Episode 138: Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, California
00:46:37
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Maria Hernandez is the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. She shares her journey to the bench from a career as a public defender, and her new role as presiding judge of one of the country's largest trial courts. She describes the challenges her court met during COVID-19, which led to virtual and hybrid court hearings which continue to improve people’s access to the justice system, and the broader role that presiding judges play in administering justice.
Relevant episode links:
Orange County Superior Court, Judge Nancy Wieben Stock – Previous Episode
About Maria Hernandez:
Maria Hernandez
Maria Hernandez Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Orange County. The Honorable Judge Maria Hernandez was elected as the Orange County Superior Court Presiding Judge in 2023 overseeing the daily operations of the third largest court in the state of California and the fifth largest court in the country. She served as the court’s Assistant Presiding Judge from 2021 as well as the court’s COVID-19 liaison throughout the global pandemic.
Judge Hernandez previously served as the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court for Orange County until January 2018 when she returned to a criminal felony trial calendar. During her nine years as a juvenile court judge, she created and presided over the dedicated court addressing commercially sexually exploited children (GRACE-Generating Resources to Abolish Child Exploitation) and co-chaired the Orange County Committee relating to Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC).
While overseeing all daily court operations for the juvenile branch, she convened the County’s first Juvenile Justice Summit in 2016 which brought together over 400 of the county’s leaders to address the special needs of the children and families of Orange County. Judge Hernandez also created and presided over an innovative collaborative court dedicated to boys in the child welfare system back in 2010, which continues to meet the needs of highest risk system involved youth.
In 2018 Judge Hernandez launched a Young Adult Court (YAC) an innovative program which addresses the special needs of emerging adults charged with felonies in the criminal justice system.
Transcript
In this episode, I’m very pleased to have joined me on the show, Judge Maria Hernandez. She is the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court in California. Welcome, Judge.
Thank you for having me, MC.
I’m very excited to talk to you and also, as we mentioned before we start, Judge Jessner, the new Presiding Judge in Los Angeles. At the trial court level in California, there are so many female presiding judges coming into their own in those roles. It’s an exciting time in our state. You’re one of those coming into that role in 2023. I’m excited to hear about your journey to that point, what ideas you might have in your position and your overall trajectory. I think it’ll be interesting for folks to know. Start in the beginning about how it was that you came to the law, what made you want to go to law school, and what attracted you to that.
It goes back a long time to a point where I don’t even remember. My mom would share with me as I grew through my years, especially my early years as a lawyer, we used to watch Perry Mason together. I don’t recall that as a little girl, but apparently, I would sit up at a desk and say, “This is what I’m going to do.” She said I was probably about 5 or 6 years old. I honestly don’t have a recollection of that. What I can tell you is I went through my high school years with my involvement in organizations and movements. There was something that I knew I needed to be a voice for those who didn’t have voices. It’s something else that my mom and dad would share that I would bring home every abandoned animal. Anything I could find and anybody who seemed to need help, I was bringing them home.
I knew that it was a calling. When everybody told me, “You’re going to go to law school like any good teenager would,” I said, “Everybody is telling me I’m going to do something. No, I’m not going there.” I did what the foolish teenager does, which is, “I’m not going to follow a legal career and pre-law. I’m going to go into physical therapy,” thus, the path in the biosciences, which did not go well for me. It became very clear quickly this was not the road that I should travel when I hit Organic chemistry at UCI. I somehow worked the hardest I’ve ever worked in my life to achieve a D, which my teaching assistant at the point said, “I’ve never seen anybody work and try so hard, and just really not get it.”
At that point, I realized, “Let me move back to UCI, the School of Social Ecology,” which was a perfect fit for me as far as how it’s structured. I obviously moved my major to a Social Ecology major, and it really was the true fit. I got involved in the criminology societies. I knew from that point forward, this is where I belong.
What’s interesting when you’re saying there are things about in your childhood that you don’t remember, I have stories like that, too, from my mom. Every little injured bird or animal, I would be bringing them in. I’m like, “I really don’t remember doing that.” She’s like, “Yup.”
The whole Perry Mason thing, too. I don’t have a memory of watching Perry Mason. Apparently, we did. We only got three channels in my house. What were the odds of what we were watching? “Let’s go with Perry Mason.”
That’s a classic for a trial lawyer ultimately to be inspired by Perry Mason. What about the Social Ecology? Can you talk about that? That’s unique to UCI. The school and its focus, maybe you can talk about that a little bit.
The ability to have that cross-disciplinary approach and to be able to bring in the social sciences with the legal sciences, merge them and make the practice of implementation of policy and working with the law and research. I just found it fascinating. It was able to help pivot me to like, “I enjoy all of the criminal justice aspects and this is the avenue I want to go into.” That formulated for me early on that this is how I think my life trajectory will go. Again, you’re 19 or 20 years old. At that point, I was still working and figuring out, “How am I going to pay for this?” Western State was the law school I went to. A lot of people go, “Judge, did you go to Ivy League School?” “No, I’m right here at Western State,” which I’ll give the shout-out.
They had a program that allowed me to raise a family and work full-time while I went to school part-time. It took a little longer, but it allowed me the platform that worked for me. I had small kids at that time, and make sure that I could still take care of my family, my kids and my husband. We worked collectively. It allowed me to go to school at nights and on the weekends. Believe it or not, they had weekend classes. I was attending classes on Saturdays and Sundays.
I think that’s an important role that all the different types of law schools play. Western State certainly played that role in Orange County, and so did Whittier Law School when it was operating here. I remember I taught night classes at Whittier. You have a different set of students in that particular program. Many of them are very committed. It’s a serious endeavor to be there and study the law on top of family and work responsibilities. There’s a neat purpose and commitment from those who are in those programs.
Agreed. It allowed me to balance and have as a priority in my family, but also while working and being committed to the school. One of the things when you and I always talk, and especially this kind of show, is what women can accomplish in the journeys that we take sometimes are very different from the men. I’m not saying there are not a lot of men out there that are great fathers and primary caretakers of children in the household and such, but the reality is a lot of that does fall on women as professional mothers. I just got done speaking with a group of women lawyers, and a lot of them were moms and asking the question, how do you balance? It takes some prioritization, but for those things that are important, you can figure out a path to make sure that you can complete and make that journey.
That’s an important part of the story to those who are reading and to the next generation, too, persist. Find the way that works for you at that point in time. If you do that, you can open a lot of doors down the line for yourself also. I think sometimes people have a certain myth, especially of joining the bench that, “If I went to that school or if I did that, there’s just no way. I shouldn’t even apply.” I want to dispel that myth through the various stories on this show because it’s a really long career journey, and there are a lot of different aspects to it but don’t count yourself out because you don’t think you’re in the perfect resume zone. Somebody might think you are perfect for a particular role.
That’s such a good point that there’s no particular path, which is the only path. There are so many different paths for us, especially as women. Being very candid when we talk about women on the bench, we’ve seen a significant change in the last decade. When I joined the bench first as a commissioner in 2006, I believe our bench was close to 80% White male. Not to say that we’re at 50% right now, but we’re getting close to 30%. We’re seeing more diversity, but certainly, we’re now seeing women where we had not seen women moving to the bench and with diversity before.
Another thing from the different points in the story that women have had in the profession is that sometimes change can happen quickly. It seems like there’s no progress, and then there’s just a tipping point, and things start to change. I know that was true for some of the women who were entering law school at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s compared to those who came later in the 1980s. There was a huge change in the number of women in law schools, and how quickly that can happen.
What’s important is we continue to lift one another up and support each other in that journey because there were so many women that broke that glass ceiling for me that you just spoke about. Many inspiring women are in roles, whether they remain as lawyers on the bench or who have passed away. When we talk about the women who are in leadership roles in the judiciary alone, that is something spectacular.
It’s really great to see. I do think it’s interesting to the Commissioner to the Superior Court position, and then on Presiding Judge. I want to talk about that because sometimes people don’t think about those appointed by judges and then appointed by the governor in the case of the Superior Court in California. First, I want to talk about in-practice and how you ended up applying your interest in those intersections of criminal law and the policy aspects from UCI into your law practice.
I started off with an indigent defense firm that actually did other work, but I was primarily used. This was prior to the bankruptcy in 1994. I was used as an indigent defense council for a lot of our justice centers here in Orange County. I knew that that was something that I had a calling for. I dabbled in Family Law. We did a little civil as well. I was able to get my hands on a variety of things early on in my first couple of years. The bankruptcy that occurred was horrible but it was a blessing for me. The public defender’s office hired me very quickly because I already had quite a bit of trial experience by then. That’s where I stayed until I then applied to be a commissioner here with our Superior Court County.
I wanted to point that out because that is a change, too, in terms of a couple of years ago, people would say, “That’s really not a path as far as experience to joining the bench. Maybe being a prosecutor, but not being a criminal defense lawyer. That seems highly unlikely.” That’s a change where that’s not true. Tell me about the commissioner route, because that’s something that I would want to make sure people consider.
It’s so valuable because as a commissioner, we’re considered subordinate judicial officers under the code. However, here in Orange County, I can tell you, when I was a commissioner, I was doing every assignment you could think of. I know from a bench perspective and colleagues, we don’t see our commissioners any different than the judges. There are some limitations by code that commissioners can’t do. That is some of the restrictive parts of it. Outside of that, they are such an important part of our system in our judicial branch. We have 17 commissioners here at the Orange County Superior Court out of the total of 144 judicial spots. Our work doesn’t get done without the commissioners.
I will tell you this, too, having done that work, I know this. Our commissioners take a lot of the heavy volume load calendars and do a workload that is so forward facing to the county, meaning that the people who are accessing our justice system, a lot of them are senior commissioners in your traffic, small claims, and unlawful detainers. You’re talking about very high-volume calendars that are being handled. We really are grateful and dependent heavily on our commissioners here at the Superior Court in Orange County.
Judge Nicole Bershon, who I went to law school with, is a judge on the LA Superior Court, and previously started as a commissioner as well. She found that really an invaluable way and experience for her in that role prior to becoming a superior court judge also.
It’s such great exposure. What you can share then on your PDQ, your application for the bench is, “I can tell you I’ve done this work, I know what this work is.” You’re able to share experiences. The feedback also becomes very important to the litigants and lawyers in front of you. The feedback on your application to the governor references can be lawyers who have appeared in front of you can say, “You don’t have to worry about this applicant. We know what they’re going to be like on the bench because we’ve been watching them.”
That’s an important point. Similarly, although less time on the bench, you’re serving as a temporary judge also while you’re still practicing. That gives you a comfort level of, “Would you enjoy this job?” You think you would, but would you enjoy doing the work and having the opportunity to do it and to serve in that way? That gives you a comfort level in applying because that’s something I’d like to be doing full-time.
I think so, too. We urge any of the lawyers who are interested, we have a robust temporary judges program. In fact, they’re meeting right now during the lunch hour, going through applications. Again, we place them in so many of our different areas. It could be traffic or our collaborative courts. We have them sitting in some of our Family Law or probate assignments. It’s very expansive in the experience of what you just shared. You find out, “Is this something I enjoy? Do I want to pursue something further, whether that be applying as a commissioner or as a judicial officer with the governor’s office?”
What made you think that you might want to serve on the bench? What made you first want to apply to the commissioner position?
I loved litigation. I worked in the public defender’s office and for the majority of 95% of my years there, I was a trial lawyer. I loved being in trials but after 100 or so jury trials, you also find out there’s something else that I think I would like to try. There’s something else I would like to stay involved in the court system. I love the courtroom. It was something that I thought, “This is something I think I can do, and I can also serve the public this way in an important role.”
That can be the challenge though. People who enjoy trying cases, trying them, and they don’t want to be on the other side of the bench, but also, can come to that evolution. I think that comes in a lot of people’s careers. I’ve enjoyed this, but is there some other aspect where I can grow and serve? The law provides that in a lot of unique ways. It’s an opportunity for it to be a very long-ranging profession because there are a lot of different ways you can continue to grow and expand.
When we were talking earlier on about there are many different legal pathways and how we get here, whether we go part-time or full-time to school, it’s the same once we are in it as practitioners. Again, I loved being a litigator and the courtroom. There were different paths that you could expand and still be a part of that legal community that’s so important.
Women tend to be more like, “It’s nice if somebody suggests to us that we apply,” because sometimes we’re a little hard on ourselves in terms of, “We have to check all the boxes before we should apply for something.” Did you have someone raise you up or nudge you towards considering the bench?
[I]t was another judge who had said, “You would be well suited for this. Why don’t you put in your application [for the bench]?” … I was really humbled and honored to be asked to even submit an application.
I had a lot of role models, both male and female. As you know, when you’re in the courts so often and you’re litigating every day, you get to know bench officers. Male and female, I had very supportive bench officers that would approach me and say, “You really should apply.” How I found out about the commissioner’s application process was it was another judge who had said, “You would be well suited for this. Why don’t you put in your application?” Like many of us, you would think, “I’m not prepared for that. It’s something I could be considered for.” I was really humbled and honored to ask to even submit an application. To be carried through and selected was surprising, and something that now I look back on, and I always want to pay that forward.
Not that I’m not reaching out to male counterparts, but females especially, to say, “You can do this.” I know I was a public defender at that point when Justice O’Leary was probably the last public defender that had been appointed. For me, recognizing that and the administration at that point, I knew that was going to be an uphill climb. Again, I’m very humbled and privileged to be able to have people like Justice O’Leary who was a role and is a role model and helped me through that process.
There’s something in that that’s interesting. I think it says a lot about your character and persistence in a way. You said it was at a time when it wasn’t the common route or there weren’t that many people who had that experience, and that might have stopped some people from doing it. You said, “I’m going to do it. I’m going to apply, and we’ll see what happens.” That’s a good lesson for others. If you think that you have something to give and to serve, you put your name out there to do it.
Sometimes, it’s risky. We all know when you put yourself vulnerable, that’s when you can get hurt personally and professionally if you’re not making the effort and giving it the try. That was something I think my dad, of all people, hands down my hero, the work ethic, what he accomplished coming over first generation Armenian. He would always instill in me, I was the first to go to college and law school, “You can do this.” That was always something that’s always been in the back of my mind, too. I also think of the things of,” I wish he were here to see this because that would be something that I know would be really special for him, too.”
It’s wonderful to have that belief and encouragement from your parents, particularly from your father as a daughter. It’s like, “No limits of belief that if you want to do that, you should do that. There’s no reason you shouldn’t.” It’s nice to have that limitless view of what you can do.
Sometimes, you have to put yourself out there maybe a little more so than you should …. “If you don’t try, you’re never going to know.”
Sometimes, you have to put yourself out there maybe a little more so than you should, but again, I fall back on the, “If you don’t try, you’re never going to know.”
That’s so true. That’s just always a good reminder, and see what happens. Was it difficult to transition from being the active advocate in the courtroom to being the bench officer and the one who estimates all the decisions? How did you manage that transition?
I’m not shying away from making the decisions. That wasn’t problematic, but putting on the objective face. This goes both ways. You would sit and listen to lawyers, whether it was the defense or a prosecutor, and you would think, “Are you not going to object? Are we going to let that evidence in?” Probably some of my most challenging issues was sitting back and letting the lawyers try their cases, and removing myself from, ‘You are no longer an advocate one way or the other,” and hearing it. The part of that is knowing I had so many great role models as judges that I knew what kind of judge I wanted to be.
I want these lawyers to have respect and dignity and have a good place to try their cases professionally. We all have encountered judges or courtrooms where it didn’t go well, and I just didn’t want that to be the atmosphere. As you know, trying a case is difficult in and of itself, so you don’t want to add to the recipe that causes even more stress.
Getting out of the way to some extent and letting the lawyers try the case in the manner they wish to, even if you think, “I’m not sure about that, but okay.” Tell me about the appointments process to this superior court also. Obviously, you decided, “I’m going to put my name in the hat for that, too.” Was that different in any way in your experience from the commissioner to the appointments process?
It was a little bit but I was really fortunate. Judge Nancy Wieben Stock was the presiding judge at the time, another amazing role model.
She was on the show. She’s awesome.
That doesn’t surprise me. She was the PJ at the time that I was selected. She was the PJ that selected me as a commissioner along with the executive committee. She was the first one to revamp the entire commissioner process so that it mirrored the governor’s judicial process much more. The application is very similar to the PDQ that you’ll see on the governor’s website. The selection process ran differently than it had been in the past where there were selections of commissioners for limited jurisdictions out at justice centers. Now it was a countywide selection. If you were a commissioner, you’re now on our list. You could go to any assignment and justice center. It’s a countywide process.
Again, a countywide process that has a vetting process that mirrors a little bit of the governor’s, especially the application itself. We vet those applications. They contain a lot of the same information that the PDQ does on the governor’s website. When she created that, very fortunate for me, three years later as I applied for the judicial spot, I basically was able to take that application, and then of course, refresh it with what I’d been doing in the years since.
That’s great that that helped you prepare or gave you familiarity, so it wasn’t a whole new process in that regard. That’s very cool. I didn’t realize it was Judge Stock who was there when you were commissioner. She’s amazing.
I’ve been so fortunate to have so many strong, incredible women that have been role models. Some, I’ve had great relationships with that are close like Judge Stock right here. I look to leadership like our chief who’s just departed, Chief Sakauye. You can’t have a role model that’s more superior than what she’s accomplished for the State of California and for the judicial branch. Now we have Judge Guerrero coming in to take her place. When you go to the United States Supreme Court, my ultimate hero is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The list goes on, but I was fortunate enough here to have people like Judge Stock, Judge Sanders, and Judge Tani. Some really strong, incredible females. Justice O’Leary, who’s been a mentor and friend of mine for years, she’s the presiding justice of our Court of Appeal.
I’m so excited when I realized that both of you would be presiding over the respective courts. What an amazing thing really for both of you was what I was thinking. How fun would that be?
It’s really exciting. She did bring it up. It clearly is the first time you have leadership roles filled everywhere by females.
It’s really neat. Also, with your relationship with her over the years, it’d be really fun to be able to, “We can roll up our sleeves and work together for the public and for the good of both the appellate courts and the trial courts.”
It’s true. She’s talking about breaking some glass ceilings in a trailblazer. Justice O’Leary, the work that she has done over several decades has been long-standing, and just really innovative work for the public and all of the folks that we serve. She’s one of those people that you say role model mentor example.
The prior presiding judge of your court, too. That experience also is really neat. Tell me what you’re excited about in your new role, and also talk about what that means. It can mean different things in different courts, and what broader systemic administrative roles you have beyond having trials and doing the typical things that trial judges do.
I know that you spoke with my sister court, LA, Judge Jessner, who is lovely talking about another amazing strong female as the PJ in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is the largest court. Orange County is smaller, but not that much smaller when we talk about it. We are either the 5th or 6th largest court in the country depending on who you ask. We have 144 bench officers with 1,500 employees and 6 outlying justice centers. It’s a lot day-to-day just the operational aspect of it and the $250 million budget that we try to keep our ship afloat with.
What I’ll say is coming out of COVID the last couple of years. It’s hard to do something like this without mentioning COVID because I stepped in as the liaison. I was tapped as the COVID liaison back in March of 2020, so knee-deep every day on site. How do we keep doors open, especially with our mandated cases so that due process is afforded to all, children and families are heard, and victims are heard? All of that became a day-to-day fire drill. It’s gotten so much better and I love that this is the bench, bar, and beyond, because none of this happens as a branch without that collaboration and that partnership.
What you’ll see from me and hear from me is something that I did when I was the juvenile presiding judge for many years. It’s all about collectively collaboration and what we can accomplish to serve our public so much better when we are sitting down with our justice partners. That means that could be the litigants, the bar, nonprofits, and all our governmental agencies that are involved to come up with solutions. COVID brought to us a lot of problems, and we had to create solutions quickly. I was proud of what we accomplished. Again, we did it better than any other county in the state. We kept our doors open, we were doing trials when nobody else was doing trials, and we were doing them safely.
That’s very true. Now you’re seeing the impact of that. The backlog is not the same as it is in other counties and even around the country. That’s really challenging to do.
We took steps to make sure public safety and health were first. You probably were in our courts when you saw everything was socially distanced, the mask, and everything. It wasn’t as if we were minimizing safety issues by having these trials. We did them when nobody else was doing them. We’re like, “It’s going to take a lot more time. They’re going to be slower, but there is a way to make sure folks, for instance, who are in custody are getting their trials.” The Family Law Courts were hearing those custody matters. Our Juvenile Court was hearing those mandated cases. We created remote platforms and hybrid platforms to make sure that we were able to do those things. Coming out of that is watching the rainbow finally come out because it’s been a long couple of years.
Even despite all of that moving forward, it’s been a lot of challenges everywhere. One of the things I hadn’t thought about, but there are a lot of logistics. I know some of the trial judges in Los Angeles were saying, “Even logistics of, if I need another setup, I need another building, courthouse, or something that I could use, and then I need security for that.” It may be that you could get the building, but you couldn’t get the security that could go with the building so you couldn’t use it effectively for your trials. That made me think that’s not something I thought about. All of the layers of logistics that have to happen to do what you’re talking about are helping things move forward.
It was very helpful that we’ve really cultivated great relationships, for instance, with our sheriff’s department. We worked so closely with them to keep courtrooms open to transport in-custody defendants to make sure we could get security provided in those courtrooms, to your point, of those trials where we needed to have trials. When in need, we granted those continuances. What we did was we made sure that the trials that needed to go forward did. Everybody has backlog but we don’t have the backlog that we see in some of the other states and other counties, so we’re very fortunate. We haven’t had to dismiss any cases because of the speedy trial right violations. That’s not the case in other places either.
We were very mindful of using data analytics to pull and see what cases were last-day cases that had to go. In the same way with our family in our juvenile settings where we have mandated matters that needed to be heard, we prioritized them. We had deputies who were serving with iPads in the jail to do things remotely for us. That took those away from courtrooms. Again, it left us in a situation where we didn’t have the resources necessary, even if we had a courtroom to start up a trial.
I was thinking of the caseload, but thinking of literally all of the different pieces you need to have a trial go forward and all the different people and organizations that need to be all in tune for something like that to happen. It’s really no small feat to do what you talked about.
Our hope is to continue. We see the change in the legislative environment. A lot of laws for criminal, family, and juvenile have changed the expansion of our treatment courts. We all have heard about the CARE court from the governor. We are one of the number one cohorts, and we’re taking the lead on that implementing that first. That is something I’m very mindful of when I talk about treatment courts or the ability to provide that type of access for more people.
With the community engagement piece, we’re seeing a change on how we’re restructuring our community engagement, and that means with the schools, bar, and with everybody. We have really close links to OCBA and OCDE to make sure that we’re interfacing with them so that we’re getting as much information to those who need it so they have it.
There was a lot of good coordination, I thought. There always has been in Orange County between the bar and the bench. It really was highlighted during COVID as well. There was a lot of coordination between what was going on, so the courts could react and the lawyers knew what was happening and could raise challenges, concerns, out of girls, or out of boys of things that were working well. You get that feedback in real-time, and then you can adjust.
It does make a big difference with that type of relationship. Sometimes, there were daily meetings, if not multiple times a day.
I remember hearing about those because I was on the COVID committee for the OCBA. I got to hear all of these things.
It may not have been perfect. We joked that we were fixing that airplane at the 30,000 feet level as it was flying along. There was some of that going on, but because we had very good communication, again, I’ll say it wasn’t perfect, but we really tried when we saw those gaps to see what we could do to fill those gaps or be responsive. There are things that weren’t moving. If there was something that we could do differently, we had great partners who were giving us that feedback.
There are things I’ve heard from chief justices of other state supreme courts. Specifically, I’m thinking of the incoming Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court has mentioned this and others have. COVID also highlighted for them in an administrative capacity that we need to ensure that there’s public access to the courts, the role of the courts, and the continued importance of the courts to society and the community.
They were focused on making sure that they didn’t forget about that. That was an important thing, whether that meant allowing more access using technology, coming to court through Zoom, or whatever it was, but there were a lot of different ways that she was looking at and ensuring that access. I don’t know if it has the same impact on your perspective.
We talked about the silver linings of COVID. One of the silver linings is the ability for us to stand up on hybrid platforms for remote capabilities. What it does, and you know this well, is there are folks that otherwise would not be able to appear. We need to be mindful of technology because there are going to be some who don’t have the bandwidth or don’t have the access to technology. When you talk about a traffic arraignment calendar, the national center of the courts has done surveys. Well over 60%, I think close to 70% of the folks said, “I much rather do my traffic ticket and arraignment virtually. I don’t miss a day at court. I don’t take a day off of work. I don’t have to find childcare and transportation issues,” and all of those barriers.
Especially for some of our folks who are unhoused or have other issues, this gives them access to justice that they would otherwise not have. Having said that, there are hearings that need to be in person. We know that those hearings, too. I think it’s important. We want to tell any legislative folks that are tuning into this to go tell your legislator that we need to have the capability to be hybrid and remote capabilities to give us the discretion. When you take it away, you’re going to take away access to justice for many people.
That’s something I’ve heard from chief justices in other states. They’re concerned about that and want to have that as an option for litigants. Recognizing that is not always a replacement. In fact, being there in court is important, too, but having that flexibility is.
Something that legislatively we need to make sure remains is having the option and the ability to do so in the appropriate places.
When you were talking about the different courts, the collaborative courts, otherwise known as diversion courts, there are a lot of names for them around the country, but that’s certainly something that Orange County has always done exceptionally well. The court has been the leader in collaborative courts for quite a long time.
We have been a leader in this for a long time. Our veterans court is recognized as one of the five in the country. Our drug court and DUI courts have the same type of status. It’s something that we take very seriously. As I shared with you, the expansion of some legislative frameworks that we see now, there’s a great expansion for our mental health courts, the mental health conversion cases. It’s really important that we’re able to be responsive to that because it is a very large number that we’ll be able to be off-ramped to those appropriate types of treatment courts.
I honestly hadn’t known about them until I served pro tem in the collaborative courts. I was just amazed at the impact that it has on individuals and then the ripple impact that that has on their families and communities, and the ability to treat people as individuals in the challenges they may have faced. Giving them an opportunity to move ahead is remarkable.
The ripple effect is far-reaching. It’s not just the individual. Even the individual in the family goes into the community because then you have provided community safety issues. You are putting somebody back into the community who’s going to be productive and no longer a threat to the community they live in.
It’s really amazing. I always think of it as being an appellate lawyer. I love being an appellate lawyer because, with one case, we can impact the law for many people. The collaborative courts impressed upon me. The impact you can have on many by making a difference for one as well. It’s neat to see.
I am so fortunate to be surrounded by so many amazing people at this court, like the team and the justice partners I work with. It is a collaborative piece of work that we do, and we need to do it together.
I attended with Judge Anderson, who is the guru when we talk about our drug and DUI courts. They had their thousand graduations from DUI court at the Harvard Justice Center. That was a theme. It’s not just these thousand graduates here. Think about how many lives were saved by folks who are now recovering and are treated appropriately so that they’re not back out on the streets driving under the influence and wreaking havoc on themselves and other individuals because we know the death rate and what happens.
It’s amazing. It’s a good positive in seeing how the justice system can have a larger impact. From your story, you’ve provided advice along the way for those who might be interested in joining the bench. Do you have any particular things that you would want someone to think about or to know if they’re at some point considering joining the bench?
You’ve shared some things to do. The temporary judge program, looking into potentially applying as a commissioner, and some of the out other outreach work that we do with the bar association, whether it’s our local bar, state bar, and nonprofits that get involved with our different justice partners. I think just exposure to so many of those things will help you, especially if you’re on the fence of, “This is where I want to go or not.” Those are avenues that are important to follow up with.
I thought we had some good tools already, but I just wanted to make sure. I was like, “Was there anything I missed?” I think those are all good things. You want to make sure because you don’t have a sense of whether that’s something you’d be good at or would enjoy doing unless you have the opportunity as you do through pro tem or the commissioner to see. That is something I do enjoy.
I don’t think I mentioned this. One of the other programs we’re working closely at the state, but also here with the bar is our Judicial Mentorship Program. It’s important because that allows you to talk with other judges. Even if it’s not formalized, you can still reach out to folks like myself and others who are on the bench and say, “Can I come by and chat with you?” I can guarantee you the open doors will be, “Come on in. Let’s talk about it. What’s your path? What do you see for yourself? What can I do to support you?” Something that is important to carry forward is to inspire and support others. Hold these other people up so that they can also find their way.
That’s a really good point in terms of paying it forward. I think of that in terms of mentoring what people can do. Who you have mentored is to pay it forward and do the same for others. What you’ve talked about in terms of helping someone figure through the process of applying to the bench. I know in Los Angeles, there are a lot of women lawyers and judges who are engaged in just that, in terms of helping people prepare for their interviews during the judicial selection process. Literally, the only thing that they ask is, “If you get this position, do this for the next set of people who are coming through.”
We all need each other. That is something that’s important to recognize. We don’t do this alone.
I liked that. The express statement was, “We pay it forward.” That’s what we do.
It is. I can tell you in closing, too. I am so fortunate to be surrounded by so many amazing people at this court, like the team and the justice partners I work with. It is a collaborative piece of work that we do, and we need to do it together. Paying it forward is something that I would hope for everyone who is able to have this position, which is an amazing thing to pay it forward.
That’s what you can do and that’s what anybody who’s in a mentoring position would hope that somebody would do. Do the same for someone else. That’s great. Typically, to close, I ask a few lightning-round questions if you have a couple of minutes. What talent would you most like to have but don’t have?
Musical. To be able to sing. I can’t carry a note.
That was quick and easy. Who are some of your favorite writers?
I am such a variety person. I don’t have a particular writer. It depends on what mood I’m in, I’ll be really honest with you. Sometimes I want mindless fiction, but other times, some of my greatest things are to sit down with a Bible, and I know maybe it’s not appropriate. At other times, I want historical. It depends on what mood I’m in.
A wide array of reading materials. I think you mentioned this earlier, but I’ll ask it anyway. Who is your hero in real life?
It’s my dad. He’s passed, but there’s no doubt in my mind, he’s been my hero.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party? It could be more than one person, and they don’t have to be alive.
I would love for my daddy to be back. He’d be at the center table. I would love for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now with the two of them, that would be a sight. My dad was a very conservative Republican. They ask, “Where did you come from, Maria?” That’s another story. I would love to bring back Sheriff Sandy Hutchens, who was a dear friend and mentor. These are all people I’d like to put. I would love to have our previous chief, [Justice Tani Cantil-] Sakauye, at the table. There are so many people, but that would be the start.
That sounds like a good start. When you think about one person, it’s interesting. When you put the group together, you think there are all kinds of possibilities that you can even foresee from those discussions, which would be really special. Last question, what is your motto if you have one?
There’s always hope and never give up. That’s my motto.
There’s always hope. Never give up.
It’s a great way to close. Thank you so much again for having this discussion, joining the show, and inspiring others.
Thank you so much for the opportunity.