Episode 125: Martha L. Walters
00:47:50
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Lee Walters shares her path to the bench with host MC Sungaila, including founding her own women-owned law firm that was involved with some of the most high profile and pathbreaking civil rights cases of the time. Chief Justice Walters discusses the importance of continuing to make sure that the justice system is accessible to, and a helpful forum for, members of the public and their disputes.
Relevant episode link:
Chief Justice Walters , Justice Rhonda Wood – Previous Episode , Rasa Public Benefit Corporation , People Clerk , Gilead , An Immense World , The Threepenny Review
About Martha L. Walters:
Martha Lee Walters was elected by her colleagues as Oregon’s 44th Chief Justice, and began service on July 1, 2018. First appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Ted Kulongoski in 2006, elected in 2008; reelected in 2014. Co-Chair of the Tribal Court/State Court Forum (since 2016); Court’s Representative to the Oregon Law Commission (since 2006); Private practice: Walters Chanti & Zennache, PC (2004-2006); Walters Romm Chanti & Dickens, PC (1995-2004); Walters Romm & Chanti, PC (1992-1995) Swanson & Walters, PC (1985-1992); Harrang, Swanson, Long & Watkinson (1977-1985), trial practice in state and federal courts, including employment and civil rights litigation; general practice, including business advice, municipal law and domestic relations. American College of Trial Lawyers (since 1999) ; Uniform Law Commission; President (2007-2009); Co-Chair State and Federal Relations Committee (2013-2018) and Member (since 1992);American Law Institute (since 2004); Judicial Conference of the Ninth Circuit (1992-1995); American Board of Trial Advocates (since 2017); Fellow of the American Bar Foundation (since 1998); Direction Service; Board Member (1998-2006); Classroom Law Project; Mock Trial Coach (since 2012); University of Oregon School of Law Distinguished Service Award (2011). B.A., with distinction, University of Michigan (1972); J.D., Order of the Coif, University of Oregon School of Law, (1977). Married to John H. VanLandingham IV; two adult children.
Transcript
I'm pleased to have joined us on the show, Chief Justice Walters from the Oregon Supreme Court. Welcome, Chief.
Thank you very much for having me. I'm glad to be here.
Thank you so much for participating in this. One of the great things, especially about having justices on different State Supreme Courts, is that we get to learn in a civics lesson all the different ways that people can join the bench and how the states have different systems for doing that, whether it is appointed, elected, or some mixture of that.
The role, especially as chief justice, that the state Supreme Court plays in the judicial system overall, that maybe people may not know that you have this administrative role in many cases. Both of those are broader educational things, as well as your journey to the bench in your legal career in inspiring others to think about whether they might want to do it. First, I wanted to start with how it was that you decided you wanted to go to law school or become a lawyer. What interested you about that?
My undergrad degree was in Sociology. I decided the most important thing I could do would be to work in childcare because adults had already messed up the world, and the kids were the future. I did that for a couple of years, and I liked that service work. It was hard, rewarding work. I felt like I didn't have the expertise, knowledge, and training for people to listen to me and for me to make a broader impact. I could make these individual impacts and do the service, but I wanted to do more. I thought maybe law would be something I could learn and where I could maybe have more of an impact. I lived out in Oregon. I only applied to the Oregon Law School because I was not about to move. I got in and started out.
The adults already messed up the world. The kids are the future.
What you said about having a broader impact and having the respect or perceived authority from having the legal training is something I have heard from others who have said, “I went to law school for some particular topic or something I was interested in doing. I could accomplish more broadly through doing that.” Did you end up doing work in that area, or did you not at legal work?
I didn't represent children, but I represented people and gave them a voice. I did a lot of Employment Law, Discrimination Law, and Civil Rights Law. It was an opportunity to allow people to speak and use the law to make the change. I was fortunate in the type of work I did. I loved my work as a lawyer.
Chief Justice, you had an interesting point in regard to being open-minded about things once you go into law school. You had an interest and a reason to go to law school. You found other ways to have a meaningful career and to advocate for others. Some of that is being open-minded during the law school experience about the various other opportunities and other kinds of law that you come across when you are in law school that you might not have known about at all before going to law school.
I didn't know about the law at all. I didn't have an area of law in mind at all. I had in mind that I wanted to learn what the law was as it forms a basis for our societal relationships. I thought that is a good thing to know and that it would be a good thing to be able to help others. I didn't know what it is worth was, or I had to learn what a plaintiff was. I was oblivious to have the law works.
Hopefully, we learned that in law school and got some great practice experience to see how the law operates after that. Tell me about your practice and what work you did as an advocate before joining the bench.
I went into general civil practice, although our firm was a city attorney. There were some violations that we prosecuted, but mainly it was a civil practice and ran the range. I did whatever I was assigned to do. One thing that happened early on was a client came into our office with a question about whether she had been wrongfully discharged. At that time, there was no such thing as Employment Law as a subject matter area of practice. I delved into what I could think of to help her and tried one of the early cases of wrongful discharge. I delved into my area of practice because no one else was doing it.
I also represent the city of Drain, which is a tiny little town that got involved in the contract to do its part in building a nuclear power plant. I learned Constitutional Law, whether that hell or high water cost and that contract was constitutional. It was a mishmash of interesting things at the beginning. I went into practice with two other women after I had been a partner in my original firm for a while.
I started my own firm and ended up with one of the first all-women firms in Oregon. There were three of us. We did a lot of Employment Law, Discrimination, Civil Rights Law, Family Law, Business Law, and City Law. We got to take the cases we wanted to take and give voice to the people we wanted to help. It was pretty fantastic work.
There are many interesting things in what you said.
I had a fabulous experience as a lawyer.
I couldn't imagine putting your head around the idea that Employment Law is ripe and vibrant with many different aspects to it to think that that was early in that time. Justice Rhonda Wood from the Arkansas Supreme Court was on the show. She talked about something similar with regard to HIPAA and privacy concerns in the medical arena. That was coming into being when she was starting her practice. She said, “I can do that. I can learn that and become the go-to expert in that. There isn't someone who has many years of experience in it that I'm competing with coming out.”
We are all learning and starting in this new area. The idea of new areas like that is a great opportunity to learn, shape the law and carve out an area of practice for yourself. The second part is creating the firm, especially a women-owned firm, which even now still is rare, but how did that come about? Did you know your cofounders of the firm from working together previously? How did you come together?
We had a small firm, and our senior partner was moving on. He and I were the only partners. He did decide what to do. I looked at joining other firms in one of the associates in my firm. I decided maybe we could try things on our own. There was another woman who was thinking about leaving her firm. We had similar interests. We joined up the three of us and created a partnership.
Sometimes it is a mystery. Sometimes people don't think you could start your own firm and work with others. I was wondering how that came about organically to some degree and being open to that.
It is scary to start your own from the economic challenges of it. We were starting our families. The idea of taking on the line of credit was scary. The three of us became best friends and helped each other in all aspects of our lives. It was a real partnership in a lot of different ways.
That is such a great story.
It was a great experience. We were very fortunate.
In many ways, you did interesting work, had a successful practice, and had great relationships with your colleagues. That is pretty satisfying. I have a question for you. Why would you leave that?
One of my partners died of breast cancer. We lost her, and that was hard. Suzanne and I were left. We have added some people to the firm. It wasn't the two of us, but I got a call from a mentor saying if I would be willing to put my name in for this position on the Supreme Court. I hadn't been a trial-level judge or an appellate judge, and I hadn't even done much appellate work, but there hadn't been a woman on the court in several years. There had been women on our Supreme Court, but there was a period where there had not been, and there was a justice lead thing who had done a people practice before he went on the bench.
They were looking for diversity in terms of practice and geography. My practice was downstate, not in the big city of Portland. They were looking for that diversity. I got this call, “Would you be willing to consider this?” It was a hard decision. It was hard on my firm and my friendship. I thought maybe it would be good to try something new, and I could be of help in a new way.
There are some common threads in that story, which is one that I was hoping that the show would play a role for others is that very often, especially for women who apply to the bench, somebody invites them to do it or suggests that they should. That is usually the entree to it. For whatever reason, we tend not to throw our hat in the ring unless we are invited to in that way. That is important.
I was on my way, hoping that those who read the blog don't have someone who says that to them and that at least they can read it. Maybe there will be someone that resonates with them that says, “They have a common path to mine. They didn't know a lot of people, but they still applied, and they became a judge. Maybe that is something I should consider.” I think of that as I hope that maybe we'll have that impact on someone, and we will never know who it is, but hopefully, it will put people on the path.
That is the case with a lot of my friends and the stories of those who have been on the show. Somebody reached out to them and suggested that they consider it, and for the reasons you mentioned, there are diverse experiences. There haven't been women on the bench or the court for a while. You think about it seriously when somebody you respect in particular says that to you.
People need to put themself forward because we don't always have connections with the diverse people who we need to go on the bench. If we look for people we know to advance us, that is not going to get us what we need in terms of the broad range of experience we need on the bench. I hope your readers will read and think if it sounds interesting to you to figure out ways to put yourself forward because we need you.
The second part of that is the sense at a certain stage of your career that there is another way for you to serve and contribute to the community, the larger good and the justice system. Sometimes that way is the bench, sometimes it is other things, but there is a point in your career where you might start thinking, “There are other ways that I can contribute that I might consider.”
We have to keep moving and challenging ourselves. We can't do only what seems to fit. We can, but it is fun and scary, but good to keep trying new things.
You started a law firm and going directly to the Supreme Court. What you pointed out is unique. In many cases, and in many states, in particular, there is an expectation. You start in the trial court, go to the Intermediate Court of Appeal, and go to the Supreme Court. There are a few people who have gone directly to the Supreme Court. I interviewed Justice Carney on the Alaska Supreme Court. That is exactly what she did from a public defender position to straight to the Alaska Supreme Court. The two of you have a unique route. Now that you have been on the court, what do you enjoy about it? Has it been the opportunity to serve that you hoped it would be?
I enjoyed it. When I first went on the court, what was fascinating to me was that you didn't lose the opportunity to be an advocate. You could be an advocate with your colleagues for the opinion you felt was correct. I was glad of that because I was afraid that it would be studious and I wouldn't have that chance to be an advocate, which I thought I would miss, but that was there. It was interesting to study. It broadened my knowledge of the law because I hadn't done much Criminal Law I had represented.
When you first serve on the court, you don't lose the opportunity to be an advocate.
Police officers, I knew something about their profession, but I didn't know a lot about Search and Seizure Law and all the Constitutional Law that we would need to apply. I learned a lot. It was a huge learning curve, and that is always fun. Becoming chief justice has given me huge opportunities to learn. I have enjoyed that immensely.
I have found one of the great benefits of appellate practices that the Substantive Law that you are engaged with is broad, and it keeps it interesting as a result of that. It keeps you on your toes, but it keeps it interesting. I could see that. That often is the concern. You become a judge in part because you were a skilled advocate, and you think, “I'm not going to be the advocate anymore.” There is that component to it, especially when you are not a single-member bench. When you have colleagues, you need to reach some consensus and things like that.
It is great because how often do you get to exchange ideas and go head to head with somebody who is as immersed in a subject and knowledgeable about it as you are? You are often having conversations where not everybody has studied, gathered information and thought about something in as great a detail as happens when you are discussing with your colleagues. It is that intellectual interchange with your colleagues that is electrifying.
That would keep you engaged, and it would be interesting because you have people who are at the same level in terms of where they are in the case and what they know about the record and the case. That would be fun and engaging. Tell me about the chief justice position. That is one that you are chosen by your peers. It is different. Sometimes it is elected directly or pointed externally by the governor to that position, but yours is by your peers. Do you have in that role particular beyond deciding cases with your colleagues? Are there additional roles you have with the court system and the state Supreme Court through the Chief Justice?
At least in Oregon, you are the administrative head of the judicial branch of government, which in our state is about 200 judges and about 1,700 staff throughout the state. You are responsible for going to the legislature and getting the budget that you need to operate the courts, making the rules for the courts, and making sure that things are operating as they should when COVID happens. You are making sure that your courts stay open, trying to lead to provide access to justice, trying to provide more equity on the courts and trying to make the system work better for the people it serves. It is a huge challenge. It is exciting and rewarding.
That is something that I have heard from other chief justices of other state's Supreme Courts, some of whom had said, “I didn't realize how much impact members of the court, especially the chief justice, can have in states where you are administering the justice system at large as well as deciding the cases in front of you.” That is a whole different level of impact that you can have.
I want to talk a little bit about following up on your point about there is this dialogue back and forth between your colleagues in deciding cases. There is also dialogue with counsel at oral arguments and the briefs that attorneys submit. I was wondering what advice you might give about both of those oral arguments and brief writing for an advocate to be the most helpful to the court and the most useful in your debates back and forth with each other.
There are a couple of things that I have learned, and even though I have done a lot of poet arguments, I hadn't thought of it this way, but a couple of the previous guests who were also appellate advocates before going on the bench said, “I didn't realize that there is a difference, especially oral argument, the role it plays for the justices that it is one part of before we get in to talk with each other.” The oral argument for an advocate is the end. It is the last opportunity to talk to the court. For the members of the court, that is one part of the decision-making process.
The second part is that we are looking for ways to write an opinion, and sometimes advocates aren't always thinking about that when they are arguing with us. They were like, “Help us write an opinion. What do we need to do to write that opinion?” I thought those were two different perspectives that I hadn't crystallized myself as being, “Those are important. If I think about it that way, it guides how I present things.” I was wondering if you had any pearls of wisdom or thoughts about that in terms of oral argument.
I don't know about pearls of wisdom, but you are right. We are going to write what the rule is. We don't care as much about whether you win or lose as we get the rule, and we apply it. You have to help us with that rule. You can't say, “On these facts, we win.” We got to be able to articulate something that's going to apply beyond your case. That is important.
Especially at the Supreme Court level, you are deciding law and policy for the state. It needs to work in a lot of different contexts. What about brief fighting? Are there particular ways? Do you review briefs in a certain order? Is there something you look at first? Some people start with the reply brief, and some judges read the table of contents. I’m wondering how you approach that.
I don't have any particular way to do it. In terms of writing your brief, it needs to confront the weaknesses that you know you have. We are looking for that both in the brief writing and oral argument. If you are not willing to face up to the real problem you got, you have to be able to answer it. Don't wait for the reply brief to answer it if you are the appellant.
That is a good point because it is better to engage with the tough questions than to be an ostrich about them.
It is the same thing with oral arguments. Don't wait until the court asks you. Dive right into what is hard for you.
That can be hard and scary sometimes. You were like, “It is the tough part.”
You are hoping, “Maybe they won't notice it. Why should I bring it up?”
That is the difference. Sometimes in the trial court, things are moving fast, and in the Court of Appeal, things are much more deliberative. If your colleague on the other side does not mention an argument, it doesn't mean you shouldn't think about it and address it yourself because the court, the research attorneys and law clerks will be looking at it. You want to get the law right, not only for that case but for other cases. You have to have a much broader approach and look at things than responding to arguments by the other side. If you identify something that could be a problem, you need to figure out what you are going to say about that because certainly, the court will see it.
Be careful not to overstate. That is the worst. You lose all credibility. You got to make sure you are not overstating the law or the facts.
That is a good point in accordance with the standard of review. You are not like, “Yes, this is my perfect view.” You don't get everything in your favor.
Even knowing the standard of the brief is something that we always see people struggling with. It is hard. It is the basis for everything. You are right. That is an important thing to key in on.
You mentioned that a mentor had recommended that you consider applying to the bench. I wanted to go back to the idea of mentors and sponsors, what that means to you, and what that looks like. A lot of law students, in particular, even new lawyers, are told, “You need to get a mentor.” They scratch their head and go, “That’s great.” What does that mean? How does that show up? What does mentoring look like when it is happening? Sometimes people have some idea of what that is, and sometimes, they have no idea at all.
It is the people who you work with generally. It is either at law school, a professor or somebody in a clinic. It is always the people you work for, your bosses and colleagues. I don't know that I ever identified somebody as my mentor and thought, “I'm going to go after this person as a mentor.” Whoever you are working with is teaching you a lot. If you do a good job, they are going to recommend you for the next things.
Stay willing to ask. I have been terrible at that. If the people you are working with aren't teaching you, you are going to have to go and ask somebody else. You are going to have to be willing to say, “I have to do this. I have been terrible at it. What can I do better? Can you help me? What committees should I join? Can you give me ideas on this?” I don’t know. I never was any good at doing that.
If the people you're working with aren't teaching you, you're going to have to be willing to ask.
Everybody says to do that too, but I'm always like, “Asking for help or advice can be challenging for some of us.”
When I joined the court, I had no idea what I was doing. Did I go to all the judges and say, “What is this job about? How do I do it?” I didn't do that because I thought one was supposed to know that. I should have, and that is how it should be. None of us know what we are doing, so we ask people. Even if you don't, there will be people you will be learning from and do a good job.
Doing the best that you can in the role that you have is important. I always think about mentors as people who see something in you sometimes before you do. Sometimes they see potential in you and suggest things or provide opportunities for you. You were like, “I don't see myself that way.” Somebody sees something in you.
That is kind when people are willing to do that.
When you have people willing to do that, you try to pay it forward and do that for others when you see something in them. It is the only way to be able to give back for that and say thank you to those who have, although a lot of the time, you don't know that. As I have gone on in my career, I realize that there are probably people who have helped or supported me and others at various points.
There were in the room saying nice things or whatever was helpful, but we will never know who that is. As a result, it is to do the same in turn for those who would benefit from it, doing good work, and deserve that support and advocacy. I have to go back to your answer when you said, “I probably should have asked some of my colleagues, how do we do this?” How did you adjust to being on the bench? How did you dig in and learn your craft as a judge?
I started to read the briefs. I have to work harder, study more and take the time. There is never any shortcut.
Were there any judges whose opinions, writing style or anything like that impacted how you write your opinions?
Yes, but I never studied it. I can't say I'm a good student at that. Probably more by instinct than by having studied and tried to follow.
It is instinct, but instinct is based on years of experience. It is grounded in all your experience beforehand.
It is that some people are good at articulating what they have learned. Some people can teach judicial writing because they can look at it from above and say, “Here is how you connect to paragraphs,” because they have thought about it in those terms. I'm not able to do that as well as some others.
I also think that at some point, that is why it is valuable to either follow someone in seeing what they do or look at the edits back and forth in what someone is doing. At a certain point, for a lot of us, there are things we don't articulate that we go, “This is the best way to do this and the clearest way.” People are scratching their heads, and you were like, “I can't explain it, but this is what we are going to do here.” What have you done, as chief justice, in that particular role that you are most proud of?
What I have been trying to do is help the trial court judges to understand how important their roles are, thank them for that work, bring them together, and empower them to think about how best our system can work for the people we serve. I don't think that our courts have thought about their roles as serving the people so much as people come to us, and we provide answers to them.
It is important to provide access to justice and procedural fairness. People will have trust and confidence in the courts, so they will trust the government as a whole because we, as a people, the rule of law is an important thing in holding us together, but it only operates if people believe in it and follows it. We don't have any system that can make people do that. We can, to some extent, but that only works in a narrow band. The rest have to follow because they believe it is the right thing to do.
That is a fragile thing. It is something that our trial judges and our trial court staff are responsible for. If people come to the courts and they don't feel like they have been heard or have an opportunity to have their disputes resolved, they lose all faith in the law. They will be less likely to follow it, and everything will fall apart. I have been working hard on that. It is a huge undertaking, but it is important.
That became tangible to me. I have worked on some human rights cases in the human rights courts. You realize the reason the human rights courts are involved is that, in large part, the court system within the country, the legal system, was not operating properly. You are coming in to help implement International Law in a venue in which Domestic Law has already failed some of it systemically within the court system. That is when you realize, at least I did, how important it is.
People follow the law when they have faith in it. When it is completely crumbled, you have to go outside and impose something from the international arena in the Domestic Law of the state. In a system where the court system was not operating, to begin with, that is why you did that. It makes you realize it is important to the fabric of society. That, in part, is what the international courts are trying to do. They buck that up, get the domestic system in alignment, and have that faith.
It is fascinating that you have had that experience. I don't know if you can. I don't know where it has to start. Everything started with the people affected by it. Certainly, the murder of George Floyd brought home to us that our own system is not a system that people feel is fair in many instances. We got a real challenge right at home in terms of whether we have a system that operates equitably. We have to face up to that and take a hard look at it.
What you said earlier is important in that regard and fragile in terms of people having that trust and faith in the system. As you mentioned, what they encounter is that particular trial judge in a particular case, and that impacts their view of the rule of law, the law and the justice system at large. That experience is important to the continued sense of legitimacy of the court system and our rule of law.
That tells you something about the importance of our jobs. It's huge. We don't think about it, we think about it as a particular case or decision, but the system has to work for all. It is important for lawyers to think about that and how to make a system to which people have access and perceive the system as operating fairly.
International work made me appreciate it. We might have issues, but it isn't at the level of some of the court systems I have seen in other countries, but what we have is fragile and needs to be maintained. It is important to how we function and everything. You think about having meaning to your particular role. Sometimes, if you are an individual judge in an individual case, and to some people, they don’t know whether a representative of this entire system is fair or not.
The staff, the lawyers within the system, and all of us are important. The respect we give to the law, fairness and listening can't shortchange that importance.
That is another layer of meaning to the work, even at the trial level. Some of the chief justices and other states have told me that the COVID experience also impacted their view of we have to make sure that we provide access to justice. That might be that we have some remote hearings or things like that, where we are being attentive to the lives of some of the people who may be representing themselves or have cases in our court system of being aware of that and being open to what access looks like now.
We need to think of our courts as providing a service and people being able to use that service. Private enterprise has to think about their customers, “What are we doing to make the customer experience better? They want to buy our product or use our service.” We think of our course as people who have to come here, “This is how things work. Let's make it operate fairly and efficiently from our perspective.” We haven't thought about it over time that we have to serve the people and what they need. Their needs come before ours. That is a different way of looking at things.
Courthouses are not the buildings that people come to. They are the services that we provide. We have to provide them in ways that are helpful to people. Things need to move more quickly and fairly at less cost so people can get what they need. We have to keep on thinking, “What is it we are trying to provide people? What are they asking of us, and how can we provide it to them?”
That different perspective is something that I have heard, from other chief justices, as a result of our experience over the last couple of years.
Lawyers need to be thinking about it too. We can't be thinking of our profession as here is how it is always operated, and here is how we do things. We have to think anew about what people need.
It is hard because we are so much about stare decisis and this and that. It is good, to some degree. We are trained that way in law school.
Instability is important, and the idea of the law remains the same for everybody in the same circumstances is all-important. It is just people need answers. They need their lives to continue, and perfection can be the enemy of the good.
I was wondering if you had thought about that because you seemed quite thoughtful about different issues. That is part of your mission as chief justice. You have to think about all of those things. There has been a lot to chew on and think about in the last few years. What things are you thinking of in that? When thinking from that perspective, how does that play out? What kinds of things are you implementing or changing your view on in terms of how the courts in this state operate and might be more responsive to the litigants?
Remote proceedings are important. How do people come into the judicial system? Do they need to be there? Are there other places where people with mental illness and behavioral health issues can get help rather than through the criminal justice system? Can we provide them with the services they need instead of providing those to the criminal justice system? Can we reach people at the right time, the unrepresented people? How do we make things work more easily for them or try to create a one-stop portal where people can get online and find out using artificial intelligence? Where do they fit, and what resources are available to them?
We are trying to think about pretrial release and how to decide whether people should remain in custody or how to assess what risk they pose to the community, so we are not exposing people to the trauma of incarceration unless there is a real need for that. We are trying to have our problem-solving courts work effectively so we can help people to make real changes in their lives. They are not coming back into the system.
We are trying to work with our dependency and delinquency systems for kids to make sure that they are not launched forever for decisions they make when they are young or that they get the care that they need early on in the establishment of family relationships. It is exciting work on what individuals are doing throughout the system. Anybody who wants to be of help can be of help in making things better. There is a lot of change necessary that is going on, and that people can be a part of.
In what you discussed, the broad number of ways in which the court system people interact with the court system and many lives that it impacts from many different vantage points.
We are a place where we can get people to the right resources. If people come if there is an eviction proceeding, we can help them get rent assistance. You think of where people come together, where crises occur and where we can get them out to help more central. We are challenged in terms of the resources that we have available. Part of my job as chief is to go to the legislature and say, “We are central. There are many challenges that people have. We need to have resources so when people do come to us, we can provide.” We are a place that can provide answers for people on a broad spectrum. I don't think the legislature always thinks of courts as having that function.
Courts should be a place that can provide answers for people in a broad spectrum.
That is another important role of the chief justice in the educational component and a component of advocating for the branch in terms of the budget with regard to the legislature. It is interesting what you have said about recognizing the broad role of the courts and the different ways you can be responsive to the litigants.
I had a couple of people who are young women lawyers who had started companies that are focused on this thing from a legal tech perspective. Noella Sudbury has Rasa Public Benefit Corporation in Utah, which is focused on helping people who have criminal records that need to be expunged. She is helping them work through that on their own to find out what we need to do to make that happen and facilitate that so they can move forward. Camila Lopez, here in California with People Clerk, is helping people in small claims court. In California, you cannot have a lawyer represent you. She is helping them with forms and working through that legal process. Those are all things that resonate with what you are talking about.
There is so much that we can all do to make things work better. It is fun.
Having that broad view and understanding of the court's role is interesting. I have served pro tem in some of our collaborative courts, which are diversion courts and things like that. They are called different things in different jurisdictions. It is remarkable the impact they can have on individuals and, as you said, “Allow them to move forward,” and from that, seeing the ripple effect on the families, the community and all of that from helping one person move forward.
From someone who is an appellate lawyer and who thinks, “We have the broadest impact when we are working on appellate decisions of statewide impact.” Back to your point earlier about trial judges having an impact, if you impact one person in a positive way, they themselves have this ripple effect that impacts their lives, family's lives, and community's lives. One person at a time like that has a much bigger impact on society. It is exciting to be able to help someone move forward. Thank you so much, Chief Justice, for participating in this and discussing all these interesting issues. Usually, before I close, I ask a few lightning-round questions. My first one is, which talent would you most like to have but don't?
I would like to be able to sing.
That is a fun one to have for those who appreciate listening and those who can sing. You are the singer appreciator. Who is your hero in real life?
I don't think I can answer that. Maybe my brother. My brother is a poet, and he has figured out his life to live it in the way he wants, not in the way that is expected. He is a pretty good hero to me.
Poetry is a unique writing art. It captures particular moments. That was my first thought. I was going to be a poet, but I became an advocate writer, not a poet writer.
You figured out other ways to use words. Words are great.
I never knew that. That is part of it too. You don't realize that. You sometimes find the perfect combination of your skills and interests that you can implement through the law. It is such an amazing career that you can do different things. For what in life do you feel most grateful?
Relationships, family, and the ability to move, run, and breathe.
I was going to say the core of things, but I didn't mean to dismiss it by saying that. I think that sometimes we lose sight of the fundamentals, is what I'm saying.
We take for granted that your legs can move, your cells work, and what it takes to operate your body every day. It is quite astounding.
It’s pretty much a miracle. Who are your favorite writers?
I don't know that I have favorites, particularly. In poetry, I like Brodsky, Marianne Moore, and Marilynne Robinson for her Gilead books. I'm reading a good book by Ed Yong, An Immense World. I try to fit it in where I can, and it is a great way of expanding your universe.
You are part of the world. I like William Stafford a lot.
He is a good poet.
Claremont Graduate University has a Tufts Poetry Award every year. One for a mid-career poet and one for an emerging poet. It has been neat because I have discovered a lot of new writers that way. I have been able to meet them, talk to them and learn about their experiences.
Keep your eye out for Henry Walters. He is my nephew. He is publishing a new book of poetry. I don't know if you know The Threepenny Review, but he got a little column there. Take a look.
I served and chaired the board of Red Hen Press for many years too. I will look for that, for sure. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a dinner guest to a dinner party?
Maybe Mavis Staples. She is still alive.
Last question. What is your motto if you have one?
My motto for the courts, which I use as a rallying cry, is, “Courts can.” We had that during COVID. It was difficult, but we shouted out.
We need to keep people going, particularly during COVID. I like that rallying cry. That is a good way to conclude and rally our readers. Thank you so much, Chief Justice, for participating.
It has been fun to talk about my life and all the things that matter so much to all of us. Thank you for asking and for the work that you do.
Thank you very much.