Episode 78: Jacqueline Nguyen
Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; First Asian American Woman to Serve on a Federal Court of Appeals
00:40:08
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen talks with host M.C. Sungaila about her experience as a refugee during the Vietnam War and her journey to becoming a judge, from private law practice to serving as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California. Before her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Nguyen was also the first Asian American woman to serve as a district judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Jacqueline Nguyen
From 1991 until 1995, Nguyen worked in private law practice, specializing in civil litigation as a litigation associate at the firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett. In particular, she focused on commercial disputes, intellectual property, and construction-defect cases. From 1995 until August 2002, Nguyen served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California. She joined the U.S. Attorney's office in its Public Corruption and Government Fraud section, overseeing United States Department of Defense fraud prosecutions. In her final years in the U.S. Attorney's office, Nguyen also held the role of Deputy Chief of the General Crimes section, training new prosecutors in the Central District. Nguyen became the first-ever Vietnamese-American woman appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. She had been based in Alhambra, California.
Transcript
I have a very wonderful guest, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She's based in California but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit covers a large part of the Western United States. Welcome, Judge.
Thank you for inviting me to participate.
I want to start from the beginning in terms of how you came to choose the law as the area to that you wanted to devote your professional career.
It was rather serendipitous. I was an English Literature major as an undergrad. As my dad would often tell me, “That's great preparation for unemployment.” I did have a vague game plan. I thought about going into teaching and took a year off between college and law school before that. I got emergency teaching credentials. I was teaching mostly K-5 or K-6 elementary school kids. As much as I love children, I very quickly realized I do need adult conversation in that intellectual stimulation and challenge as part of my work life. I had no specific plans but to hedge my bets and took the GRE and the LSAT at the same time, and the score was going to determine my fate.
I scored much better on the LSAT. It was the math portion of the GRE that killed me. Back then, for many of my peers, the people in my generation, it wasn't unusual to do the same because it's not an investment in terms of tuition that it is now. You have to save a little money. I was very fortunate. I received a small scholarship that allowed me to go to UCLA but even if I hadn't, it was still affordable enough where it's a good place to park yourself. I am locked into a career that I absolutely love and enjoy the law so much. I have enjoyed every single job I have ever had within the law. Even though it wasn't a well-thought-out plan, it ended up working out pretty well.
Sometimes you can fall into something but it feels like the right thing. It was the right thing for you to stay with. I remember UCLA was a much different tuition level when we were there than it is now. I'm shocked.
It's heartening that think about how hard it is.
Were there any lawyers in your family or anything like that?
No lawyers. I never met a lawyer, much less a judge growing up. I wasn't born in this country. I was born in Vietnam in 1975 after South Vietnam fell to communist and were forced to flee. I grew up very much working class. Both my parents work. They eventually started a small business, and I worked there. They had a series of donut shops, and I grew up working in their donut shops. This life, the life of the law, is as far away from the life that I lived after we came to the US as one could ever imagine.
You went to law school. How did you decide what area of practice you wanted to go into after law school?
I went to law school not knowing much about it. While I was in law school, I worked hard to explore different avenues in the law. I did an externship at public counsel because I thought that maybe high-impact litigation work and policy-oriented work were something that I was very attracted to. I have always loved legal research and writing. I quickly ruled out jobs like being a district attorney.
I loved the idea of being a trial lawyer but I didn't want to give up a practice essentially on paper. I'm happy to take law but still want to practice on the papers. Gradually, through different opportunities, I settled on litigation and was attracted to trial work and public service jobs in particular. I narrowed down the possibility. People process the elimination.
That's good to try different things that, “I might like this. I will try that.” You have that opportunity when you are still in school with the externships, summer programs, and things like that.
A moot court is nerve-wracking for any student, and I had never done anything like that. I had never debated or had any level of presentation to that extent but I wanted to try it. If you are going to do trial work or appellate work, you need to see how you perform up there and if you like it. I did moot court and loved it. Gradually, I narrowed my path and figured out how I was going to get there.
I have taught for several years in different law schools and clinics, and it's always gratifying to see that when students come in doing the same thing. They are like, “We don't know but we think we might be interested in doing appellate work or writing with some depth and intensity in our legal practice.” Every once in a while, you see someone have the spark that they have discovered. “This is what I would like to do in it.” It's gratifying to be part of that discovery for someone and to help them along in that regard. It's nice on the other side.
I talk with young lawyers all the time and even Law students, and I always encourage them. The first few years of practice, when you are young, that's the time to stretch yourself and try out different options. Take a few risks, especially if you are not happy doing what you are doing. Take some risks and explore other avenues in the law. The profession has so much to offer.
It has so much depth and breadth and different skills. You can apply them to different kinds of practice or even not practice later on. It's unique in that way. Although, sometimes, people get very too narrowly focused either on what they intended to do when they came to law school or what they see most often in law school as the path. It's a good reminder to remain open and to look at other opportunities. You ended up being, in terms of public service, working in the US Attorney’s Office, and that is an interesting combination because there is writing and also trial work.
After 1L year, I was an extern for a Federal District Court judge. I spent the summer at the Federal District Courthouse downtown. That would be the Central District of California based in Los Angeles and beyond. I took the image of that opportunity to see what it would be like to be at the trial level in Federal Court because I realized fairly early on that in Federal Court, in a job like the Public Defender's Office or it being a US attorney would allow me to do both.
In that US Attorney’s Office, at the time, all of the lawyers on the criminal side, which is where I was, handled our own appeals to the Ninth Circuit. If you are going to make mistakes in the courtroom, you are going to live with that mistake at the appellate level when you appear before the circuit. I was drawn to that. I liked trial work but wanted to see what litigation in the Ninth Circuit would be like.
I gravitated toward that as the best of all worlds, and it allowed me to have a career very rewarding in public service. It took a while to get there. When I came out of law school, I was doing litigation at a firm downtown. That was because, at that time, and still is mostly the case in the US Attorney's Office, that office doesn’t hire directly out of law school. I wanted to get some good litigation experience so that after 2 to 3 years, whenever the opportunity arises that I would present myself more competitively. I went to a firm. It was a big firm, Musick, Peeler & Garrett but the cases were newly staffed, so I could get a higher level of responsibility early on.
When you’re young, that’s the time to stretch yourself and try out different opportunities, take some risks, and explore other avenues in the law.
I spent plenty of time doing document review discovery. There was no eDiscovery back then. We barely refer to emails. A big document discovery task would be going to some warehouse and reviewing tens of thousands of documents. I didn't want to spend the first few years doing that. I want it to be in the courtroom and have the opportunity to take depositions, argue motions, and draft motions. It worked out well after a few years. The hiring freeze and the US Attorney’s Office were lifted. I quickly put in an application and was very fortunate to be hired. I spent about three and a half years or so in private practice before transitioning to public service.
Did you remain in public service as an advocate until becoming a judge? Did you stay in that?
I was in the US Attorney’s Office. My first judicial office was as a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. I was a Trial Judge at the state court level. When I became an AUSA, I loved it. I ended up loving trial work as much as I fought that I would. It's a very rewarding career. I love the comradery within that office while you are surrounded by such talent, and it's exciting to be a young lawyer in the trial trenches. I thought that I was going to be there for the rest of my career. There was no reason to change.
After a number of years, different mentors and people in my life started talking to me about thinking about what judicial career, “Have you thought about this? I think you have the right temperament for it. Do you want to know more about it?” Offered to have me job shadow, tell me what the process is like, and offer to help me navigate the process.
I have been very fortunate that, very early on, right out of law school, I have developed great mentors. Both within the firm at the US Attorney’s Office and some of the judges I appeared in front of. People are willing to extend themselves, give you advice and help if they know you are interested in something. I started thinking about it, and after about ten years of practice or so, some of the folks I know who are very involved and familiar with the process tapped me on the shoulder again and said, “The timing is right. The window of opportunity is open with this particular administration.” Its LA Superior Court judges are appointed by the governor.
Run for open seats or it can be an appointment. At that time, the assessment was that the chips were lined up, and I should put in an application. I could wait another five years and be perfectly happy with that but sometimes, when the opportunity presents itself, and it may be a little too early and not an ideal fit in terms of where you are at in your life at that time but if you don't seize that opportunity then the window may close. Who knows when it will open up again, if ever?
I applied a few years earlier than I had anticipated and went through shockingly fast. I put in an application, and six months later, I put on the robe. I thought it would be a much more protracted process. It's gotten longer and longer but when I put in the application back then, I got the right advice. That window of opportunity was open, and I had the right set of experiences and that end breadth of experiences that the governor happens to be looking for.
That's part of the serendipity again. In that case, you at least had people to tell you, “This is an auspicious time. Things seem to be lined up.” Maybe if you hadn't had that information, it would have taken longer because you wouldn't have known that this was a good opportunity to try.
I do a lot of mentoring. I talked to a lot of people, especially women who are interested in a career on the bench, and I tell them that too, “Don't wait until you feel you are completely ready.” You may never be completely ready. If this is something you want, explore that, and at some point, you have to jump in if the opportunity opens itself up. You just never know.
That's often the sense that I have gotten and heard from women judges that they will say, “Somebody recommended, tapped me on the shoulder or suggested that I applied because I would never have said I was perfectly ready or this was the time to do it. I would say, ‘One more thing to be ready.’” It's nice to have that little nudge from someone who has your interests at heart to say, “You may not think this but you might as well give it a try.” I know people, sometimes, you have to apply many times for different positions. Apply once that may not be successful but then people will get to know you or they will think of you, associate you with being a judge, and then the next time, maybe that will be the time.
That's an important point is to express your interest. Let people know that you are interested, and then the next time that window opens, they will think of you for that position, for example. Your name isn't going to be floated if you hide away and wait until the timing is perfect.
You remain involved in a lot of bar activities and bench activities but you were involved before joining the bench, too. Did you find mentors and supporters? How did you find that involvement in the community and the bar work to play a role there?
It started when I was in law school. I became involved in some local bar organizations. We talked about the fact that I didn't know any lawyers and didn't understand the law that much. My perspective was narrow. I did things like volunteer for the Thursday night clinic and did intake for the Asian American Pacific Legal Center, and joined all different bar organizations. I volunteered and went to dinners. They are fun too. To me, it took some effort but it wasn't something that I didn't enjoy. The more you get out there, the more you ended up enjoying it because you get to know people. Even though Los Angeles is a decent-sized legal market, you do tend to see the same faces over and over again.
I enjoyed it so much that during the first few years of practice, I made it a priority to continue that involvement and start sitting onboards of various organizations. It was fun for me because a lot of my law school classmates were also very involved, particularly in the Asian American Legal Community. It was our way to reconnect and socialize and do something that feels meaningful.
It's important for me, and I tell young lawyers this all the time, that you can get so deep in the weeds of your job that a lot of lawyers are unhappy and don't stretch themselves enough. It was a nice mental health break to leave the office. Even if you have a big project going on, stop by an event that's going on for a couple of hours and go back to the office if necessary. I thought that was a healthy balance rather than adding on to what may appear to be an already overwhelming workload.
Get outside because if your world is too narrow, that's the only thing you are seeing. You won't know what the next step might be for you. You want to go out and see. I remember the Lawyers Association in Los Angeles, bar associations like that were one of the few places where you could get to know and see the breadth of practice that's going on in your region. Knowing prosecutors, defenders, city attorneys, public interest lawyers, big law firms or small law firms. If you are in your practice, you see the people you litigate or work with.
It's a long professional career, and it's good to constantly expand even if you don't think of switching jobs. I didn't start out my involvement with bar organizations with a view toward seeking mentors but ended up developing good mentors through those connections. One of them ended up recruiting me to apply for the Federal bench, and that's how I became a Federal Judge.
She and I knew each other when I was still in law school but she's so heavily involved in all different legal organizations that we keep running into each other, even though our practices were completely different. We were constantly sitting onboards together and running into each other at dinners and the like. Gradually, we started talking about the importance of increasing the pool of applicants to the Federal bench.
I was doing a little bit of recruitment with her and brainstorming about potential good candidates. Eventually, when President Obama was elected, after the election, she called me and was like, “You've got to do it.” I came out of Federal court. It seems like a very natural fit after litigating for almost all of my career as a lawyer in Federal courts. I was very much a Federal court baby, as we called it. It was a nice homecoming for me. My initial reaction is I can think of lots of other people who could fill that role, and again, it's the timing question. At that time, I felt for the first time in my professional life that I had everything perfectly balanced.
When opportunity presents itself, it may be a little too early or may not be an ideal fit in terms of where you’re at in your life. But if you don't seize that opportunity, the window may close, and who knows when it will open again?
I was running a very challenging criminal docket but at the same time, I had two little ones at home and felt like I had enough time for personal life and prioritizing the family. At the same time, I had a little bit of room to continue being involved in community activities. The center docket, for your readers who don't know, that's an overwhelmingly heavy docket.
Mine would have been the historic appointment as the first Vietnamese American Article III Judge and first APA Judge ever to be appointed to that court. I knew that I would not only have to step up and work hard and set a great example but make myself available to other people who wanted to follow in my footsteps as well. I did have moments of hesitation to save costs. It's not that I wouldn't love and treasure the opportunity ever to happen but is the timing really right, and that's a decision I had to discuss with the family and say, “It's going to involve some sacrifices, including very dramatic pay cuts on top of everything else.”
That's very interesting because you would think between State and Federal that wouldn't be true but no.
There are a lot of people who are surprised by that. It was absolutely a privilege to be appointed and a dream job in so many ways but it did take a little bit of discussion within the family and a little bit of soul searching to figure out whether the timing was right.
In that case, time for the family and the whole of your life instead of thinking, “I don't know if I have quite a time skill-wise to do the job.” How long were you on the district court bench before the Ninth Circuit position? I knew it was very swift.
Very short. I started unpacking my boxes. This opportunity presented itself. I never thought about being a circuit judge. I have always thought of myself as a trial court judge, especially since then. I had already served as a Trial Judge at the state court level for seven plus years. I was very comfortable as a Trial Judge. I ran a criminal calendar. I had civil cases here and there but the docket in the Central District is primarily civil. Challenging criminal cases, to be sure is, primarily a civil docket.
It's a steep learning curve, and I was digging in, getting ready to embrace the responsibility of doing that for the rest of my life. The opportunity to apply for a circuit position opened up. It's beyond my merit. At that time, confirmability was something very important to the White House, and I'm sure that that's how my name was floated to be at the top or got put in the pool for consideration.
Which in itself is an honor to have that happen. There are so many other factors that are outside your control with regard to the ultimate nomination.
I realized that so much of it is beyond the candidate, the prospective nominee, and your qualifications. There are so many people who would love the work and what they thought. I went to a mentoring lunch with one of my colleagues a few years ago, and somebody asked him. It was with a very young audience, a high school audience. Somebody said, “How did you become a circuit judge in particular?”
He said, “Go out there and find the biggest field that you can, stand in the middle of it, and wait for lightning to strike you.” A joke on how random it can be because there's so much talent in the legal profession but at the same time, so much of securing this type of job is about luck and being in the right place at the right time, too. You can prepare for it and always have a plan B in mind.
How have you enjoyed being on the Court of Appeals after so much trial court work? How does the work on the trial court inform your decision-making at the appellate level?
Some of my colleagues have never been on the district court bench. They bring us a lot of times of different perspectives to it. For example, if you are a Law professor, especially if you are a Law professor in that particular area of expertise. Let's say the civil procedure, for example, and we have a naughty, precinct chart case, then I may very well look to the colleague’s expertise to say, “What do you think about this issue?”
It's helpful to have different perspectives when you come on a panel of three. My perspective is I'm very familiar with the record and how things play out in the district court. For example, I'm very sensitive to the standard review, “Is this a clear error?” It's helpful to be able to see and visualize how this could have proceeded and come up.
In the middle of a ten-week trial, for example, this issue popped up. It helps me have the ability to respect that and look at it in a broader context. The context of the whole ten-week trial, for example, but this issue that the parties were fighting over about, you pull back, it's one small thing that came up during the course of a very long proceeding with lots of other little issues.
It's a helpful perspective, and what's wonderful about being a Circuit Judge is that you work with two other people and air out different views. It proves the eventual decisions that we come to. The decision-making process is improved. When you can hear different perspectives and people come at it with different life and professional experiences.
I agree and that one of the things I enjoy the most about appellate practice is that same thing that the best ideas and approaches come from working with a team to brainstorm ideas and talk about the law and the development of the law when we are working on a brief. It comes out better that way, so I wouldn't imagine it would be any different at the appellate level as a judge.
You are in our court all the time. I'm sure that you've heard judges say, “I have never seen a situation like that.” They are coming at it from their own experiences.
It is healthy to have different perspectives in a number of different ways. As you said, trial judges and Law professors have a range of experiences. People look at the law and the legal questions from a different perspective. When you are making law and writing published opinions that will govern a lot of people beyond the case that it's helpful to have all of those different approaches to it, all the different levels that you are thinking about. When you are deciding that case, you are not just deciding for the parties. Given that, are there particular things that lawyers can be most helpful with either in their briefs or an argument in answering your questions? Which things help you the most in deciding cases?
We can start very briefly with brief writing. The volume of materials that a judge has to go through by the time it gets to the appellate level is enormous. As you have a generous page limitation, there is a need to take up all the pages that you are given. I would say, clear, concise writing is very helpful as I go through the briefs. Understanding and writing the standard review are also very important.
I like the script of the headings. Tell me where you are going, what that issue that's on the appeal list is, and then tell me where to find it. Step back in reviewing the final brief and try to see it from the judge's point of view, and figure out how you can write to be most helpful and persuasive. The organization and the structure of the briefs. Understanding the standard review, reading together skillfully. The record into the case law that's very helpful.
It’s surprising how many lawyers try to avoid the most difficult issues. They approach argument more like a confrontation that you have to hedge the organization.
In terms of argument, I would say the most helpful tip that I have is to listen to the question and answer the question directly. Depending on the complexity and the number of issues in any given appeal, we set the time limit. It could be for a fairly straightforward case that something isn't so straightforward. You get ten minutes per side. Even in very complicated cases with many issues, you only have a maximum of twenty minutes.
That goes by so fast. When you are standing up, then you see the clock counting down, and you are trying to duck, weave, and avoid questions. It's not helpful because one of the judges that you drew has an issue with an area of the case, whether it's a record or a law or figuring out what the limiting principles are in the rule that you are trying to avenge. We need the lawyers who appear for the argument to help with that, and the way that you can be most helpful is to answer the question.
I mentioned that step number one because it's still surprising to me to this day. How many lawyers tried to avoid the most difficult issues? They approach argument more like a confrontation that you have to hedge your position and make sure that you don't give things away. The best arguments are very good conversations. You try to have a good conversation with the judges, try to engage them, and try to address their concerns. That would be tip number one.
It can be hard but the way I like to think of it is if you were up there, you had a question, and it wasn't answered, how much would you be concentrating on what else I'm talking about? Not very much. I'm still thinking about my question, and I want my answer. I'm still thinking about that while trying to listen to you. It seems to make more sense to a point where there's an issue.
The judges try to follow up but sometimes they don't follow up. If you look at the panel and are sensitive to the dynamics of it, no one judge could dominate. Sometimes that happens but most judges up there try to be very sensitive to not monopolizing the lawyer's time. This indicates the colleagues an opportunity to have their concerns addressed but, at the same time, gives the lawyer an adequate opportunity to get out the answer instead of constantly interrupting.
They start from A, and they want to go through Z. You want to get them a chance to talk, to figure out if they are eventually going to get to Z. Sometimes they don't, but by then, it's eaten up so much time. There's no opportunity to follow up because the issue is nuanced, and maybe your colleagues want to jump in with a question as well. Being sensitive to dynamics, we make arguments a lot more helpful.
That's a good point too. That's the difference of an appellate argument as well. You are not talking to one judge, and you are talking to the panel and the interaction and the questions back and forth. Even that the judges might have, you need to be sensitive to that as well. Sometimes it seems like you are talking to each other in some regard.
That can happen. Those who don't practice in the Ninth Circuit should know that the judges don't conference the cases before argument. Sometimes through a big stage of memos and emails, we may have a little window into what your colleagues might be thinking about a particular issue in the case but we don't talk about the cases beforehand. A lot of times, you get an easy question. It is an easy question, and maybe that is trying to help you out or trying to ask questions so the answers can aid an issue that your colleague may be struggling with. It's the dynamics of addressing a region of the panel that's a part of it.
That's a good way of putting it. I hadn’t thought of it as that dynamic. That's exactly it that often happens. You're right. There is some discussion of issues but unlike other appellate courts, there isn't a full line conferencing beforehand, or full drafting of opinions or things like that would have happened where you would have a much clearer sense of the overarching perspective of each of your colleagues. Sometimes that's happening in real-time on the bench.
In California, for example, a draft opinion is written and circulated before they schedule an argument but, for us, we conference the cases, discuss the cases and figure out what we are going to do immediately after an argument is heard.
Do you have a particular judge who's on the bench now that you either admire or emulate in some way in terms of how they approach cases?
I wouldn't say any one particular judge because there are so many wonderful judges, including many of my own colleagues. We have a very heavy caseload. You've mentioned the size of the circuit. There are heavy travel responsibilities. It sometimes can feel very relentless, and their dedication, not only to handling cases but also dedication to service to the cause of justice and the administration of the courts. It’s incredible. A lot of people would be surprised by how much time some of the judges devote to outside community activities. I love that hardworking principle, smart as heck, and committed to the law and the improvement of the community. Many judges share that quality.
In general, those approaches are something to emulate. Your leadership as a Judge is in so many different ways in terms of court, access, and administration of the court and justice system. Deciding the cases but then also having a leadership opportunity within the community for service. As I think of it as convening conversations around particular issues, you may not be able to advocate in a way that you could if you were in private practice or off the bench. You can certainly get discussions going and get people around a table to talk about things that might need to be talked about but if you hadn't convened, it wouldn't happen.
Many lawyers are heavily involved and do the laboring or as well. For example, I have a meeting on my criminal rules committee, and the amount of work that all professors, lawyers, and judges put into discussing, researching, and figuring out what the right phrasing is for one rule. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort but once that rule is written or revised, let's say. It then impacts all of the practitioners across the country. Care has to be obviously given to all the various mini-work, including all of the rules and jury instructions committee. There are so many ways to participate.
The jury instruction committees and the rules committees, both in the State and Federal courts, help ways that you can impact so many things. The procedures and the clarity of the instructions that the jurors get. There's so much caretaking, and still, when there's a public comment or something that comes out, you are like, “We didn't see that. We need to look at that.” That's part of the rules work. That's good that you are doing that work as well. I didn't realize you were involved in that also.
Sometimes I feel like, “It’s too much. I have got a scale back next year.” If there’s another opportunity, for example, the Ninth Circuit is involved in selecting bankruptcy judges. You put an effort that you put back into impacts the entire bankruptcy bench. I can name off the top of my head maybe 20 or 30 different opportunities to make a contribution. There are only 24 hours in the day. You can get to think about the exhaustion burnout factor as well. I have, from time to time, switched up what projects I have going on at any one time. Move around, and I'm sure you were involved in way too many things.
That's the thing. The issue I have is the switching around seems to accumulate. I'm doing this and then these other things too, and you have to say, “Have I done the most I can do in terms of serving in this particular area? If I have them, perhaps it's time to give that opportunity to someone else and focus on other projects. I'm trying to get better at that.”
You know how it is. Once you get roped in, especially, if you do a good job, they are never going to let you go. That's the problem.
“You are hardworking on this particular issue. Great. We would love you to keep working on this.” It is true. I love those committees too because you are working with people, practitioners, and judges with different practices and focus, and you are able to get all of those perspectives together to look at the rules. I like getting different perspectives, and it's not one narrow way to view things. It's nice. I want to turn to a quick lightning round of questions, if I may. Which talent would you most like to have that you don't?
I would love to speak many different languages. I love to travel. I don't do enough of it. Maybe in retirement, that would be a pursuit to go to as many countries as I can. I like to travel not as a tourist but to engage as much as I can. It's easier to do that when you speak the language. I wish I could do that. I wish there were time to take on yet another language.
Who are your favorite writers?
That's hard. I was an English Literature major. I don't think I can pick one. In college, I took a class on William Faulkner. The whole quarter, we did nothing but read Faulkner, and so I have the whole set of all of his books. From time to time, I still go back and read it. Popular fiction. I love Margaret Atwood. I spent a year in Japan living in Tokyo in college. I read a lot of Japanese writers during that year. I'm about to start a book by Haruki Murakami, and I enjoyed that as well. The question isn't whether there are books out there or authors I love it. Can I carve aside a little bit of time to get to it?
That is an issue. Having that exposure to good writing, any good writing is good, and it helps keep you grow with your writing.
It's such a pleasure.
For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
I have got to say, particularly now in the middle of the pandemic, my loving, supportive, and healthy family, nothing is more important than that.
One of the silver linings of all of this is it caused us to center back on fundamentally what's important in our families, which is always looking for the positive things in this. That's one of the silver linings. Who is your hero in real life?
My parents are my heroes. I don't think I could do what they did, which is, in their 30s, live in a foreign country with cultural and language barriers, start all over again with six little kids in tow, and build a successful life for themselves all of their children. I don't think that I could do it. It demonstrates incredible resilience. It's not an uncommon tale among immigrant families. Nothing beats that.
There's certainly a level of grit, determination, and resilience, as you mentioned, that is all over that experience and story. I would like not to have to do that. It would be very difficult. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you choose to have as a dinner guest?
I would say, Michelle Obama. She's so relatable that we would have lots to talk about. I suspect she knows how to have fun, too. It wouldn't be stuffy as their guest would be my guest.
Finally, what is your motto, if you have one?
Live well.
That is an excellent way to conclude and great ammunition for everyone as we close the show. Thank you so much for joining us now.
Thank you, MC. I had fun chatting with you and hope it was enjoyable for your audience.