Washington Supreme Court Justice

00:48:43

Subscribe and listen on…

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

Watch Full Interview | View Show Notes | View Transcript

Washington Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen is a trailblazer. The first woman to be popularly elected to the Court in Washington state history, and the third woman to serve on the Court, she is committed to public service and equal justice. While on Seattle's Municipal Court bench, she helped develop a Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee to comprehensively address violence in the family and as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court, she increased opportunities for women and attorneys of color to receive appointments as pro tem judges. She shares her remarkable journey from public defender and city attorney to her state's highest court with host M.C. Sungaila.

Relevant episode links:

Washington Supreme Court , National Association of Women Judges, Christine Durham – Past episode, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby – Past episode

About Barbara Madsen:

The voters elected Barbara Madsen as the third woman to serve on the Washington Supreme Court in 1992, and she was re-elected in 1998, 2004, 2010, and 2016. Justice Madsen was unanimously elected by her colleagues to serve two terms as the 55th Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, from 2010-2017. In that role she was the court's chief spokesperson.

Justice Madsen, a native of Renton, received her undergraduate degree from the University of Washington in 1974 and earned her J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law in 1977. While at Gonzaga, Justice Madsen volunteered many hours with Gonzaga's University Legal Assistance Clinic and Spokane County Legal Services.

After completing law school, Justice Madsen worked as a public defender in King and Snohomish counties. In 1982, she joined the Seattle City Attorney's Office and was appointed Special Prosecutor in 1984. Mayor Charles Royer appointed Justice Madsen to the Seattle Municipal Court bench in 1988, where she served as Presiding Judge for two terms.

Justice Madsen is committed to public service and equal justice. When she served as the Special Prosecutor, Madsen developed the child abuse component of Seattle's Family Violence Project. After joining the Seattle Municipal Court bench, she helped develop a Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee to comprehensively address violence in the family. As Presiding Judge, she increased opportunities for women and attorneys of color to receive appointments as pro tem judges.

Justice Madsen's commitment to equal justice continues today on the Supreme Court. In 1998, she was appointed chair of the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission. The Commission, partnering with other community groups, succeeded in passing legislation banning the shackling of women prisoners during labor. Under her direction, the Commission has produced the Domestic Violence Manual for Judges, the Sexual Orientation Benchguide, the Sexual Offense Benchguide, and the Immigration Resource Guide for Judges, in partnership with the Minority and Justice Commission, as well as developing judicial education on a wide variety of gender issues and model policies designed to enhance the safety of victims of domestic violence. In 2001, Justice Madsen facilitated Washington's first Glass Ceiling Study. In 2004, Justice Madsen co chaired the Crystal Brame Committee which secured legislation requiring all police agencies to adopt investigation protocol for police perpetrated domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2005, she helped establish the Initiative for Diversity, a program encouraging legal employers to commit to and implement organizational plans to increase diversity. As chief justice, Madsen was instrumental in the development of a limited legal license technician program, the first in the nation, to address the critical justice gap for low and moderate income people. In 2013, Justice Madsen led the Supreme Court efforts to develop the Tribal State Court Consortium, encouraging and building partnerships among tribal and state judicial officers. In 2019, Justice Madsen was appointed co-chair of the Washington State Supreme Court Commission on Children in Foster Care, in which stakeholders work to improve court processes, laws, regulations and policies so children can move safely and quickly into stable homes, through reunification with parents or through adoption. In 2020, she was appointed chair of the Judicial Information System Committee. The committee oversees information technology for Washington courts, automating and supporting the daily operations of the courts and maintaining a statewide network connecting the courts and partner criminal justice agencies to the JIS database.

Among her many honors, Justice Madsen was the first recipient of the annual Myra Bradwell Award, honoring an outstanding alumna of Gonzaga University School of Law who has made great strides on behalf of women. Twice she received the Washington Women Lawyers Vanguard Award, in 1998 and 2002, for her leadership and inspiration for women in the legal profession. In 2010, she was named the Seattle University School of Law Woman of the Year and in 2011, she received the Social Justice Award from the Loren Miller Bar Association for her unwavering dedication to the pursuit of justice and equality in Washington State. In 2014, she was awarded the Gonzaga Law Medal from Gonzaga University School of Law. Justice Madsen received the 2015 Betty Binns Fletcher Leadership and Justice Award in recognition of outstanding leadership of the judicial branch. In 2020, Justice Madsen received the prestigious Joan Dempsey Klein Award by the National Association of Women Judges for her decades of work encouraging and supporting women in the legal profession.

I'm very pleased to have Justice Barbara Madsen on the show from the Washington Supreme Court. Welcome.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your invitation.

I'm so pleased to have spoken with a couple of your colleagues as well said, "Justice Madsen needs to be part of this project." I'm glad you are here and trailblazing on the Washington Supreme Court yourself. I'm curious about knowing your initial story in terms of how you became interested in the law and what made you want to go to law school, to begin with.

It seems that there's no specific answer to that but the turning point for law school itself was when I was an intern at the legislature for a senior senator who was also a lawyer. He had me writing legislation and I was terrified to what I wrote as an intern was going to be law. He said, "If you are that concerned, maybe you should go to law school." He had offered me a job with the legislature in the policy division, but he said, "You would benefit."

That was the real pinpoint of why I chose law, but for other reasons, I had four brothers who seemed to get into trouble all the time. We need a lawyer in my family, we didn't have one. My third-grade teacher always said, "It's a big world out there and you are lucky to be where you are. You need to find a way to give back." The whole of those experiences made me think that law was the place for me where I could make the difference that I wanted to make.

It's a big world out there. You're lucky to be where you are, and you need to find a way to give back.

Sometimes it's a convergence of different things in our lives that make it make sense. For other people, it's like an epiphany moment. It sounds like it's a convergence of many different things. How did you choose to intern with the legislator? I'm interested in that. What led you to do that?

I was a Political Science major with a Journalism minor. I was torn between journalism because I imagined myself as a foreign correspondent. At the same time, I thought it was closer to home, and in the legislature, they are helping to make a policy and debating policy questions, so that attracted me. One of the offerings in my Political Science course was to be an intern at the Washington Legislature and a choice whom I wanted to intern for. Senator Whetzel was his name. I thought, "He's a senior and a lawyer. I could learn a lot." That's how I ended up interning in the legislature.

In law school now as well are having externship opportunities or clinic opportunities where you can get out into the world a little bit can be so transformative. You have those kinds of experiences when you can see them in action.

I always learned by example. It's a learning style.

I can see why that worked for you then. Did you have some idea of what law you wanted to practice when you came out of law school or did that change as you went through school?

Initially, I thought I would go back to the legislature, but as I proceeded through my law school courses, I became focused on legal services work which would put me in touch with a marginalized population who could most use my skills. During law school, I volunteered to work for legal services in Spokane, which is where I went to law school. I was convinced that's where I wanted to be. Unfortunately, the Congress that funds legal services was not as enamored with legal services as I was.

I remember those times and those issues.

They cut funding and closed several legal services offices in our state, so that was not an option for me. I thought that I would pursue criminal law and became a public defender initially. It's a marginalized population that has all the weight of the state against them and is not only in the prosecution phase, but probably, their whole lives. They had the cards stacked against them so that appealed to me and that's how I chose public defense.

I had some guests on the show who have been public defenders previously, either to the bench or in academia now. They speak of it the same way in terms of there's a lot lined up against you throughout time, but also in the court system and having that sense of responsibility standing up for the individual.

I then thought it would be important to know the other side so I went into prosecution. I prosecuted, but I was a special prosecutor. I was put in charge of developing domestic violence unit for our prosecutor's office. After putting that together, I then moved on to develop a child abuse component of our family violence project. Those are the things that appealed to me too because the prosecution was a little bit of an uncomfortable fit for me.

I would imagine that would be a tough transition.

It would have been if I hadn't had an opportunity to do this special work or put these projects together, hire the advocates, and develop a family violence unit for our city. I was in the City of Seattle. There were none in our state. It was challenging work, but it also felt like I was on the right side.

That must have been exciting. Setting up the program, to begin with, is exciting because you have a broader perspective on what you are doing than in an individual case. At that time, were there a lot of units like that around the country or was that new, in general?

It was new in general. It was a recognition of domestic violence and the toll that it takes on our citizens or the people that were in the community, their children, and the cycle. It wasn't appreciated. In fact, domestic violence laws were almost brand new at that time.

The toll that domestic violence takes on our citizens, their children, the whole cycle, is still not being fully recognized.

That's what I was wondering.

 It was 1982, so we had just passed laws in our state about domestic violence. It was very new.

It's exciting to have that opportunity to be on the cutting edge of things and set up how these things are going to be implemented. It's pretty neat. How did you decide, "I might want to join the bench," instead of being an advocate? Was there something that piqued your interest or did somebody tap you on the shoulder and suggest you consider it? I'm always curious how that starts.

A little bit of both. I had a good friend and she was the first African-American judge on our bench. We had been in the public defender's office together years before. She had seen me as a prosecutor and we had remained friends. She suggested that there was a commissioner position opening up and that I should apply for that, but also, I had my third child, and preparing for trial is so time-consuming. I felt like the bench would give me steadier hours and predictability. I just had another baby and I thought, "This is challenging to try and juggle both of these things." It made sense to me at the time. I was then appointed by that bench as a commissioner. A few years later, I was appointed to a seat on the bench.

In California, the commissioners are appointed by the Superior Court judges. Is that what you are talking about? Is that the same in Washington too?

Right. Although this wasn't Superior Court, this was the City Court. They had the same practice of appointing their commissioners. In that case, being appointed to the bench was by our mayor rather than the governor.

We don't have that. They are all statewide appointments, so it's a governor appointment.

It's a little bit different here.

It seems also that you might know the mayor or they might have some familiarity. Everyone always says political-wise, "Do you have an in with the governor?" You might not know them, but more likely, at least the mayor might have heard of you, especially with your work in those special units.

That is what propelled me to the top of the list with the mayor all of the work with the advocates in the city, the domestic violence and child abuse advocates, and the centers for domestic violence. They all wrote letters and lobbied the mayor on my behalf. That did launch me onto the bench.

A lot of judges prior to the bench have done a lot of community service and had a broad array of service in the law and outside the law. You were doing all of that in your role. That makes a lot of sense. How did you enjoy serving on the trial bench?

I enjoyed it. Initially, I only spent a few years there, but most of the years, I was elected as our presiding judge. The exciting part of that was learning how the court works. You are very much responsible for the administrative side of the court. That's something that as a lawyer, commissioner, and even in my first year as a judge didn't understand how that all worked. It was one of the best experiences of my life because our employees were unionized, so I had to understand how to administer discipline in a union shock.

I had the press on my back for a few things that had happened before I became a commissioner, let alone a judge. Big Black headlines in the Seattle Times about the uncollected fees amounting to $10 million. I'm the chief and I'm like, "I have to learn how to deal with the press." They even filmed in our court because our volume was incredible. The fire department came in and escorted people out because of the numbers. The TV came in and filmed it. All of these things were big challenges at the time, but they helped me to grow and understand the court system in a way that I never would have if I hadn't had those opportunities.

Sometimes being under fire and having to deal with things, as you said, are growth opportunities. That's a positive way of looking at it as you are trying to dog-paddle your way through things that you are trying to make sense of. The administrative role in the court system is also something that people don't know or don't think about.

As you move up in the court system at the Supreme Court level, it's much more administrative. You were chief justice of the court previously too. You are working with the court system writ large. It's a whole other set of work and roles that judges have that people don't think about. They think about you doing trials or deciding cases, but there's also the larger administration of the courts.

It's quite an enormous responsibility. The justice system has to work for everybody. The only way that's going to happen is on the administrative side to make sure that the procedures are in place for a fair outcome and that the judges across the state are following the rules. It's important to make the system work.

Especially, in your role as Chief Justice previously, your work with the legislature is probably helpful. In a lot of states, all the different co-equal branches of government need to work together, whether it's budgeting or whatever projects you are working on. I'm assuming that was helpful at some point.

It was. I worked through three governors as chief. One of the governors was a former classmate of mine at law school. It was fun. Governor Gregoire and I were at school together. She and I thought it would be a good idea to set up quarterly meetings so that we could have that conversation with the executive branch. It would be helpful in terms of getting our budgets through the legislature and apprising the legislature when some of the laws they were passing were impossible for the trial courts to try to implement. It was a wonderful experience.

Tell me about the move to the Supreme Court. In Washington state, that's an elected position to the Supreme Court, right?

It can be appointed if there's a vacancy between elections, but in my case, it was again a convergence of events that led me here. It started with the Clarence Thomas hearings in the Senate and Anita Hill was testifying. I along with probably everybody in the country was glued to the television set. I got so angry with the treatment that she received from a room full of all men. It made me think about the things that I had experienced as a female lawyer. It got me thinking that we needed women at the table where decisions, procedures, and rules were going to be decided so I ran for the Supreme Court.

That's a positive reaction to an event that was catalytic for a lot of women in the law and wanting to have a seat at the table and make a difference. Tell me about some of the experiences that you had as a lawyer yourself that you referenced if you are willing to. That's something that has come through at times in the show, depending on when you graduated from law school and when you started working. Women now are more than 50% of the class in law school. They didn't experience some of the things that you or I might have experienced. It's helpful for them to know in some ways how far we have come and in other ways, we still need to go.

I have four brothers and my mother always expected us all to go college, get jobs, and support ourselves. That was my reality going right into law school. The first week of law school when my male colleagues would come up to me and say, "What are you doing here? You are taking a seat that belongs to a man." I honestly thought they were joking, but they weren't, they were serious. Right away, I didn't feel welcome. Only 10% of my class were women and there were only two of us who were single women. The other women were married to other law students.

Up to that point, it wouldn't have bothered me, but then hearing the reaction like, "You shouldn't be here," was an eye-opener for me. In law school, we had a moot court competition. There was dinner and a party and all the law students got together. It was the law school party of the year. The people in charge were male law students and they hired a stripper. I went to the party and I saw a stripper. I thought, "Where am I?" Those were my law school years.

In practice, applying to civil law firms, you weren't welcome. The questions that were asked about your future plans for motherhood did not feel that I would be a good fit in any of those big firms. I decided to go to the public defender's office. By the time I got there, there were three of us women. I had been there for a couple of years. The director of the public defender's office would allow us to do misdemeanor appointments, but we couldn't do felonies because females can't do felonies.

That caused me to move offices. I got a different job in a different public defender's office where the director was a female. She didn't seem to have a problem with me doing felonies. I was able to do a death penalty case it is sad to say that we had a death penalty, but we did. I was able to represent a defendant charged in a capital case, which I never would've been able to do in my previous appointment. When I was in the prosecutor's office, my supervisor had no understanding of the fact that I had three children and had to take them to daycare in the morning. He would be at the door looking at his wristwatch. I always wondered, "Where are you at 6:00 or 7:00 PM when I'm leaving? You are not anywhere to be found, so give me a break with the wristwatch." Those were things that happened.

When I went to interview for the appointment to the bench, there was one other woman on the bench. I had worked in her courtroom as a prosecutor and she took me aside and said, "You should wear makeup because the mayor is attracted to women who wear makeup." These are crazy memories that I have. It was so different to be a woman in the practice. I knew that women before me had it even worse. I just kept going and decided I was going to make a difference.

It is so different to be a woman in court practice now, but women before us had it even worse than we did. Just keep going and make a difference.

It's helpful for people to know those stories because there are still challenges. There are challenges, but they are usually a little further down the line now once you are in the profession. It keeps getting pushed back a little bit more. I graduated in the early-1990s, so being in law school in the late-1980s was vastly different even than the experiences of people I know in the early 1980s.

There were such big changes in that timeframe in terms of the number of women going to law school and entering the profession. We still have challenges down the line. The common story of when you go to take a deposition and someone thinks that you are the court reporter and you couldn't possibly be the lawyer taking the deposition. That was still common during my early years as a lawyer. It doesn't happen now, so it's nice to see some progress.

It is, but I have a daughter-in-law who still is asked, "Is she the court reporter?"

I like to hope that that doesn't happen anymore, but I guess not.

We would hope, but things have changed. Still, when I joined the Supreme Court, I was asked by one of the justices what my favorite gloves were to wash dishes. Did I prefer the rubber gloves that go up to the elbow? I did have to tell him that I didn't do the dishes in my household and that my husband did the dishes. It went all the way up. I do think numbers matter. The more women who find their way to the top of their profession, it will make it easier is for the rest of us who come behind.

We are getting there. Your court has a lot of women now which is still quite notable. The Michigan Supreme Court has a lot of women as well.

Now, they have to increase the pay so that it doesn't become like many other professions. When they don't pay well, then women will do the job.

That is true. That's a trend or whatever you want to call it that you see. I have even seen it in certain portions of the profession as those become more prestigious, start to earn more money, or a combination of both that more men come into them and the women leave. You are like, "You should stay when it gets more prestigious. It's okay." I have seen that happen too.

Tell me about running for election to the State Supreme Court because that is, in some ways, terrifying. It's challenging to want to serve as a judge. The elected office seems different from what you think ultimately your role as a judge would be. For those of us who would be interested in serving on an appellate bench in particular, going out and meeting a lot of people, that's probably not one of our favorite things to do. It may not be the number one thing to do.

I was so inflamed in my view.

You were going to do it. You are moving forward.

I also have to say ignorance was bliss because I had never had to run for a position. I didn't know what I was in for. It's a statewide election. I found myself in the middle of Eastern Washington which is pretty much desert. I was like, "What am I doing here?" It was a shock, but I put my head down and kept going. One of the most rewarding experiences that I had was when I would be speaking to an audience and older women, I wouldn't call them older now, but at the time, they seemed like older women. They wanted to come up and hold my hand and say how thrilled they were that a woman was running for the Supreme Court. It kept me going. They would be like your mother coming up and putting her arm out and saying, "Way to go, honey."

That fueled your fire. They were encouraging you.

It was a challenging time for me because I had my fourth child and he was not quite a year old. I didn't the campaign. I put a sign, "Vote for Barbara Madsen on his stroller." I would go to county fairs and any place where there were people. We would stroll and give out my leaflets. My husband, fortunately, was a lawyer as well. He supported what I had decided to do and together we managed it, but it was an undertaking.

I love how you are attaching the banner to the stroller and going for it. That's a great image. It's a state and you want to meet voters. Also, it's not a small state.

There was never been a woman elected to the Washington Supreme Court either. I was having to blaze new trails on that because I had no one to talk to about how to go about it. The other women on the other benches were supportive, but they hadn't run a statewide election campaign. It was just doing what makes sense to you and hope that it all works out.

You were pretty inspired to do it, so you kept moving forward, but a lot of life is like that. First of all, it's good not to know what's required for things because you might not have done it if somebody told you all this. You are like, "I don't know. Let me think about that." Sometimes, it's good to move ahead and not knowing it. Once you are in it, you are like, "Now, I have to get through this and move forward." It's just moving forward despite the challenges and knowing that you want to serve and make a difference.

It's a reason to keep going. Obstacles are there for a reason. You have to want to get where you are going. The fact that you are willing to go through those obstacles, tells you something about your commitment.

You have to really want to get where you're going. And the fact that you're willing to go through those obstacles, it really tells you something about your commitment.

That's a good way of putting those obstacles there for a reason. Both, for making sure that you want the position and also that there will be obstacles once you are in a certain position. You have to be able to master overcoming obstacles so that you can do the best job in the position. It's almost like training while you are doing it to be prepared for that. Each time we go through something that's new or challenging, we flex our muscles. Whether that's resilience, grit, or what have you that you say, "Whatever comes at me, that's fine. I handled the last thing. I can handle this thing."

If you let it get you down, you are not going to get anywhere in life. It's great training.

You were successful in your first venture. That's amazing. How have you enjoyed serving on the court? You also mentioned serving as chief justice, so tell me about your adventure on the court.

It was an interesting time for a lot of reasons because the gender factor was a reason for the change, but because when I came in, there was a movement in some parts of the country to be looking at the quality of justice that the courts were serving. Our court was one of the first in the nation that developed a Minority and Justice Commission because we had an African-American judge. He saw that as a need. That was prior to my coming onto the court.

When I came on to the court, I had a conversation with Governor Gregoire and she was the attorney general at that time about gender inequality in the courts. We as a court decided to form a Gender and Justice Commission. I ended up chairing that for several years. From there we went to our bar association and approached the court about affirming access to the justice board within the Washington State Bar Association. We voted to approve that.

Interpreters were just burgeoning at that point because we had so much immigration. One of our administrative offices of the court staff developed a protocol for testing language interpreters. We started Language Interpreter Commission because when I was a trial court judge, I had to use my court staff to translate. I had one who spoke Tagalog and one who spoke Spanish. It's fraught with problems as you can imagine. We wanted to professionalize the interpreter system so we formed that commission.

Fast forward, we developed a Commission on Children in Foster Care which I am now chairing. It was an exciting time. In terms of my experience on the court, what has been the most rewarding is being part of developing those commissions or committees that dealt with the issue of fairness in the courts. The changes that we have seen since the commissions came online are amazing.

Also, I found my personality is such that I like to keep learning. We are a discretionary court so we don't have to take cases on appeal which our Court of Appeals would do. We get to choose the cases that we take. They are such an opportunity for growth. A lot of them involve history and I love history. They involve areas of the law that I never practiced. I have to learn the area of the law. The research is amazing. I can't complain about any aspect of the job. It's been like a dream come true.

Having that broad array of the subject matter of the appeals is always interesting too. It's a discretionary review court, so you get to select which ones to decide and set precedent for your state. To an appellate lawyer like me, it sounds like a lot of fun and interesting. Sometimes it's the timing, like you said, the timeframe at which you joined the court. There were a lot of these commissions at work dealing with different aspects of access to justice, but if you joined at another time, those might not have been happening, and those changes might not have been there. It was a good time for you to join, especially given your initial inspiration to be there, the gender-biased task forces. I do remember that Washington was on the front vanguard of that like the Ninth Circuit and California.

I had the opportunity to meet a lot of the judges who were at the forefront of those movements and many California.

When I first started practicing, I was drafted by some of the California judges to help work with our State Bar Task Force. We had different handbooks. We had gender-biased handbooks for judges and for attorneys. I was this very new attorney and they are like, "Help us draft this." It was a great time to be joining the profession when that was in the works.

I'm sure some people would be curious given your lot of experience on the Supreme Court, what could they do, when they are presenting cases to you, either at oral argument or in a brief that would make your job easier? What things should they be thinking about that you are thinking about when you are approaching cases that would, again, make it easier for you to decide cases?

What I find most important is what will be the consequence or the impact of the ruling in favor of the party that's asking for relief. It may be a small issue but put it in the context of the bigger picture so that I can feel confident that if I can agree with the rationale that you are presenting, it's not going to turn everything upside down. I like to hear the big-picture consequence. The parties sometimes become myopic in terms of, all I care about is winning here.

In my case, those aren't my facts. At the Supreme Court level, it's like, "True, but what we are pronouncing will have an impact on a lot of different fact patterns." You want to make sure that whatever you are announcing doesn't have some untoward effect that you hadn't considered.

Yes. In an oral argument, anytime a justice asks you a question, it is a gift. Do not bat it away as if it were a fly ball. You want to answer it and embrace the opportunity. Don't be annoyed that we are interrupting you. You are lucky that we are interrupting you because now you can focus on your argument. At least one or more of us thinks is important. Lawyers who are experienced appellate lawyers know that, but there are still a few in our state who don't seem to. They don't want to be interrupted.

You are on a mission. That's one of the hard things I teach in an appellate clinic at a law school. One of the first things is they are so committed. They have their presentation and they want to get it out. You have to work hard for people not to do that, for the student level and even beyond that. You become committed to your view, but it's a gift to have the questions, as you said, because otherwise, how can you have that conversation with the judges who are deciding the case and understand what your questions might be?

Your brief should have told us what you absolutely need us to know. Look at the opportunity as a chance to have a chat. When I first joined the court, what I realized almost immediately was I loved that part of it. I love talking to the lawyer about the law and it's almost like we are trying to collaborate with a good lawyer.

It's interesting and you are working towards that question of where should the law go, not only for your client in your case but in general, why does this make sense? Those are good tips. Answer the question. That's another one. Sometimes people don't want the question and then they don't answer it. That's helpful too. I have a question, in terms of briefs. Do you read the briefs in a certain order or do you read the table of contents first? How do you first approach a case?

The briefs aren't the first thing I read. If it's an appellate court decision that we are reviewing then I want to start with the appellate court decision. In our court, because it's a discretionary court, we sit in panels of 4 and 4, and then the chief makes up the 5th vote. That's the way that we decide what to accept for review. If a case can't get five votes from what we call the department, then it comes to the full court,

We sometimes have memos that we prepare advocating either to deny or grant review. I like to look at what the other justices have said if there's a memo from the other justices. We have a commissioner's memo that comes with each case so I have identified what the department was thinking about when they accepted the review. I then can hone in on the briefing on the issues that are important.

In drafting, I work with my law clerks, but I also, edit and rewrite. When I'm working on rewriting or editing, it's helpful to go back to the issue statements as they are drafted by the attorneys and then the answers that they are giving us to those questions. Most briefs will cite an issue and then they will give you the answer that they want. I find that helpful to be sure to check against what I'm remembering the issues against what they are.

Sometimes there's a little difference or disconnect, as time goes on. Court cases morph between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. That's very helpful. I like headings in the briefing because when I'm focusing on something, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on the issues that I don't have a question about. I can jump right to the place where I need to be, that's the way I use the briefs, generally.

I'm curious because people do use them differently and start differently. Interesting to me. That's good advice for oral advocacy. What advice would you have to someone who might be considering joining the bench, who's earlier in their career? What kinds of things could they do to figure out whether that's something they would want to do and then be prepared for that position?

The first point hits one of the concerns I would have and that is, "Do you want to be a judge? Do you know what it involves? " Advocacy in the courtroom is so different from being a judge in the courtroom. It's important to know that it's what you want. I would say the obvious is pro teming and there are lots of opportunities for pro teming and that helps you to know if this is what you want and talk to other judges, who have been there a while because, at the beginning of your judicial career, a lot of things will be eye-opening to you. The longer that you sit, the more wisdom you have about what it's like. It's good to talk to older judges who have been there a while.

To women who plan to be a judge, do you really want it? Do you know exactly what’s involved? You have to ask yourself these questions because advocacy in the courtroom is so different from being the judge in the courtroom.

If you are convinced that this is what you want to do then, it depends on how you think you are going to get to the bench if you are going to be appointed or elected. You are going to go down different paths depending on which method you want to achieve your goal. I have done both. I was appointed and I was elected. You have to identify how it is you think you are going to get there.

In some ways, it's similar because you need advocates but, they are going to be different people. Your community service is going to be key, regardless of whether you want to be appointed or elected. Make sure you have deep ties to the community who and that you have proven yourself to be value-added in those roles. That's going to be great preparation for either an election or an appointment.

That's a good point. I'm glad you said that because it is the distinction of also how you get to the role is important too. You have to know how that happens, election or appointment, and then what's involved in that process. Even if you might not enjoy the process, sometimes you have a strong enough interest and think that you can serve in a role. You are willing to go through that fire to get to the position and serve. It's having a strong sense of what it is you would be doing and you would serve well in that role by finding out what's involved. Those are all good ways to do that. Having clerked for a judge earlier in your career also gives you a sense of what's involved.

In our state, if you are appointed to fill a vacancy, you have to run again in the next election, but statistically, you will never get a challenger once you are there. Lawyers are the only ones who can run and they tend not to want to get run against sitting judges. If you go through that ordeal, you can be there as long as you want.

That's a good way of thinking about it. I hadn't heard someone mention that before, but that is true. Not many people will challenge. That's some pretty good advice. I appreciate that. Also, about mentoring and sponsorship, have you had mentors in your career? You mentioned advocates during the judicial selection process, but I always like to ask this because, first of all, we don't get anywhere alone. It's nice to acknowledge those who have helped us.

Especially now, there are a lot of newer lawyers and law students who are told, "You need to go to a mentor," and everyone goes, "Great." What does that look like? How do when I have a mentor? Sometimes you have a fixed sense of what that can look like. I'd like to have actual stories of this because people will be able to know how to implement that in their lives.

There are a lot of studies on mentorship and what is an effective mentor. I'm not going to pretend that I know all of that or I have had it in my own life, but what has helped me through my career has been an organization that I belong to called the National Association of Women Judges. We do education, but it's much more the stories, camaraderie, support, and the person I can call who knows what I'm talking about. I don't feel like I'm either burdening or inappropriately commenting. For me, it was other women judges who were so generous in how they were willing to share their own stories and solutions to the problems that we were all facing.

The National Association of Women Judges is a great organization where you can get stories, camaraderie, and support from women judges.

That's an important point too because there is a certain level of you can't discuss certain things with people. Also, there are certain things in that role that somebody else in that role could understand or give you advice for. Friends of mine who are general counsel with companies have their little general counsel round table or kitchen cabinet of other women in those roles, who can bounce ideas off each other, support, and tell each other their stories.

National Association of Women Judges has been so important to a lot of people who have been on the show and including some of the founders like Christine Durham, who was our very first guest, and Anna Blackburne-Rigsby in DC. It's been an important part of their careers and lives too. It's nice for you to recognize it too, for the important role that it has played.

Those two women are friends of mine. I'm so blessed to have even been able to meet them and do various projects with them. It's such a great network of support. Finding people who are in the same role can be mentors. If that's the right word to use for those people, but they help you and that's what mentoring is about and being a help in your career path.

When people think about mentoring, they always think, it's only early on in your career, but as you said, you have growth opportunities, and you are learning. It helps to have mentors throughout your career, in that regard. That's an important reminder because people always think, "I need that at the very beginning of my career," but if you are doing it right and you are continuing to grow then you are going to benefit from that at each stage and a new challenge that you take on. Thank you so much for sharing your journey and story on the show. I appreciate it. Usually, I close with a few lightning-round questions. I'm going to ask a few of those. The first one is, which talent would you like to have, but don't?

I would like to be able to delegate better. I always feel responsible for everything, so it's letting go.

It can be an ongoing journey and process in that regard for a lot of us. I understand that. Who is your hero in real life?

I have only said that to one person and it is my oldest son. He was a preemie and was born with cerebral palsy. He has overcome obstacles. He is so optimistic and hopeful in his life. I told him and I've told other people that he is my hero because whenever I get to the point where I think, "I can't deal with this," and I think about my son, "Yes, I can," because the things he's dealt with, nobody should have to deal with.

It's having inspiration in overcoming a lot of challenges, but as you said, it's his attitude too.

He never lets anything get him down. He's always positive. It's amazing. I am not always positive, but he is.

For what in life are you most grateful?

It's the pandemic, weirdly. We went virtual during the pandemic. My husband was diagnosed with ALS and he did not want to be in a facility. As a result of the pandemic and the ability to be on Zoom, I was able to be his nurse and take care of him during the last years of his life. I was married to him for many years, but the last few years, during that time were probably the most important. I'm grateful for that time and the way that it happened because I could continue to be active in my career and be with the man to whom I committed my life and loved beyond anyone else. That was what I'm most grateful for.

The timing was remarkable on that.

It was. I couldn't have done it. It would have been a completely different end, so I'm just grateful. I didn't catch COVID.

That's important in that role also, but that's remarkable. I really appreciate you for sharing that.

It's important for people to focus on what's vital in their life. It generally is your relationship with the people that you love. I am so blessed to have my career, but without that family and the man that I have married, it wouldn't have been worthwhile for me. It was having people to love and who love me. It's important for people to remember, when things get difficult in their career, for example, that's not the end of the world. You have your family, your friends, and the people who love you.

As you said, being able to be there with him during that time is amazing and that worked out that way. Who are your favorite writers?

For non-fiction, it's David McCullough, I love his work. I'm always anxious for him to write a new book. For fiction, my husband was a big Dickens fan. He used to quote him all the time. I love Dickinsonian drama. I would say, it's Charles Dickens. I love mysteries because they are so light. If I'm on a plane, I want something I can bury myself in. I like Ann Cleves as an author. She has several series and I enjoy her work also.

It's fun. It's nice to have different varieties of reading and writers that you enjoy for different periods, when you don't want to have that taxing, maybe deeper David McCullough reading when you are on the plane. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you invite to a dinner party? You could invite anyone and it could be a group or more than one person.

Living or dead?

Yes.

I tend to think in terms of people who have the same experience. I would enjoy talking to Justice O'Connor. She and I have in common that we raised children during our careers on the bench. She had a political aspect to her life that I had in mine. Her husband became very ill in the end and she retired to take care of him. I felt like she expressed some regret about doing that because he lived only a year, but I would be so interested to hear how she coped with all of those dynamics. That's whom I would invite.

It's interesting when you are talking about those interesting parallels between your journeys.

I'm always interested in people at those junctures, how they felt about it, managed to make the decisions that they did, and what the consequences for them have been. These are important roles we play in our lives and you don't want to feel like you are alone. Other people have been through it and you can share that. It makes the burden lighter.

As you were talking about the Women Judges Association, that does that too.

Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the Cofounders.

There's another tie in there. She's a pretty neat person. The last question is what is your motto if you have one?

I find myself saying this frequently, so it's probably my motto. One of my daughters is named Eleanor after Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt had a saying and I learned this because my daughter had to choose a character to become in elementary school so she chose Eleanor Roosevelt. This was years ago and the quote was, "One can usually do what must be done." I say that to my children all the time. I say that to myself. It's a pretty good motto to live by.

That's a good one on so many levels. It's what we were talking about before. Move through it. Do what needs to be done to get to the other side in a lot of ways. Thank you so much for being with me and having this discussion and chat. I enjoyed it. I can understand why your colleague suggested that we talk. You have had amazing adventures professionally, but you are also a heartfelt person. It's nice to have met you.

I enjoyed it too. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you so much.