Episode 59: Briana H. Zamora
New Mexico Supreme Court Justice
01:07:25
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Justice Briana Zamora shares her journey from the trial court, the court of appeals, and then the New Mexico Supreme Court. She sheds light on different judicial selection processes, provides tips on briefwriting, and discusses the importance of mentorship and a collaborative environment.
Relevant episode links:
Justice Briana Zamora, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Serenity Prayer
About Briana H. Zamora:
Briana H. Zamora
Justice Briana Zamora was appointed to the New Mexico Supreme Court in July 2021. She began her judicial career when she was appointed to the Metropolitan Court bench in December 2008. She was then elected to the Bernalillo County District Court in 2012. As a trial court judge, she spent a decade presiding almost exclusively over adult criminal cases. In addition to her day-to-day docket, she presided in various specialty courts, including, Homeless Court, Courts to School, Urban Native American Healing to Wellness Court and the medically assisted treatment track of drug court. Justice Zamora was also elected to the Court of Appeals where she authored opinions in all areas of the law.
Justice Zamora was born and raised in New Mexico. She is a graduate of New Mexico State University and received her law degree from the University of New Mexico School of Law.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to have joined us on the show, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Briana Zamora. Welcome.
Thank you. I'm glad to be here.
I'm excited to know about your journey to the bench and career prior to that. It's interesting the different selection processes for getting judicial appointments. That's helpful for people to consider besides what's involved in the job and how you get that position. It varies across the states. There's something very educational about that. People think maybe there is one way but there are several ways. I wanted to start in the very beginning, which is, how is it that you decided you wanted to go into law and law school? What inspired you to do that?
I don't have lawyers in my family. Looking back, there were little hints in high school. I did a mock trial in high school. I loved the book, To Kill a Mockingbird. At that time, I remembered being focused on the trial, which is that's only one little portion of the book. I went to college in New Mexico with the intent of becoming a child psychologist but I started taking these government classes that had Constitutional Law and different Pre-Law classes.
I became absolutely fascinated with them. At the time, I believed it was more of the United States Supreme Court that had such a huge impact on our country, decisions that impacted the entire nation. Also, I felt like it was the one branch of government where everyone had a voice. In other words, if you are rich, poor or regardless of who you are or where you come from, you did have a voice in the process. Reading all of those cases and learning about them, I switched in the middle of college and decided, “I want to go to law school. I want to be a lawyer.”
There are two things in there. First is even if you don't have anyone in your family or you don't know a lawyer, which I didn't either. I don't know how I came up with the idea, “How did I get this idea?” It's those things incrementally. Certainly, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird is definitely part of what we all like to believe, that we are able to make that difference at some point as a lawyer and to stand up for what's right. You had much such fine character. I both like the movie and the book. I don't know if you have a preference but they are both well. There are some cases where, “The book is better, and you are disappointed in the movie,” but I don't think that's true in this case.
I love the book and the movie too.
From that standpoint of thinking, that was the book that the author wrote never to write in, certainly in a way that was as transformative for people. Even in that, there's a message. You can make a difference by one particular thing that you are called to write. You can inspire others to do good and become lawyers in real life too. I always like to see those silver linings and the positive things of what one person can do to make a change.
What you said about mechanisms in the court system being a way to both allow access to a broader range of people to get some help with their problems but also have the power to solve those problems. That's a theme I've heard with some other guests, which is, “We were interested in this part of society but we realized that to make an impact on that, it made more sense to become a lawyer. You either had more influence people, listen to you, you had a forum, something that added on top of what they were interested in.”
I would've had an impact going the other route because our youth need mental health treatment. It was a love for how much the law has impacted us in our society, the absolute passion and fascination with it that led me to go the other route. Thank goodness.
It looks like a good choice. That was a good move. It’s a good selection. Some people talk about in terms of making that decision, thinking about their own personality and skills like Justice Lehrmann on the Texas Supreme Court. She said, “I also wanted to help people but realized I didn't have quite the makeup for helping them this way. It wasn't in my personality but this better suits my personality. It's a good fit.” Thinking about those practical things in terms of where your skills are, your highest and best use is how I put it.
My skills evolved. I was a Trial Court Judge for ten years before going to the appellate courts. That requires a lot of people skills, patience, and courage. Being a judge overall requires a lot of courage. I have good management and people skills because I was able to interact with the public on a daily basis. I had a huge criminal docket that required me to communicate effectively but in a way that seemed fair. I learned over time that I had these skills that I probably in high school had no idea were there.
We developed them over time. That's how we are growing. We get different skills to layer on of the ones we already have. Before you went on the trial bench, what kind of law did you practice?
I was always a litigator but I did both criminal and civil. I had originally gotten a job in Washington, DC as a clerk for a Federal Administrative Law Judge. At that time, I decided not to go that route. I wanted to see what it was like to be in the courtroom and interact with people. I worked as a public defender. I also did some prosecution but I primarily did civil litigation. I worked at a law firm representing government agencies, employees, and insureds in all types of cases.
I worked in the consumer protection division of the attorney general's office. then I had my first daughter. I started my own law practice. I did a lot of everything. I was at Guardian ad Litem for abused and neglected children. In addition to the legal aspect of it, I visit their schools and their homes. I did some criminal and civil work. That was fascinating. One thing they don't teach you in law school is how to run your own business.
The one thing they don't teach you in law school is how to run your own business.
That's a whole extra set of skills. We are talking about skill building. That whole business entrepreneur, none of that, even managing or working with people.
For a reason, it's to build analysis and understanding of the law. I was fascinated by the other aspect of it. I was in charge of my own business and finding which clients I wanted to take. At that point, I had practiced in a lot of different areas. Having the opportunity to practice in all different areas in the same job was enjoyable.
That's great preparation for the bench because you have a wide variety of subject areas that you are dealing with and either has some familiarity with that or being comfortable with switching between different kinds of areas. That's a good skill for the bench. Do you have any tips for people who are starting their own law firm?
My preference personally was not to do something like that out of law school. I wouldn't recommend it. I know some people do that but having a good foundation of legal experience in various areas helped me. I would become extremely familiar with the ethics rules regarding trust accounts and all the things that come up.
If you are not a larger firm, you are not handling that.
You have to become familiar with that. Here in New Mexico, our tax and rev has training sessions for small businesses and things like that. I did not know that. Getting some training on the business aspect of it but also having that foundation. If you are lucky enough, find someone a good legal assistant to help you but sometimes that's hard at first because you are starting, and you almost have to run the entire thing yourself initially.
That's definitely a challenge. In general, an excellent legal assistant is very helpful overall, particularly in that setting. Especially, someone who has a lot of experience can help you manage the practicalities of the rules and things like that.
Keeping you on track, not missing deadlines, and all while you are trying to run a business. Those are crucial ways that could help you a lot.
There are many different things and levels they are working on. It's nice to have somebody helping the part of it. Did you consider joining the bench? Did that evolve while you were practicing or is that something you maybe had in mind earlier?
I did not think I would be an Appellate Court Judge. I have been at every level. In fact, I’m the only judge in the state who's done that. My interest started at Metro Court, which is the people's court here in Albuquerque. They hear anything from traffic to felony first appearances. It's generally someone's first experience with our justice system when they come into Metro Court. I remember sitting there during law school, which is to observe proceedings.
I thought some of the judges were very good, had good demeanors, and let the litigant feel this case was important, “It's not the most serious thing in the world but it's important to you. I'm going to listen, be fair and do all that.” There were other courtrooms where it was the exact opposite, and I thought, “I would be good at this.” That was the first little hint, then I practiced there. That was the first place I practiced was the Metro. They started developing all these treatment courts like mental health and drug courts. I thought, “I definitely want to do that.” Pretty early in my legal career, I thought I wanted to try to be a judge at Metro Court, and it evolved from there.
That's interesting that it was specific, that you had this experience, and you thought, “I could probably do a good job at that and make people feel heard and have a positive experience for them in court,” which has a ripple effect overall in terms of how people view the legal system and the Rule of Law generally. It does impact individual people but it is a lot of people who are going through there. That's the first time I've heard it. It's unique.
You had a very specific moment when you were in a particular court. I agree that the drug courts or what we call out here in California, the collaborative courts or all of those kinds of courts that are more robust in some jurisdictions now are hopeful because they help work towards people getting on their feet and becoming productive, happier, more cohesive with their families, and enhancing the community one person at a time. To see all the different segments of the justice system come together to help someone goes back to your old To Kill a Mockingbird like, “This is a positive.”
What's amazing about it is that you are not a judge as people typically think of judges. You are not issuing decisions. There are sanctions when people mess up. A lot of these programs are very successful in that you are having a conversation and working as a team to help an individual. Your interaction with the defendants in the treatment court is completely different. It's very much positive reinforcement and having a meaningful talk with them about their progress.
I always say that the highlight of my trial court job is the treatment court because you spend a year with somebody and see basically how, from the very beginning, they started with problems, and by the end, they've transformed their life. To see that is such a rewarding experience that in comparison to the day-to-day docket where you are making decisions, and ultimately someone is not satisfied but here, everyone was like, “This is amazing.” You get to witness it. That was a very rewarding aspect of my trial court time.
That's a great way of thinking that normally someone is going to be unhappy but in this case because everyone is working together that, includes the DA, defense council, mental health, and all the different probation and services are working together to find a way to help someone improve their lives. There's something positive about that. Seeing that movement in an individual is also pretty neat. I served pro time in the collaborative courts in all different varieties of them. I've experienced that, and it is interesting.
I don't know if you have this experience but for those who aren't familiar with that court and how people are working together, it's not adversarial quite in the same way. People come in, and even defense lawyers start being almost belligerent, fighting this and that. I'm like, “That's not what's going on here. That's the wrong guide for this group. That's not what we are doing.” Presuming that someone is doing something against the client's interest, that's not how it goes. That is not helpful. That shows you how different that goal set-up is.
Some of our tribal courts here in New Mexico do more of that. They do more of trying to collaborate and figure out a resolution as opposed to an adversarial system. They have some adversarial aspects.
You have to do that sometimes.
I've done more jury trials. When we can incorporate the more collaborative and working together approach, it does not work in every case but when we can, it is very effective. People leave the process. No one is leaving the process unhappy unless they don't make it through but overall, everyone is satisfied with the result and where things ended up.
I hadn't thought about that part yet. That's unique, that particular experience, especially when they graduated and they make it all the way through. People are happy to see that. Did you also serve on the collaborative style tribal courts also?
No. I didn't. I was never a tribal court judge. I was a District Court Judge and a Court of Appeals Judge, and now the liaison. We have a consortium that's half tribal judges and half state court judges. We meet and try to make sure that issues that arise regularly are discussed. We try to come up with some resolutions. For example, we have an Indian Child Welfare Act but we also passed a state version of that.
Things that we can collaborate on make sure that their orders are being honored in state court. In that sense, I'm familiar with something they've done because we want to look at, “Can we send somebody who picked up a DWI, for example, in Albuquerque that lives in Pueblo? Is there a way to allow them to get their treatment and perhaps participate in the tribal court and the court that they have there?” There is a lot of collaboration in that respect.
You said something interesting that you are rare in New Mexico and that you have judicial experience at all the different levels. Typically in California, it's rare to be the other way. There are a lot of judges, there are some on the Supreme Court and some on the Court of Appeal who came from appellate practices or law professor positions, and things like that. In California, a lot of judges starting in the trial court, go to the Court of Appeal and move all the way up in that way.
That's interesting that you are unique in that regard. Having people with different experiences like that helps with the diversity of approaches. It's a little bit different when you have been the trial judge, presided over everything, and then you are the Court of Appeal Justice, and you are like, “I have a good sense of what was going on here based on things that happened when I was doing trials.” That's a different lens that you can bring to things.
I joke around, “I would have been a much better trial judge.” I have been an Appellate Court Judge before and vice versa because you see things from both sides. If you could rotate, it would be pretty amazing.
Wouldn't that be interesting? After having that and then going back and forth, you wonder what kind of impact that would have.
The trial court experience helped me in the appellate court because I was like, “I know exactly what's happened.” One thing that's important to me is that the decisions are written in a way that is useful and understandable to our trial court attorneys and trial judges because I know how fast, at least on the criminal side carry things move. You may have fourteen jurors waiting, and everyone is quickly trying to find a case or find something that will help the judge reach a decision. That's extremely important to me. Most of our Supreme Court have been judges before but they didn't go through all the four layers as I have.
It’s very important that the decisions are written in a way that is useful and understandable to our trial court attorneys and judges.
When you think about providing guidance to the practitioners, trial judges, and opinions, what does that look like to you?
Being concise, I learned that. Especially on the Supreme Court, we read many cert petitions and then the Court of Appeals opinion. I've never read this much in my life. Not being repetitive and being concise is very important but also using clear, understandable language and showing that you understand what's happening in the trial court. Sometimes I remember reading opinions, and it didn't seem like there was a good grasp of what was going on the ground day-to-day. Realistic and easy-to-understand concise opinions are very important.
I think about it when I'm writing appellate briefs in terms of, “What do you want the appellate court to do and be very specific about that? What kind of relief do you want?” I think about it the same way. The corollary to that is what you are talking about in judicial opinions, which is being very clear about the reasoning, holding, and, if possible, how this practically gets applied. Tell me about your journey then from a trial court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court.
I did ten years on the bench. My desire to do the appellate court is to take what I had that experience over ten years in our criminal justice system day in and day out and take it to the Court of Appeals so that I could work on making sure that New Mexico Law is clear, understandable, and that our cases are usable. If you have a 30-page opinion on a single issue, a trial court is not going to read the 30 pages in the middle pre-trial, and neither are the practitioners. Finding useful ways to draft opinions and shape the law here in New Mexico.
The Supreme Court has the unique aspect of setting the law and the standards for the state. You have a discretionary review and deciding cases beyond for the parties who were there but well beyond that in terms of policy and law for the State of Law.
They are two completely different jobs. I am grateful that I was both on the Court of Appeals and a trial court judge before I went to the Supreme Court. There are only five of us in the entire state. There is a ton of work. Half of my job is drafting opinions but the other half is policy-making and administrative. We have many committees. We go out to different events where we need to speak. I love being a judge.
There's not a day where I'm like, “I shouldn't be a judge. I should try something else.” I wake up and love the job. This job is the most challenging and rewarding. I absolutely love the work that I'm doing. Even with all of the experience I had, it's still a learning curve, and there's much to do. The great thing about the New Mexico Court is that we are majority women. It took a while to get there. We are a majority and minority as well in New Mexico.
We have two Hispanic women and then Hispanic men. We are pretty diverse. The job is fascinating because you get to have this huge impact, not only in the decisions that you are making, which will impact the entire state, and you ultimately have the final say but in the committee work. I was passionate about making sure that in our criminal justice system, there was more availability of mental health resources. It's even harder in our smaller communities. There's just not enough there. I asked my colleagues when I first got there, “I want to start a Mental Health Commission. We don't have a Supreme Court commission on mental health.”
They graciously agreed. We did a steering committee to get it established. We established one by Supreme Court order and had our first meeting. We brought every branch of government together, the public and private sectors. People don't think about the Supreme Court in that aspect, and I didn't necessarily before I was a judge, either. This level has a major impact on changing what's happening in our court statewide, without issuing an opinion.
It is a lot of work in itself, the opinions in the particular cases and selecting which cases to hear at that level. Also, there is that other aspect, which is the state Supreme Courts, at some level, either directly or indirectly have the oversight or administrative and convening role for the court system overall. In that regard, on top of the case, decisions can have important systemwide impacts.
Chief Justice Bridget McCormack of the Michigan Supreme Court talks about that too. Especially for the chief justice who's at the front of the line for those things. How many opportunities were there to have an impact on the system overall through that administrative role? It's something in a civics lesson kind of way. I hope people learn that through the show too the role of the state Supreme Courts.
I’m running my own business and docket management and learning those more organizational administrative duties. Being on committees before helped a ton because what you don't learn in law school is how to be an administrator and going “I'm assigned to the children's court committee, the criminal justice, and then the mental health, and then the tribal state consortium.” me alone juggling all of those balls in the air at once. It's a lot but very rewarding. I wouldn't change it for anything. I knew it. I have been a judge for a long and then I got there. I was surprised, “This is a lot.”
You know things but then when you are in it and experiencing it, you see how it all fits together. It's like, “I didn't realize all of that.” Let's get to the opinion part, the cases, and things like that. What tips or good things advocates should do and shouldn't do, either in brief writing or in arguing cases?
In the brief writing, sometimes I feel like there are briefs that are written in the rule. The rule is taken from a case incited. The better briefs are the ones that not only tell me what the law is but they say, “Case A are these facts were in Case A and it's similar enough to your case.” They weaved the law on the facts together and had a little in-depth analysis. That's at all levels. That was my biggest pet peeve at the trial court. I get these short little pleadings with a bunch of rules. I would look at the case. I was like, “This case is not at all like my case. This doesn't help me decide whether I want to rule in your favor.”
They are extracting what they think are the main principles from the case but there's no context for it.
That's my biggest pet peeve. Another thing in brief writing is that sometimes they throw every possible issue they could possibly think of as opposed to narrowing down the issues to the ones that are going to likely have some merit and you may prevail on. When you have ten issues, you start to get lost. Being concise, and I’ve said that a million times is so important. When I start reading the same thing over and over, it's very hard to stay focused because, “I know you read that a few pages ago.” That's extremely important.
This rarely happens. Most lawyers are very good about accurately citing the record and doing a thorough review of it. Every once in a while, you get something misstated about the record and its material and significance. That’s a big no-no. Those are a few things. For oral argument, I have already developed a pet peeve. It's when I ask a question, and it's not answered. It's okay if they don't know the answer to say that they don't know the answer but what typically happens is they completely evade the question together. I ask it, and they try to evade it again.
I know from speaking with other judges that they find that equally frustrating. The reason it's frustrating is that if I'm asking you about something, it's probably something that's holding me up one way or the other, and I'm very curious about it. If they may not know the answer, that's okay if they tell me. The other thing with the oral argument and this does not happen as much at the Supreme Court. It happened a little more at the Court of Appeals. When attorneys reiterate what's in their brief because they want to prompt that, “I've always read the briefs. I've looked at the cases.” If they can elaborate or take it further than what's in the briefs, that would be extremely helpful.
I always think people struggle with that because, “I don't want to repeat it but I don't want to create something brand new because that's not good either. What does that mean to me?” In many instances, it means elaborating on it, refining it, and sometimes presenting principles with a different analogy or a different way of explaining something. I always think of it as people or individuals, certain arguments resonate with one person. Maybe you don't get the a-ha moment explaining it that way but when you explain it another way, it's like, “I can see that. I understand the concern that you have.” I think of that as what you are doing when you are preparing for an argument.
Less to the Court of Appeals but more so now. I've gone into oral argument completely undecided, and I've gone into oral argument thinking I was leaning one way, and then I was convinced to go the other way. They are a lot more significant than one would think if they are used right. If you tell me what's in the brief, that's not going to help but if lawyers who think you are right, another way of saying the same thing, giving another analogy or example, sometimes convinced me. When they answer those tough questions, I'm like, “I didn't think of it.” They convinced me like, “That makes sense.”
That process happens naturally in the preparation for an argument because it has been a while since you wrote the briefs usually. You try to look at it with a fresh eye and see it differently than you've come to see it in writing the brief. In that process, you sometimes come up with yourself like, “There's this thread through the record that I haven't recognized as being there. That's a pivotal factor in how I view this case myself, maybe the court would feel the same way.” There's an aspect of discovery when you are preparing for an appellate argument too. Answering the question thing, lots of appellate justices mentioned that, and there's tension because the attorneys worried.
The worst thing is to see the opinion then, as the council conceded that argument, they are concerned like, “This could be it. This could be the one where I say something I shouldn't say.” On the other hand, as a human, if you are talking to someone and you have a question, this burning question, and that person doesn't answer it, it's hard to hear and listen to what they are saying until you are still thinking about that question. I always think of it that way. Even if it's a tough question or you are concerned about it, you are not going to help anyone if you bear on and don't respond to it. Whatever you say, the judge is still thinking about the question and wonders why you didn't answer.
I'm thinking, “I'm going to have to ask my question again.”
It's interesting what you said about argument making a difference in terms of your perspective on the case and even how you might come out. Do you conference with your fellow justices prior to the oral argument or have some draft tentative opinion or do you only conference after?
We only conference after but we do circulate a bench memo by the chamber's law clerk. We don't conference until after, which is interesting. We are a very active court. We ask a lot of questions. Sometimes I also learn or can be persuaded by some of the questions my colleagues ask and get. I'm like, “I thought of that.” That goes to the question if they are asking something that could equally convince me, especially if there's a good answer that directly to the question.
There's a lot of that give and take within an argument. One of the things I missed from COVID, where we were remotely arguing from all our separate locations, was that you didn't get that interaction between the members of the bench in the same way because it's hard to manage that when you are all separate but it changes the tenure of argument when you don't have that interplay. As the advocate, seeing that you can get a little bit more when you see everyone together asking the questions, you can see, “That justice also seems interested in that. I will pay attention to that and help her out with that area,” but it’s harder to do that in your own remote.
I was luckily at the Court of Appeals, which very rarely in New Mexico has oral arguments. I didn't have a situation where everyone was virtual. I feel fortunate about that. That would be extremely difficult. The same for the trial courts. It worked very well in some respects and provided access to justice but I can't imagine doing an oral argument with everyone else virtual.
The judges and the advocates are all virtual. That was something else. It’s a whole different piece. In the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Court of Appeals, which is just widespread, that definitely was happening because people, even the judges, wasn’t traveling from their locations. It is a challenge. If the bench is together, the advocates aren't in the court. At least there's solidarity and unity in that you can see everyone together. The judges appreciate that too. It was good at least to have cases be able to continue under pretty tough circumstances because otherwise, they would have been brought and called. That's not good for society overall.
The judiciary in New Mexico did not shut down for a single day. We quickly were able to switch over to virtual. It’s pretty amazing.
Did you have already the technology that built it?
No. Now we've learned that there's even better technology out there. Some of it was by phone. Our IT completely moved quickly. We did have to stop for a while were the jury trials, of course.
That's quite the feat. That's remarkable. One of the things also that some of the guests have talked about on the show are mentoring, sponsorship, what that looks like, how people have helped you in your career, and how you've paid that forward. I don't know if you have any good mentoring stories or anything like that.
I can't point to one person but I've had many people along the way, starting in law school, even where maybe a professor would take the extra time to either help me with the class but more importantly, that emotional support of, “You can do this. These are options.” When I was at a law firm, we were assigned mentors, and that was extremely helpful because when you go to the public defender's office or the DA's office in Albuquerque, you are handed files, “I've got a jury. I’ve never done a trial.”
At the law firm, it was nice to have someone to review my work and provide feedback but also guidance. We used to meet regularly as a firm and go over cases. That was extremely helpful. As a judge, it was always felt that at the trial court level, both courts were very collegial. I knew that if I had a question or anything, I could go and ask the judge's assistant to quickly pull them off the bench and ask. They could do the same with me. Sometimes people think it's always the legal stuff that's hard. Sometimes as a trial court judge, it was more the discretionary things like the sentencing, and you didn't know it was coming or the plea was going to give you much discretion.
Having the ability to talk it through with somebody was extremely important. As for giving it back, I have participated in mentorship programs and always want to have my chambers open to having externs from the law school. It's extremely important. A lot of Law students are like me. I noticed it was pretty rare in my law school class. A lot of the students had parents who were lawyers, an aunt or an uncle.
They seemed to have a connection to the legal community that I did not feel like I had in law school. I now have tried to reach out and make sure that Law students know that they can use extern for my chambers. I've also tried very flexible for mothers who are Law students. Even though I'm in Santa Fe and they are in Albuquerque, we have it virtual. Things like that are extremely important to me. One, because we want to diversify who comes to our court as law clerks but also who ultimately will be lawyers and judges. Mentorship has been a huge part. It has been a lot of people along the way pushing, “You can do this. Convince me the question.”
I asked that because it can come in many forms. Sometimes Law students are like, “I need a mentor.” I sign up for one. I don't know what that looks like but I'm supposed to have one. Somehow that there's only one that makes the difference. If you don't have one, then you are going to lack guidance. That's not true. For different people, it looks in different forms. Sometimes it is someone who is coming in at the right point in time to either encourage you or to say, “You should apply to the bench or you should consider these things.” That was also part of my thinking.
In doing the show, maybe one of these voices will be the one that feels like a nudge. For someone to do something, they wouldn't have otherwise considered for themselves that they thought, “We don't have whatever the perfect path is.” The truth is there isn't one path. It makes sense afterward where you came but going forward, no.
It can be 1 conversation with 1 person that ultimately leads you in a certain direction. I knew I wanted to be a judge but I wasn't sure when. I remember when the opening came that I applied for. I had a few friends call and say, “This is the time. You should apply.” I was like, “Is it time? I have young kids.” I wasn’t sure but ultimately, I did. A lot of people are like, “People don't usually make the shortlist the first time they applied. I became determined. We have a commission.
One conversation with one person can ultimately lead you in a certain direction.
That's what I thought was interesting because there are appointments but then there's the commission. Is there also a retention election too?
Also, contested. It's a four-part process. In the first part, if you choose to do it, you don't have to. You can run for office. Who did choose to do it was the commission. It's got to be half Republican and half Democrat. It's scary the first time. I sat on one because I did leadership training and was told, “If you are ever interested, be a commissioner and sit on the commission first so that you have an idea.” I'm glad I did that. I would recommend that to anyone. Be part of the process that you ultimately think you may have to go through.
That is a good advice. Many of my friends who have been on various judicial vetting committees and then joined the bench. Some of them have said, “It was good to know the process.” Part of it is a little demystified. It's challenging but at least you have a sense of how it's going to go. The second thing is that some of them have looked at the applications and go, “I could apply as well as this person.” There's something about it that makes you feel more comfortable doing that and taking that leap.
I would recommend to anyone if you think you want to be a judge someday, federal, state or whatever, and there's any type of commission or interview process, you can sit from the other perspective. It will convince you that certain applicants were good. The same with the gubernatorial interview. Each governor is different but asking people who have gone through the process, “What type of questions were asked? How long did it last?” For me, it was very helpful. I also did mock interviews. I had a group of friends that were way tougher than the actual commission.
It's like a new court. You want them to be tougher than the actual event.
I always tell people, “If you are preparing for oral arguments, see if someone can do a moot court, it's extremely helpful.” I was well prepared, and it helped.
Those are practical points about the process because people don't think about that. Until you are in the process, you realize all the different components and what is helpful to know about. That's great advice. You are the first person who mentioned that. That's very practical.
I'm running for an election. That is not something lawyers or judges are used to doing. In New Mexico, your first election has to be a contested election. Someone can run against you. In Metro Court, I ended up being uncontested. I will be on the ballot in November 2022. My election is contested despite having gone through those other processes.
There has been vetting like crazy. Some Supreme Courts are entirely elected. There are no appointments or the nominating commission. That's how you get and stay there. That's different from other places where that isn't possible. You have the retention elections in California but they are not contested. It's just questioned.
Once they are appointed, they have retention elections. Once we run the one contested election, then it is a retention election. You have to do the one contested election. What's interesting in New Mexico and something we are looking at is, for example, the person running against me skipped. They didn't do the commission, and you don't have to. The one thing we are looking at is at least to require someone who runs to have to be recommended by the bipartisan commission. Ours can be a four-part process where you have to pass everything and just run.
I was thinking about that when you were saying that. There's still an opportunity, even here. If somebody is running for an elected office, then there are not the same commissions but at least some committees that will vet based on someone qualified or not qualified for the position because there should be some gatekeeping about that if you are going to vote.
That's the process. It's statewide, and although New Mexico is not a huge populated state, it takes a lot to travel all over.
When you were talking about the election, I was like, “It reminds me of the Texas Supreme Court justices. That's a big state.” You go and see people.
One thing that's unique to New Mexico, and I believe we are the only state that has a contest selection, is that we have public financing. You don't have to opt into public financing but you can, and generally, judicial candidates. In other states where they don't have public financing, you have a lot of huge contributions. It's hard to get your message and name out there because there are not a lot of people but it keeps all of the influence and potential conflict out of fundraising in a judicial race.
That's a unique system.
If you want to be a judge in this state, you've got to think about that. I still think people should go through it. We need women and moms to be part of our judiciary. It's an additional thing you have to prepare yourself for and understand the process.
With so much of the process like that, you have to be committed to serving in that way. To that extent, I feel like it's a good thing because those who are truly committed to the service because you have to go through many things to get there, you have to want to do that. People who do that are committed, and that's good because you want people who are committed to the public but there's a lot to go through. Thank you much for sharing that because it is unique in many different ways. It's a combination of checks and balances of a lot of different ways that other states have but altogether.
States have the appointment process, a commission or maybe both but they don't have all four. Almost certain we may be the only state with public financing.
The financing part is interesting too because that's the part where it is challenging. It's not the same kind of election or political decision that people are making when they are voting, and trying to maintain people's sense of that or the public sense of that when you have to be raising money is hard.
It's much better when you have a pot of money, and both sides have the same amount. We've had a few packs but they are very small. I've read about things that are happening in other states with money that is being spent on judicial elections.
In some states, that's a lot. It's all over the place and on maps in the different states.
I didn't make a ton of money. I have been a judge for a long. It allows for all different people with different backgrounds to participate in the election process.
It takes that part out of the equation and then focuses on people. What's your favorite thing about being a judge generally and then also being on the Supreme Court?
My favorite thing about being a judge generally is that I never take for granted that even at the lowest court in this state, you have so much responsibility and a huge impact on people's lives. Being mindful of that and making sure that you treat every case with the time and respect it deserves. It's not even just treatment courts and defendants. I've seen victims of crime come into my courtroom. From the beginning of the case to the end, you've seen the strength that they've had and how they've completely survived what they have been through and changed their lives. The strength of that was amazing then.
On the Supreme Court, I love my job. I feel like we've done a ton. We amended our rule to allow students to not you can practice law, and there are a lot of other licenses in New Mexico that ask differently but the Supreme Court for whatever reason, had not done that previously. It is something like that or being able to start a mental health and competency commission in making a statewide change that has an impact. In my job, I feel like we are always doing these amazing things, and even with the decisions, they are much the final say. It's monthly or daily. There's always something that we are doing that impacts the whole state. It’s a very rewarding job.
That's a beautiful synthesis of what the impact is at different levels and how it can be equally satisfying to have a deep impact on one individual that you have in the trial court as it is to have system-wide impacting many more people. It's the same good feeling at different levels.
It makes you want to work hard. There are never enough hours in a day because you want to make many changes.
Convening people is great but sometimes, moving them towards producing something can take time. It did strike me when you said, “We've done a lot. We started things and convened things.” We are doing things from that convening, which is at a pretty efficient rate, which is satisfying as well. The committee and commission work can be great but having all the different stakeholders there, they have to go back. It takes time for things to come to fruition from that. It's great but that's not the case.
We have a very good group. We get along well, the five of us. I don't know if that has always been the case. We are also engaged and have taken COVID in all the lessons we've learned to not just continue providing more access through hybrid or virtual hearings but also take a close look. We've learned a lot about what we can do to improve our justice system now that we are looking back and reflecting on everything that's happened. That caused us to want to make some changes.
Something like that happens. You are more in a disruption phase where you go, “We see a lot more but if things were going along, you probably wouldn't see those.”
It was not during my time as a trial court judge that everything was going to change to virtual or that a lot of lawyers have enjoyed doing depositions virtually. It's saving mediations. I'm hearing that in domestic relations cases, the parties prefer going forward to continue being virtual because it causes less tension in the proceedings.
There's all that emotional aspect to each of the proceedings. If you are not face-to-face in the courtroom, then it's not as trying emotionally on the participants.
Appearance rates are higher. We are getting a lot of positive things and obviously certain things we've gone back to and keep.
In life, if something tough happens, it's best to use it as an opportunity to get some new insights, prove things, and find the silver lining and the positive in it. You touched on something that I don't know that people think about. Especially being on a collegial bench, you do not get to choose your colleagues in advance at all. You hope that you all get along and certainly work towards that but that is something that I don't think people are not thinking about. You are like, “I want to be on the bench. I want to be in this particular role. I can do great things.” When you get there, you are like, “Look to my right. Look to my left. Whoever is here through whatever process I don't get to choose.” It's good when you can work together.
Especially at the appellate level, because you won't always agree.
One person cannot make an opinion.
When you don't, it happens but you've got to move on. That's why we are able to get a lot of stuff done because of the collegiality. It's a component of success.
That doesn't mean thinking the same way about things. It's better if there's some disagreement or people have different views because that's how you get to the best solution, answer, and analysis. You want pushback. You want that.
It means that we respect our differences and are able to move past them.
I think of that in terms of it's helpful to the development of the law overall to have different perspectives in the long run. It's not personal about the judge or justice who's writing the majority. It's not like a personal front to them. I know that some people at some courts have a strong interest in having unanimous decisions because they feel like somehow that takes the individuals out, and it's the court announcing different things.
They are very reticent to have concurrences or dissents, and there can be different philosophies about that. When there is concurrence or dissent, at least having that respect and collegiality and moving on from that, so there's no grudge. We hope that's part of the judicial temperament that people are vetting before they are on the bench too.
They can bypass the process. You don't know who your colleagues are going to be. Especially during times like COVID or things that are unexpected in our judiciary, then it's even more important to have the respect to treat your colleagues. Respect their opinions. They are different.
Treat your colleagues with respect. Respect their opinions.
For the same reason, you were talking about the oral argument like, “Maybe that will be a different thing. I haven't considered that. That's interesting. I should take that into account. That might impact how I see this.” That's why we have multiple people in the court at the higher levels because we want that interaction and vetting of those principles before you come out with a decision that's finding all throughout the state. Normally, I end with a few lightning-round questions. The first question is, which talent would you like to have but you don't?
I would love to be a good cook, and I'm not.
Who are your favorite writers?
I don't think I have one.
Not even a judicial or opinion writer?
No. It is more on an individual case basis.
Who is your hero in real life?
My hero is probably Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I’ve read a lot about her. I thought she was amazing, not only in her status as a Justice but also personally. She was a mom. She had lost her mom. I look up at her. She's amazing.
There are many different aspects to her very rich life.
If it wasn't an easy life at all, that time to be a woman and go into the profession was even a challenge.
That's an interesting aspect of this series of the show is that there are women who have entered the profession at all levels. For me, it was a discovery a-ha moment. I hadn't put the timeframes together but people who graduated in the late 1970s or early 1980s, even in law school, compared to my experience when was in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s are vastly different as to how many women were in the law schools. The attitude that firms had in hiring women, whether they would do it at all or whether they would say, “You could come for a couple of years but you can't stay.” Thinking about the difference in less than a decade.
When you go to law school and where things are going in society, how radically has it changed in that ten-year period? Women are joining the bench for the first time a lot throughout the country. There was so much going on, and it makes you thankful for being, “At least I didn't have to go through that.” There are still may be some issues but not that. I hope it gives hope to people too from that because a lot has changed in a relatively short time. To think that a lot of the women who encountered that like Justice Ginsburg and others who were on this show, achieved great things despite significant hard barriers at the very beginning.
She was at the top of her class or near the top of her class, and the law firm wouldn't even be higher. It's so overt.
I hope it gives people hope like, “I didn't encounter that. There are still issues but we've improved on the front end. That's good.”
It gets better. I graduated from law school when I was 26. I was young. I remember traveling through New Mexico for work. Every time I would go to certain parts of the state, they never believed that I was a lawyer. They say, “You can go set up your court reporting stuff in the conference room.” I was like, “I'm the attorney here.” I had to go through that so much. Having children can be challenging but I know much has happened for moms.
I first started practicing. I was pregnant with my second daughter when I was at Metro Court. I was one of the first in the state. There might have been a couple before me but it was unheard of. I felt like, “What am I going to do?” I wanted to have my second child, and I did. That overcame anything else. It's more common. There are policies in place, and women can take the lead. Just because you are a judge, there’s still a human or to have a family if you want.
I'm glad you mentioned the court reporter. That is a quintessential 1990s thing. I have many female litigators. We have some court reporter story litigation.
I was like, “Do I not look like a lawyer? Can anyone possibly think I'm a lawyer for once?” It happened all the time, and then I finally realized, “At least it's not just me.” I thought for a while, “Am I not going to cross confidence? What is it about me that makes people not know that I am a lawyer?” Luckily, there were enough of us that they started, “I don’t think that happened.”
There are enough stories that I was like, “There was the era of the court reporter. That's how it was. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party?
Michelle Obama.
Last question. What is your motto, if you have one?
Believe it or not, I look to the language of The Serenity Prayer. As judges, our personality is to help.
We want to fix things.
I have to always step back and say, “What is within my control? What can I change? What can I not?” You have to accept. That might be partially being a mom and partially being a judge but we can't fix or change everything. We can't control other people's behaviors. That mindset helps guide me professionally and personally.
That's a different point than saying having humility. That's part of it but if you have the power and you think, “I want to be able to fix this whole mess that's here,” and sometimes you can't. That's not hard. It's hard to accept that first of all but that's true. To be able to discern which things fall in that category and which things can you do something about.
The higher up you go, you see things that need to be fixed. You can only do so much in your particular position. You have to accept that.
I think about that, on the one hand, like the convening power in particular, that you can bring people together in a room to talk about things who otherwise might not do it unless you ask. You can focus people on issues. You can get that dialogue going but you can't say, “This is what we are doing.” You have to get everybody moving and you are like, “Here's what I can do. Now other people need to carry it forward.” That can be hard, especially when you think you see what needs to be done next.
I’ve done it for a long time. Overall in life, usually lawyers, especially you've gone up as far as where I'm at now, you tend to be very driven and passionate about what you are doing. You tend to have a hard time saying no to things because you can’t fix them. Knowing when to step back and say, “I can do this.” That's all I can do.
Justice Zamora, thank you much for joining the show and having this discussion. I enjoyed it. You had a lot of good approaches to things that I haven't yet heard from some of the guests. It's a good addition to all of the good advice and guidance that others have given as well.
Thank you. I appreciate you having me.