toes. Coming to the Court of Appeal, I thought, “I hope I don't miss that.” It’s different. We have lots of time to think about things here.
That's what I was going to say. Thinking about that if people are considering the bench think about the differences between the trial bench and the appellate bench, their temperament, what they are comfortable with, and what they enjoy.
I always tell lawyers that if you are going to apply for the trial court to sit pro tem because see if you are comfortable making a quick decision, not everyone is. A lot of people want to mull things over and get more information. It's a very slow, deliberative process. As a trial judge, you don't have that as a rule. Occasionally you do but the entire process stops while you are thinking. You need to be a quick decision-maker and have confidence in your decision.
That's a good reason to consider that. I hadn't thought about whether you enjoy or find that you could serve well in that role on the bench but also being comfortable with that quick decision-making is helpful to figure out.
You don't want to get heartburn over making a bunch of evidentiary objections. Some people take the bench and realize, “This is hard.”
I have a lot of respect for the trial judges, who have to move very quickly. Things are moving quickly in the courtroom. There are a lot of things moving parts and so much involved and then being decisive to move things along. There's a lot going on there. How is it that you became the Presiding Judge of Orange County Superior Court also?
I had been the Presiding Judge of the West Municipal Court. I have always been interested in how a whole organization functions. How does it work, the parts? It's funny because some judges don't care. They care about what happens in their courtroom and their excellent judges and focus on their cases. What happens outside their courtroom is of not much interest to them. I was always interested in how the organization functioned. When I went to Superior Court, I went on the executive committee, which you are elected by your peers, and then I was a Supervising Judge in two different areas. I ran for assistant presiding judge and then presiding judge.
There are some people who enjoy doing their particular work that's coming through their chambers. You have that interest. Whatever we have an interest in, we excel at too. If you are interested in that and want to move that forward, then that's a great role to have of a presiding judge and having an impact on how the overall system functions.
You don't learn how a court is funded or organized, how you timely adjudicate cases, or what resources are available. It's on-the-job training for all presiding judges. They start and understand their organization and their court, and they learn on the job. I remember when I was the assistant presiding judge, being in a meeting with our Court Executive Officer, Alan Slater, at the time, who was excellent. They were talking about HVAC.
I thought, “If I listen long enough, I will figure out the meaning of the word based on the sentence.” The meeting went on for 10 or 15 minutes, and I still had no idea what the county was talking about with HVAC. I wrote him a little note and said, “HVAC?” He writes back, “Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning.” I said, “Thanks. We are not going to be able to give them much input or be very impressive here if I don't know what it is they're talking about.”
You are like, “Could I learn the lingo? Thank you.”
That's why I always try. When we are talking to judges in other areas or talking to people outside the law, all the acronyms we have, and even in our funding acronyms, I try and say, “What is that emotion or something? You try and explain it in simple English so people understand.”
You are empathetic to that. You understand, and you want to have people engaged in the process.
If people are hesitant to say, “I'm sorry, I don't know what that means,” because they think, “Do I look stupid?” It's like, “No. You understand our process.”
Especially when it's the lingo, you are like, “I'm going to show that I don't know what's going on because I don't know this particular phrase.”
Judges that come to the bench usually go into a civil. I could go from a civil practice into a criminal assignment, and criminal lawyers are notorious for speaking in numbers, pitching motions, and these motions. You have no idea what they are talking about. I always encourage judges to tell the lawyers, “Speak English. Tell me what that is.” When people said things like, “I got 998 in my trial.” I was like, “What does that mean?” Making it understandable to everybody is stepping in the right direction.
From the trial bench to the Court of Appeal, they are different, as we discussed already. What caused you to think, “This would be a good challenge at this point in my career?”
I was starting my third year as Presiding Judge. I had been the Assistant Presiding Judge for two years. I knew that at the end of five years, I would be going back to some assignment in Superior Court. I was trying to decide what I wanted to do. People were saying, “What about the Court of Appeal?” I thought about it and thought, “The challenge is the Court of Appeal. It’s very different,” because it's a deeper intellectual dive that we take. We have more time to think about things, and we are influencing California jurisprudence. In a trial, you are making a significant decision about these litigants. It's going to impact those litigants. When we decide on a case, sometimes it has a greater impact, and it involves a lot of different people.
From an advocate perspective, that's what I love about appellate practice. We can help our clients but we can also help establish a law that is helpful to other people. That can happen with one case, which can be very satisfying from an advocate's perspective.
I was on the trial court for so long. I was on the trial court for eighteen years before I came to the Court of Appeals. I felt like I understood the role of trial judges. When I came, my mission in deciding cases, if I found that a judge had erred, was to suggest how another way it could have been handled. It was always very frustrating when you got reversed and it's like, “How could I have done it? What's the right path?”
Sometimes even when I see something that it's not a reversible error but there might be a better way to do it. I will suggest an opinion or an alternate way to perhaps handle this would have been to. You can educate the trial courts. For the most part, the trial judges are happy because they know we have more time to think about these things than they do. They are making decision after decision without the benefit of the time and resources we have.
Think about that when you are writing the opinions in terms of your providing guidance for the future, for the trial judges as well.
That's very helpful. The other thing is when we render an opinion, “How is that going to work in real life? Are they supposed to have a hearing or are they going to decide it on the papers?” It’s to give them a real practical sense of what it is we think needs to happen in the trial court instead of the old proceedings consistent with this opinion. That tells the trial court nothing. It tells the lawyers nothing. You won't see that out of this court anymore. I haven’t in a long time.
I thought everybody brings their experiences to the bench and also to the appellate court, and having that trial court experience gives you that sense of, “We want to be pragmatic and practical about the decisions in terms of the judge trial judges are going to be reading this and what should they do the next time?”
How does this work in real life? Judge Manrique, who had so much experience in juvenile court, brings a different perspective. Judge Sanchez had so much experience in Family Law. It's nice that we have judges that practiced in different areas that sat in different departments so that they give us a different perspective.
What advice would you have for advocates then in terms of brief writing or oral argument in terms of making your decision-making easier?
Both in terms of brief writing and oral argument, being concise and persuasively making a statement that what your position is. A lot of times, the court should do this but if not, it could do this. If not that, it could do that, and it loses it. I understand you want to have backup positions but come on strong with what you want us to do and why we should do it. That helps both in your briefing and an oral argument.
In an oral argument, if you are asked a question, answer it. That seems simple. I can't tell you how many times we ask a lawyer a question and get an unresponsive answer. It may be that we've asked something that you are not familiar with but you will have more credibility with the court if you say, “Your Honor, I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that case. I don't know where that is in the record or I would need to give that some thought.” You can always ask to file a letter of a brief. “If it's important to the court, I could file a letter brief but I apologize. I don't know the answer now.” When that happens to me, I will ask the question a second time because maybe I wasn't clear. If I get another nonresponsive answer, I give up.
That's a missed opportunity, then. That is oral arguments or the last opportunity to have a discussion about the case.
That's what it should be as a discussion. Sometimes lawyers come in with very prepared remarks, and again, you should have a plan. You should have prepared remarks. You should be flexible because if you find that the justices are all asking about a particular area, we are asking those questions because we are interested. That may be a positive issue in this case. Spend your time answering those questions, not just reading from your list, because your list of other issues might not be as important to us as the issues we are asking about.
Listening is important in terms of listening to where the court is coming from and what the court is interested in or concerned about too.
After lawyers have come to the Court of Appeal and argued a number of times, they feel more comfortable. When lawyers first argued before the Court of Appeal, they were a little nervous, intimidated, and missing opportunities. When Justice Fybel was on the court, we used to always laugh because it was, “Why can't anybody hit your softballs?” He would say, “Counsel, the XYZ case is consistent with your position, isn't it?” You would think the lawyer would say, “Yes.”
Honestly, about 80% of the time, they thought it was a trick question, and we would get off the bench and laugh and go, “Rich, those softballs are killing people.” “I'm just trying to help. It's a good case for them, and I set it up for them, and then they don't hit it.” The judges can be your friends sometimes with questions.
Sometimes people go in expecting to be like this. The judge isn't asking a helpful question but that's part of the listening go, “That's helpful. Yes. Good point. That's a great case. Yes, exactly.”
It should be a conversation, not a confrontation but sometimes, it gets off track.
Your division is very respectful, and there isn't that going on.
We certainly try and be respective, and this court enjoys oral argument. When I go to statewide conferences, I’ve heard justices say, “The oral argument is next week.” They think it's very time-consuming and tedious. It is time-consuming and can be tedious, but the most fun part of the job is getting to interact with the lawyers and see what they have to say. Sometimes, lawyers will wave on waive arguments on a case, and we are disappointed. “We would've liked to talk about this one.”
That's what I was going to say. I'm like, “No, don't do that,” if you have the opportunity. At least in our courts, it's the party's choice, not the courts telling you whether you are going to have arguments.
You can always come to the argument and say, “I’ve filed my briefs. I'm confident that I’ve covered everything in my briefs but does the court have any questions?” If we do, then we can say, “Yes. As a matter of fact, we have a question.” That sometimes is very helpful when we might have a split panel. We think, “I’ve tried to convince my colleague of my position but maybe you can convince him.” I ask some questions hoping that you will argue your position and that may resonate with my colleague, and he may change his position.
Everyone says, “We hear argument never changes anything.” It doesn't change every case, and admittedly, it's a small percentage of cases but how do you know yours isn't in that small percentage? I can't tell you ahead of time which cases the argument is going to matter in but it matters to different degrees and in different cases. Sometimes we say, “After an argument, we may have gotten this one wrong. Let's take a look at writing it the other way.” Other times, it's a particular issue or part of the opinion but arguments can make a difference.
That's certainly been my experience, and I don't think you can predict as an advocate either, which case that's going to be that it's going to make a difference in. It can, and sometimes it's framing things, reframing something or things that are in the record that you piece together. As you are preparing for an argument, you go, “Here's what was going on here. That matters in this case when I can see the big picture here.” You can see it matters to the panel as well. Never give up that opportunity if it's your decision.
When you reframe an argument, sometimes it will cause a light bulb to go off with us. It's like, “That's not the way they structured it in their brief but now I get it. I see what they are saying.”
I think of it as everybody understands things a little bit differently, and you explain it one way that resonates with one person. You explain it a bit differently. It resonates with someone else. Sometimes even as a lawyer, as you are preparing for an argument, you think, “I’ve got this. I wrote the brief.” Even then, sometimes you yourself can see different things and, in the reframing, say, “That's important to me. That might be important for the court to see and explain it that way. That might make a difference in how they look at it.” Sometimes you can see that happen in real-time, and it's pretty neat.
You think, “I'm glad I didn't waive argument in this case.” Sometimes I’ve seen a justice from the bench said, “Because this happened before that happened, isn't that significant?” The lawyer says, “Your Honor, no. That's not the sequence of events.” The justice says, “It's not?” “No.” “These two parties were aligned.” “No, your Honor, they aren't.” If you look at the deposition of X, you will see where they weren't. We read the record carefully, and our lawyers read the record carefully but we can make mistakes.
It’s better to straighten it out there than get an opinion that relies on a fact that it's not 100% correct and then has to file a petition for rehearing. That's a lot of extra work for everybody. Get it straight at arguments, so we know when we are writing that opinion that we what the sequence of events was or what the alignments were.
That's exactly how I’ve seen it matter as well. That discussion like, “Actually, it was this way,” and it may not have been totally clear from the transcript or what have you and makes the difference even if with regard to the reasoning. It can be useful. It's good to hear you say that too because I'm like, “That's what I’ve seen,” but you've seen a lot more than I have, so that's very encouraging. What kind of advice would you give to someone who might think that they might want to join the bench someday?
The first step is finding a job that you enjoy and that you find meaningful because you will probably do well at a job that you get a good feeling about it and something that you would be passionate about. Doing whatever job you have well and with some passion, you will get recognized. People will notice you. I wish there were some secret to say, “A certain kind of job, getting to know certain people, getting involved in certain organizations.” I don't think there's a formula for getting on the bench. Getting a job that you like, that you can dig your teeth into, that you are enthused about, one that will inspire you to work hard, then you will get noticed.
Find a job that you enjoy, that you find meaningful.
I do think getting involved in the legal community is important. Getting involved in the Bar Association or any of the specialty Bar Associations and getting involved in ends of the court those things help you. You will learn tips from interacting with other lawyers and judges. We are very fortunate in Orange County to have a great legal community. Honestly, I’ve seen legal communities all over the state, and I’ve heard judges talk about their communities. We are pretty remarkable in how well the bench and the bar collaborate on things and the involvement of the bench in activities. Also, how much the bar helps the court.
I know particularly when funding, funding is the first thing that comes to mind when I was in the trial court. The biggest champions for funding for the court were the attorneys. They were going to the legislature. They were arguing why we needed more resources in the courts. That was very helpful. Getting involved in some way in the legal community, whatever works, for you, is important.
I say that also to newer attorneys that it's important for them to get out and to know and meet people in the community, serve the community, and have more than the experience of the particular hallway they might be in their office. It's enriching to them, to their career. They are enriching to the community. It’s it makes it a lot more enjoyable and well-rounded to practice law, especially here in Orange County, where there is a lot of collegiality both among the lawyers and between the bench and the bar. It's very rewarding.
You should remember that if you are going to apply for the bench and be on the bench that it is public service. It's not going to reward you financially as private practice does. You need to be aware of that. There are some judges that are on the bench for a while and think, “We don't make them enough money. Why can't we get raises?” We do get raises but it's not like you didn't know the salary when you started. It is distressing for some judges when they see what a third-year lawyer is making in a private firm but you can always leave and go practice. There are a lot of people who would love to have your job but you do need to understand that there are financial limitations when you are on the bench.
Also, there are limitations in terms of politically how involved you can be in certain causes and things, and judges will say, “The American Heart Association is such a good organization.” It is. No one says it's not, but you can't raise funds for them. I can't but I did as a lawyer. Endorsing in political races, other than judges, we can't endorse anyone.
For some people, when they get on the bench, if they have been very active in politics, in their local politics, it's frustrating for them. There are limitations to your involvement. There are even limitations to certainly on your spouse in terms of what they can't hold out a couple as being supportive. It's unusual. I know some people laugh and they go, “If my spouse did that, they would think we got a divorce.” He didn't mention my name because we have been John and Sally for 42 years. If she says, “Sally. They are going to think I got a divorce.” It's like, “I know, but she can't say John and Sally anymore because you are a judge.”
People who are engaged politically or in the community, which a lot of people are before they come to the bench, that's definitely a change. There's a lot of opportunity as well. Some people have talked about the convening role that judges can have to convene people and bring people to the table to discuss certain issues of the community. Nothing direct, not in the way you mentioned.
You can't advocate for a political clause but to try and reach a consensus among people, settling cases that involve government entities. If you talk, you bring them in, sit down at the table and say, “Where do we want to be?” You are not going to get it all your way but what's the solution? What's the halfway point for both of you?” Some people are energized by conflict, and I don't mean that in a bad way but I mean the fight. That's the competition. They love being practitioners. That's great.
Other people are energized by the solution. “We solved that. We have a resolution.” You have to know what person you are and what you find most satisfying because if you are a judge that has a hard time leaving combat, that's a problem. A lot of trialers will say, “Where's the judge? Would they stay on the bench and do his or her job? I don't need him meddling in my case.” That's hard for some people. They think, “That's not how I would've cross-examined that person. Counsel, aren't you going to offer this? What about this exhibit?” You have to be engaged and neutral.
Let them litigate the case. It was what you said in that regard that made the light bulb go off for me in terms of thinking about what you value and what you enjoy being part of. I was thinking of Judge Dorothy Nelson, who I externed for, and I was thinking, “She's perfect for the role that she has for the judicial role.” Even before being on the bench, she loved bringing people together, negotiating, mediating, and finding a solution. That was what she enjoyed. I thought, “That makes sense. That's a good match for her.”
That was one of the things too that I liked about being in PJ. It is reaching a consensus because you are one among equals. You may have the title but you don't have any authority. It's not like the senior partner in a law firm that says, “If you don't do better, you are not getting your bonus.” You don't have any leverage over your colleagues. To be able to inspire them and build consensus is gratifying when you get people to agree. They may not agree 100% with you but if you get them to a point where they say, “You've convinced me this is at least something we should try, let's do it.” For me, that was always very satisfying.
I was thinking back to your comment about going to law school and the state department and this and that, and I thought, “There's a lot of diplomacies involved in the presiding judge position, so there's a fit there.”
People say that the presiding judge is like herding cats because they are all going different ways. I say, “That's not docile cats. It's like herding cats that are in heat. They are a little nasty sometimes.”
You are right. When you describe it that way, you are all at the same level like you said.
There is a hierarchy. You have a certain authority in terms of the Supreme Court to make assignments. If an employee violated a personnel rule, there could be consequences for the employee. You withhold a promotion or do something along those lines. With one of your judges, you have to persuade them that you shouldn't be doing it.
Of course, you can go to the Commission on Judicial Performance. For most PJs, that's the nuclear option. They think, “I can modify the behavior if I explain to the judge why this isn't appropriate, then hopefully, the judge can modify the behavior.” All you have is the power of persuasion or the Commission on Judicial Performance, which is extremes.
I was like, “That's back to your initial skills, and interests are definitely part of your success as a presiding judge. Thank you so much for sitting down and having this discussion and talking about your role and your career. I appreciated your participation in this. In closing, typically, I will ask a few lightning-round questions. The first one is, what talent would you like to have but don't?
I would love to have some musical talent, play the piano, and carry a tune because I can do neither. I'm the one that, when they sing happy birthday, I just mouth the words.
There needs to be those who appreciate music and those who can create music. We need you for the music appreciation. Who are some of your favorite writers?
It's interesting because since coming to the Court of Appeal, I do very little reading outside of work.
I was wondering because you do so much.
We read so much but usually, magazines, novels, and fantasy things, so there's no particular author that inspires me. I try and escape and find fun things to read.
I was on a legal writing, appellate writing panel with Appellate Justice from Illinois, David Ellis, who is a mystery writer, and things like that. He writes whole novels in addition to his opinions. I don't know how he does that.
I guess if you are passionate about writing. I'm passionate about resolving things. I write to get a result, and the result is what energizes me. For some people, writing is energizing for them.
What in life are you most grateful for?
I'm most grateful for my parents because my father came from a very poor family and lived through depression. My mother's father was a lawyer. Hers was a much more affluent family. Both of them had enlightened views in terms of what their daughter could do. They were sure the only reason I didn't climb Mount Everest was that I hadn't thought of it. They thought I could do anything. In fact, I remember that at one point, I wanted to be a nurse, and my dad said, “Why be a nurse? Be a doctor.” That's pretty amazing for people born in 1916 and 1918.
That is so important, especially for girls but to have the family and the parents have that perspective that’s like, “Sky's the limit. Whatever you want to do.” It's very helpful. It helps you dream.
They will ask, “What made you think you could be a lawyer or a judge?” I never thought it couldn't be. I didn't have those negative influences. Education was important to them and me, so they made sure I went to good schools. For them, who knows?
It sets the tone and your own mindset about what's possible. It has fathers who are that way which is helpful. My dad was that way. Even his little bit older brothers didn't have the same perspective as their children and especially their daughters. I feel lucky for that too.
I’ve heard from other women who said, “My father thought it was a joke when I said I was going to go to college.” “Really?” “Yeah. College was for my brothers, not for me.”
You think, “What a difference that makes right out. You don't set limits on yourself.”
Your family does nurture you, and then you form a lot of your impressions and values, all based on what you learned growing up with your parents.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a dinner guest for a dinner party?
Michelle Obama. She is so accomplished. She’s a brilliant lawyer. She had to be the first lady. That's got to be a tough job for the president. What exactly is your job, and how do you make it meaningful? A great mom. It seems like she was a great daughter to her mother and still making a difference in the world. She had a lot of challenges and overcame them all. She would be fascinating. There are a million questions I would like to ask her about how she did certain things and why. She has a good sense of humor too.
It would be a fun conversation. Last question. What is your motto, if you have one?
I’ve mentioned this before. “There is no shame in failing. There's shame in failing to try.” If you want to stay in your little comfort zone and never take a risk, you are never going to get ahead. When you take a risk, and if it doesn't work out, then own it. You made a mistake, learn from the mistake, and move on. You can't sit with your head on the ground and not do anything. You need to keep moving forward.
That's a great way to close. I hope that's a good inspirational way to close and send people off with that in mind and be a good way to have their mindset for the rest of the day.
Anything is possible. You got to remember that. Thanks very much for doing this.
Justice O’Leary, thank you so much for joining the show. I appreciate it.