California Court of Appeal Justice

01:01:01

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

In this episode,  Justice Carol D. Codrington, the first African American justice on California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, shares her unique career trajectory, starting with being a litigator and a lawyer and moving up to her current position. She takes us deep behind the scenes of what goes into being a judge, sharing challenges and advice for students and lawyers on the process of opinion and brief writing as well as oral arguments.

Relevant episode links:

Justice Carol Codrington, Hollywood Babylon

About Carol D. Codrington:

Justice Carol D. Codrington was nominated in 2010, unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments and confirmed by the electorate. Justice Codrington is the first African American to serve in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Prior thereto, Justice Codrington was appointed to the Riverside Superior Court in 2007. As a trial judge, she presided over various civil and criminal assignments. Prior to her elevation to the bench, she practiced complex civil litigation in state and federal court. Justice Codrington was an associate at Burke, Robinson & Pearman, an associate then partner of Mallory and Brown-Curtis, Director of Litigation at the Western Law Center for Disability Rights (now Disability Rights Legal Center), and an adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School. She was also a Deputy City Attorney with the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney and an Associate General Counsel with the Los Angeles Unified School District. Prior to being elected Commissioner of the Superior Court by the Judges of Riverside County in 2006, she was in private practice.

Justice Codrington was active in many bar associations. She is a Past-President and a life member of the Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, Inc. She also became a life member of the California Association of Black Lawyers and the John M. Langston Bar Association of Los Angeles. Justice Codrington is an ex officio member of the Riverside County Bar Association, San Bernardino County Bar Association, and the Richard T. Fields Bar Association. Justice Codrington has served as Judicial Master and President of the Leo A. Deegan Inn of Court. She is a member of the California Judges Association, the National Association of Women Judges, the International Association of Women Judges, among other various organizations. Justice Codrington serves on several statewide and local advisory committees and boards. She completed the prestigious Sir Richard May Seminar on International Law and International Courts, in The Hague, Netherlands.

Justice Codrington has received numerous commendations and resolutions for her commitment to public service from the California State Senate, California Legislature Assembly, Secretary of State, California State Controller, State Board of Equalization, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Inglewood, County of Riverside, the Mayor of Riverside, Riverside City Council, San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, City of Upland, and the City of Fontana. Justice Codrington has received professional awards, including the Employment Round Table of Southern California Leadership Award; the William L. Strickland Excellence Award from Loyola Marymount University’s African American Alumni Association; the Professional Excellence Award 100 Black Men; Judicial Officer of the Year from the Southwest Riverside County Bar Association; the Bernard S. Jefferson, Jurist of the Year Award-John M. Langston Bar Association; Judge Elwood Rich Outstanding Jurist Award; Leo A. Deegan Inn of Court, Leadership in Jurisprudence Award, 16th Annual Celebration of Excellence and Jurist of the Year Award; Richard T. Fields Bar Association Judicial Officer of the Year; Champions of Justice Award from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Inc.; among other awards. Justice Codrington enjoys mentoring elementary, high school, college, and law students. She is a frequent lecturer, panel member, and keynote speaker. Justice Codrington was named one of 50Inspirational Alumni of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles.

Born in Los Angeles, Justice Codrington is of Belizean descent. Justice Codrington is married, has one son, four stepchildren, and several grandchildren. She is the first in her family to earn a law degree. Justice Codrington earned her Juris Doctorate degree from Loyola Law School and her Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, Cum Laude, from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.

I'm pleased to have joined us from the California Court of Appeal for the 4th Appellate District Division Two, Justice Carol Codrington. Welcome.

Thank you for having me it's good to finally see you.

Thank you so much for being here and for participating in the show. I want to talk about your legal career, your career on the bench, and how it was that you got there. I wanted to start from the beginning in terms of, how is it that you decided to become a lawyer to go to law school. What inspired you in the beginning?

I was about ten years old, saw an episode of Perry Mason, and got hooked. I knew right then and there that I wanted to be a judge. I had a laser focus on that trajectory and never shifted my focus to anything else. I knew then that I wanted to be a lawyer and then a judge. The justice thing came as a surprise. I didn't imagine that little girl from South Central with immigrant parents. I didn't see that on the horizon. It's been a blessing and a wonderful surprise.

It's interesting that you say that Perry Mason. Usually, people say, “I saw Perry Mason. I knew I wanted to be a trial lawyer or do that work,” but they don't usually say, “A lawyer, then a judge.” That's an interesting reaction.

The judge seemed to have the coolest job in the room. He could call the balls, and strikes, and determines when everything was starting and ending, and I like that. I'm like, “I could do that.”

TV has an impact. I remember when I was in law school, everybody came there because of L.A. Law.

I was a huge fan of L.A. Law. People don't realize that as a kid from the inner city, you might not have any lawyers in your family. My particular family was from Belize and there were no lawyers in the family. No one had even gone to graduate school. My older brother went to graduate school and then I knew it was possible. He was a post-polio victim. He has since passed away. I thought he could do anything because he managed to go to undergrad and graduate school and pursue his dreams. That gave me hope that I could do the same. He was a great mentor and a wonderful role model.

It's helpful to see people doing things that you're like, “I can do that as well.”

He did it all from a wheelchair. This was before they had ADA Rights. That ended up steering my career because I ended up doing a lot of work for Americans with Disabilities in my career. He went in the days when there were no accommodations and his fraternity brothers would lift him up to the second floor of the classroom so he could attend classes on the second floor of his university. He had a great dedicated group of friends and I was just so proud of him that he did not let anything stand in his way. He ultimately became an IRS tax auditor, but he was a nice one.

I like that community and the friends who were supporting him.

Can you imagine having to lift your frat brother up the stairs because there's no elevator to certain rooms? Them being that dedicated to his success.

Also, the caring from that.

That is the most important part.

He is very special because he instilled that in them.

He has since passed away from cancer. Even with that, he never complained one single day during his journey. He was just a phenomenal human being.

That is a special role model then. You have this early career plan trajectory, lawyer and judge. I don't think I've heard that from too many people. You had that flash both of them at the same time.

Lawyer frankly, was to get me to judge because I didn't know any other way to get there. I enjoyed being a litigator. I did it at a time when there weren't many women doing civil litigation. It required me to have inner strength and fortitude that has served me well on the bench and an ability to see what the right thing is to do and a real passion for fairness in the court system.

I remember the era of, “If you have a litigation bag, you must be the court reporter,” response.

I was often confused in the courtroom. It's funny you say that I would show up at depositions and people would say, “Where would you like to set up?” I'd say, “In the conference room,” then another court reporter would come in and they'd say, “Why are there two?” I said, “They are not, but you didn't ask the question.” It was a running gag.

Wherever I did a deposition, out of state, that was always the question. It was such a novelty that sometimes the staff would be peering at me through the glass walls of the conference room just to see this African-American young woman doing a deposition. It seemed foreign to them. They would stand there and watch the whole thing. I thought, “This can't be that interesting. Why are you all staying here?” They did.

The one thing I enjoyed about that myself was that I thought, “I'm happy that people will underestimate me because they'll be surprised.”

Isn't that your best secret weapon? It was my secret weapon. It always happened to women, but mostly men. They underestimated me, then at the end of the day, when I would humble them, they would come out and shake my hand and say, “You won fair and square. I totally underestimated you and didn't prepare.” I was like, “You should have.”

You're like, “That's on you.” Did you enjoy being a litigator and a lawyer?

Yes, and I did liability defense, which there were very few women doing at the time and representing corporations. They would always assume I was the plaintiff, “Are you Ms. Brown?” “I'm not Ms. Brown.” “Why are you here?” “To represent the corporation.” They would be like, “Really?” I'd spend 30 minutes explaining that I wasn't the court reporter. I wasn't the client. I was the opposing council representing the corporate entity.

There's more now.

Back then in the ‘80s, not that.

That's one of the interesting things, that even I hadn't recognized but learned from talking to so many folks through the show is how much changed from the late 1970s until the early 1990s.

There was a sea change. In fact, early on, I never had an opponent who was a woman. That's unheard of. Now you do, but in those days, not at all. In my early days on the bench, people were shocked when they would come in and see me. They couldn't believe it.

When did you decide it was the right time to apply to the bench?

I was cornered by a group of colleagues. I was serving as a commissioner. I went to my very first judge's conference. Several judges cornered me and said, “You need to be a judge and we want to help you.” It was a group of men. They were supportive. They were wonderful mentors. They were White men who decided that I had the guts because they would come and watch me in my courtroom. They were amazing mentors and still are, to this day, amazing friends. In fact, one of them is like my father now. Jimmy Warren was a wonderful mentor and still is to this day. I adore him.

Isn't that amazing that others decide, “We're going to help you,” because they see something in you?

He introduced me to the DA. He called the governor. He did everything beyond the call of duty that a mentor should do. I didn't know why. He said he just thought I was talented and that I should be a judge. He said, “You're good at what you do. I’m watching you. You know how to talk to people. You know how to make people feel heard and that's a talent that should be nurtured.” He did that.

Years later, we were assigned to the same court. I remember him and the other male judges coming down the hall and saying, “Why is everybody going to your court? I keep getting an affidavit. They can go to your court. What are you doing in there?” I was like, “Dispensing Justice. I have no idea why they're doing this, but I'm honored.” I thought that it was hilarious that it took that term.

I thought that would be the answer, but that was good.

At first, I didn't know how to answer the question. I'm doing my job as best I can. I did have a sensitivity for people who were afraid to come to court. The assignment at the time was domestic violence, and restraining orders, and it was people who were in great grave danger and pain. Many of them would circle the building ten times before they would come in and do the hearing because they were terrified of the perpetrator.

I had a sensitivity to that. I would zone in on that and make them feel as comfortable as possible. If it were a particularly bad situation, I would do it at the end of the calendar so there wouldn't be a big audience, anything I could do to make it more comfortable for the victim to come and tell their story. Can you imagine having the courage to come in and face the person who's threatened your life and sometimes attempted to kill you? I wanted that person to feel, “This is my day in court. I'm going to get fairness. She's going to hear from the perpetrator, but she's at least going to listen to me. Whereas many people have not listened to me and I haven't been heard.”

That’s a good sensitivity toward what that person's experience has been prior to coming to court and bringing all of that with them.

Sometimes the perpetrator would have a whole family with them and the victim would be saying on the other side alone. Someone's got to be the voice of reason in that room and make sure that everyone is heard.

Not everybody might know because they're not in California necessarily, but the commissioner supports other judges.

They are limited jurisdiction judges and they can do anything a judge can do with the authority of the presiding judge. You're elected by vote of the other judges for that job, which is to me, even more of an honor. That means your peers see you as a leader and they want you to be a commissioner. It's a good way of getting your sea legs and deciding if you want to do this. I recommend everyone, pro-teeming or becoming a commissioner, if you're not sure that this is what you want to do.

That's great advice because in general, it's good to do something first to know whether that's something that you're interested in, what you think it is in your head, and what it is.

The first time I approached him was in a giant courtroom in Los Angeles, which was the biggest courtroom in that court. There were hundreds of people before me. I thought, “Here we go. Pedal to the metal. We're going to test the waters and see if this is something you want to do.” I sat down and I'm not saying this to be arrogant or anything, it felt so natural. I could tell it was my calling and I knew that this was something I wanted to do as a career.

Isn't that true about certain things? Finding your highest, best use, your purpose, meaning, and where you can do the most good feels peaceful.

Becoming a justice was a whole another bottle of wax. That was something that others saw in me that I didn't even see myself. It's been the most wonderful and honorable position to be in and I enjoy the work I do because you get to make precedents and change the trajectory of law, interpret laws in a way that's fair and just and change people's lives in many ways.

How did that transition from the commissioner to the trial judge and then from the trial judge to the Court of Appeal?

It all happened in about a short period of time. I was a commissioner for about 9 months and a judge for about 2 years. I was appointed justice in the third year of my time on the bench. That was unheard of. A lot of people called it a meteoric rise, but I have to say it was preceded by twenty years of legal practice.

The overnight successes are never overnight.

People think, “It happened like magic.” No, it took a lot of hard work being the last one in the building late at night in my job and working seven days a week at times, evenings, weekends, all the time that you can, to do the best job that you can, and developing a reputation of that excellence because, without that, it can’t and won't happen.

You have to put in the work. If it's something you enjoy doing and feel like you are making a difference in doing it, working the long hours, you have a choice in doing it.

Being a justice is different because you work in groups of three. You have to work in a collaborative model. That's different from being a judge on your own fight, where the last word is you.

That's a different set of skills, the way of deciding things.

On top of that, it can go to the Supreme Court and they can throw out everything you did and come up with a whole new outcome. It's a very different type of work than being a judge.

Sometimes that transition can be a challenge from being the one who needs to make the decision but also can make the decision on their own, then you come into a collegial dynamic.

A lot of people struggle with that but for me, the transition was great because I had a great group of colleagues. It's changed since then because there are many of those colleagues have retired and new colleagues have come in. It's like an expansion and redaction. Each team and panel is different. You never know how your panel members are going to rule. You have far less control. You have to learn how to work together, get along with your colleagues, and do the best you can to do the right thing.

You never really know how your panel members are going to rule. You just have to learn how to work together, get along with your colleagues, and do the best you can to do the right thing. 

Do you have a particular process in terms of opinion writing or in how you discuss things with your colleagues?

I do. I read everything and I work hard at giving direction to the team that I work with. We make changes as necessary. I try my best to work in a collaborative model. It doesn't always work out that way. That's why we have dissents and concurrences, but you do the best you can to do the right thing and get buy-in from at least another justice so that you have the majority. Sometimes things don't work out that way. You have to be good with that.

I believe things are as they should be. When that happens, you sit back and try to learn from the experience and understand the other person's point of view. You have to be a collaborative person or you'll be miserable on the job. There are people who can't do that. They have to be right at all times. They have the hardest transition. If you're not flexible, it's going to be a tough transition for you.

It's hard because what is positive and necessary at the trial court level the certain decisiveness and being comfortable with being, “The buck stops here and I'm the one that's charged with doing this.”

Whereas this is the opposite. You might write a brilliant opinion and a colleague may say, “I'm sorry. I disagree. I'm going to write it the other way. I would like for you to change this, that, or the other thing.” You might feel you've written a masterpiece and they might say it's less so. It's the nicest way I could put it. Over time you have to learn and understand how people think and be open to other ways of looking at a problem.

What advice would you give to advocates in terms of oral argument or brief writing?

Always be prepared. Review your brief. Sometimes I wonder if people review that final draft or if they are delegating that because some of the things I see in them are like, “Did you proofread that?” Delegate carefully. Make sure you keep involved if your senior lawyer and what your subordinate lawyer or your associate is doing so that they get the proper guidance and support. I've seen cases where the associate has no guidance and maybe works in an Ephesians setting and they don't get to see lawyers or get that real support that a young lawyer needs in order to learn this craft because it's a different muscle than advocacy.

It's advocacy, but you are advocating for your client's point of view when there's going to be a definite other person who's not. You want to make sure that you have covered all your bases and that you know how to address the court. It's not like a trial where you're giving a closing argument. It's all about you and what your perspective is.

You have to look at things from a more global perspective so that you can address all points of view in your closing argument, anticipate arguments, and so on and so forth. It does require a certain level of training and skill. When people don't have that, it's fairly obvious. When they do, and there are some brilliant lawyers who do it well, it makes us think and makes us have a hard decision because they've done their job so well.

Each court is different.

We have a tentative opinion. That's what makes us unique. That means everybody's had a chance to see what we're thinking. You have the benefit of tailoring your oral argument to what the tentative opinion says. It's a real plus. When we've surveyed lawyers, they all say that they prefer that as opposed to feeling around in the dark and not knowing what the justices are thinking. They walk in the door knowing exactly what we're thinking and can address the points accordingly. That is an advantage and it makes oral argument much more robust.

Much more focused on the areas.

As opposed to you standing there trying to argue every raise, every argument that's in your papers you can focus on. They often come in and say, “We are going to focus on this argument because we see that there is some disagreement on this arrow.” We'll say, “We have a disagreement on this issue and we'd like to hear an oral argument on this point.” That does help the lawyer focus their oral argument accordingly.

There can be so much potential to cover and anticipate questions. It does narrow that down.

I've seen it done other ways in other courts and it all leads to a result. I'm proud of our court because everyone knows what they're going to be faced with before they even start and say, “I'm ready to address the court.” Before they see may it please the court, they already know what we're thinking.

Some people can be concerned, which means that somehow oral argument is useless.

Not at all. I've heard that many times and I've tried to reassure the appellate bar that that's simply not the case. Many times it may appear that we've all agreed and made up our minds, but we haven't. “This is what we're thinking. We offer you the opportunity to persuade us in another direction. Tell us why we're right or wrong.”

We usually start by saying, “Tell us where we got it wrong. Tell us how what we should do to get it right and what your thoughts are.” You do have the same opportunity to argue. It's just that you have a roadmap and it's not etched in stone. I've seen opinions go the other way, even though we were all in agreement in the first place and now it's going to go the other way. That's usually shocking to people, but it does happen.

I've seen in your court that even with that, there is still a discussion. You can see, “Maybe different justices have different views on this.” You can talk from the questioning.

Usually, we'll say, “This is the era where we don't have an agreement. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this issue because I'm not sure yet. I'm not there yet. I'm not convinced.” It's an honest discourse. It's not like, “We have this tentative and it's never going to change.” On the other hand, we put so much work into getting that tentative done and doing all of the research on the front end that we're not sitting there in the dark, guessing, and just working from notes. We've spent time putting together what we think is the right outcome, and then we leave it to you to convince us otherwise.

If I were a lawyer, I'd prefer to have that roadmap in my hand as opposed to, “Let me start from the beginning, argue everything, and do the paint blast splatter approach where you're just throwing it all against the wall and seeing what sticks.” It's better to have a direct, clear, and concise oral argument so that you get to spend your time where it's necessary. There are still cases of first impressions, so it doesn't matter what we say in the tentative. The supremes might go a whole other way.

When you're writing your opinions, are you thinking about what guidance, especially in the published opinion that different lawyers and litigants are going to be reading this and will need some guidance, especially if it isn't an issue of first impression? Are you thinking about that in writing the opinion?

To give you an example, the medical marijuana cases where no one knew what was going to happen with that. It was such a shift in something being seen as medication versus a blessed drug and the whole change in society. None of us could anticipate that. There was lots of protesting and none of us saw that coming. You never know.

People will come in and be interested in a case. You think it's a small case, but it has a significant public impact and the courthouse is packed with people who are advocating for one point or another loudly. There's still a lot of room for changing things. There are amicus briefs and supplemental briefings. There are a whole lot of different ways to get your point across. We are often surprised at which cases turn out to be controversial and which ones don't.

It's interesting to have people show up and look at the public. There might not even be amicus briefs in that case, but the public who engage in that way.

It happens. There's a group of people who thought the court was trying to take away their medication when in fact, the court was trying to figure out ways to make sure that people had access in a way that was safe, like perhaps not next door to an elementary school, to a church, or another facility that might not want sales on their property, but a place outline where you can purchase your medication and where it's safe to do so in a more commercial setting. Now you can buy pretty much anywhere. Things change over time with the acceptance of society. That's one example of things that are controversial. It can be something that you never would've imagined would be a big deal, and it becomes controversial. I like the fact that it's unpredictable.

It doesn't cause you to treat the case any differently.

You just are surprised by the reaction. Every case is given in-depth analysis from the time it hits the court and is assigned to chambers to the time that it reaches the argument. We have great respect for the work that the lawyers do and they often change our minds. It's not just once in a blue moon that they often do or argument is still very important despite the tentative opinion. All the tentative opinion does is give you a roadmap.

Every case is given really in-depth analysis from the time it hits the court, is assigned to a chamber, and to the time it reaches argument.

People come in and say, “I'm going to argue A, B, and C and not be E, F, and G because we agree with the court on those issues.” Sometimes, “I'm surprised. I was expecting you to argue the one thing you said you don't want to argue.” You have different personalities of justice and different points of view. That's what makes the system work. If we were all thinking exactly the same and reaching the same conclusions, it would not be as interesting. It was important to have different points of view.

That's the value of having multiple judge panels to review things and to bring their different perspectives and experience to it, shake out everything, and make sure, “We're doing the right thing by the law here.”

That's the ultimate goal. Everyone wants to reach the right conclusion, not so much the same conclusion, because reasonable minds can differ on anything. There are many different factors.

It shows your respect for your colleagues. That's important to make the whole thing work.

That's critical. You don't always have that. You have people who come in thinking they know everything, and then you have others who are very respectful of history and precedent. You have people who like to make new laws. It all blends together. Each court, justice, and panel is different. We don't have stagnant panels as some courts do.

We have the same three justices from the beginning of their career to the end. We have rotating panels. You never know who's going to be on your panel. It does have an effect on the outcome. You can see that some colleagues might see be more in alignment, whereas others might not be. That's true of any situation where you're ruling in groups of three. You have to develop a collaborative model that is effective. That requires you to have an open mind.

When I'm working on cases, I would rather have other people to bounce things off of and make sure, “Am I missing something.”

It's different points of view. A person of color might look at a case differently, a woman might look at a case differently or a person who has gender reassignment might look at a case differently. You might see nuances that you won't see because you don't have that experience. Each Justice brings to bear all of their life experience in making their decisions. I like the fact that I can hear from people who have different points of view than I do because it makes it a richer debate, conversation, and opinion.

You bring to bear your life experience. I'm sure that's true in what you do. The way you might look at something is different from someone who's 25 years old. A brand new lawyer will look at it differently than a lawyer who seasons and has been through 1 trial or 2 and understands how juries work and how judges think. You can tell by the way an opinion or a brief is written how much experience or how little that person has by the nature of the arguments they make.

Even in working with our own lawyers, you can see a seasoned appellate lawyer versus a brand new appellate lawyer who still believes in, “Let's fight everything. That judge is crazy.” You have to train them. Let them say, “The judge isn’t crazy. This is from the experience.” In the heat of the vow of a trial, mistakes will be made. They might make a mistake in the jury instruction, but that can happen. The judge is supposed to get it right. We're human beings and things happen in the heat of the battle that might not otherwise occur.

I think about that in terms of appellate lawyers who have experienced litigating and in trial look at things differently.

There’s a big difference. If you've only sat in the office and drafted appeals, you have a different perspective than one who's seen the whites of the eyes of a jury and watched how every word and every movement is important. I remember my first jury trial, I dropped a pen. When I was picking it up, I happened to glance back and every jury was leaning over to see what I was doing. You don't know that thing unless you've been in a jury trial, seeing how riveted they are, and how important they take their jobs. It's a different perspective because they're bringing their life experiences to the situation.

In terms of when we do consulting, sometimes at trial, there's the perfect world way and then there's a way, “There are many things we have to balance at trial and afterward. Here's what we can live with. That's the middle ground.” That's the advice you give, not, “The perfect thing is this.”

You can be prepared, super prepared, and something will happen that you didn't anticipate. No trial I've ever been to has gone exactly the way it was planned. You just don't know.

Everyone's human in the trial proceedings, so mistakes were made.

Outbursts from the defendant or the victim. You just never know. I never thought there would be case law that determines whether the victim can see the defendant or if a computer is blocking the face of the victim, and how that violates the defendant's rights. Those are things that I never imagined would become issues, but they are. Those are just a couple of cases I've had when that occurred. You never know what's going to happen in a trial.

You don't know what matters until the very end even. “Did it matter in the whole scale of things?”

Ultimately you're like, “How did the juries reach this conclusion?” They take their time and job seriously. They do what they're supposed to do. I'm glad it's not predictable. People assume there's this canned answer and once we have a tentative, we're not going to change our minds. You'd be amazed how much argument or discussion goes on between the justices after oral or during oral argument. Things just happen that you didn't see coming.

I even think of that when I'm preparing for an appellate argument. Sometimes there are things that you think, “I've freaked this. I know all of this,” then when you spend some time away and you're preparing for an argument and go, “Here's another way to look at this.”

You get into or argument and the justice is saying, “What about this?” You're going, “I did not brief that.” Any appellate lawyer worth their salt has had that experience at least once where they walk in prepared and walk out thinking, “That didn't go how I anticipated.”

Different perspective.

How long have you been doing appellate work?

Twenty-five years now in 2022.

Longer than me. You have that depth of experience that helps you do what you need to do. I've seen people who come in with big boxes and notebooks. You can tell they've never done it before. They're flustered and they're not sure what to ask and get sidetracked very easily. I think, “Don't worry about that. You'll work that through over time.”

There's no time to look at all of that stuff.

I remember doing on the trial court, watching people do that, and even when I was doing small claims, I watched people come in with big boxes and notebooks, “You only got ten minutes. I don't know what you're doing. You're never going to touch those notebooks, but if it makes you feel good, put them on the table.”

Some of it is like security like, “If there's a question about something, I'll have it here.”

When they do, you're like, “Oh, no,” because you are watching them go down that slope of losing track and not being able to come back because they're caught up on finding this piece of paper. They know the case by heart and they should speak from the heart and argue from the perspective of their client and hope for the best. I do see that more common in younger lawyers. On the other hand, we have students that come and argue in the Court of Appeal who do quite well, sometimes better than the lawyers and you're like, “That's going to be a superstar down the road.”

It's exciting for them. It's exciting that law students have that opportunity now.

Can you imagine? When I was in law school, I didn’t know if I could do that. You were lucky if you got to accompany a lawyer to a hearing and much less argue an appellate case.

I teach students in the Ninth Circuit clinic and I've taught for many years at Loyola Law. It's amazing how well many of the students will do that. They're prepared.

They work hard. I taught a clinic and Disability Rights at Loyola. It was amazing to me how passionate the students were to do well, argue their cases, and prepare. Even high school students, when you do mock trials, they got in their suits. They're prepared. It's impressive to see students doing so well.

They come up with some good arguments, sometimes things that you didn't even discuss. They have a different way of explaining it and you're like, “That was good.”

Students are the future. I just love seeing students argue cases and participate in mock trials.

It helps them so much, especially the law students to have that experience to be able to say that they had argued an appeal before they even graduated law school. It is something that clears the path for them in terms of getting more experience. It snowballs.

I was one of those students who worked as an intern, extern, and law clerk in many different types of scenarios in law firms, as well as government agencies, and nonprofits. All that experience helped because I had friends who didn't do any clerking or any of that. Their first day in court was horrendous for them because they didn't have their sea legs. Even with that experience, it was tough for me because I can remember judges saying, “I can't hear you speak up,” because I was so shy at the time. To get over that, I had to keep doing it. It's important for students to get true life experience, not just textbook experience.

That's how you find out whether it's something you enjoy doing, especially that experience as a supervisor of new attorneys. I want to be able to say, “This isn't their first rodeo. They've done this before.” That's what the clinics and that practical experience help us give more opportunities and somebody starting way ahead of so many other people.

It's never too soon. We have students who argue in the Court of Appeal and they're quite good and very well prepared. We try to cheer them on and applaud them for their effort. I don't know if you've ever been in our court when that's happened.

I haven't seen that.

Especially our presiding justice, he takes time with the students, applauds them, and inquires about what school they went to, and tells them they did a good job. He does that pro bono and which I think is important because you don't know whether you've done well or not.

It's neat to help them get their first experience.

What do you teach?

I teach a Ninth Circuit Clinic at Loyola.

What does that entail? They didn't have that when I was a student there.

We have real pro bono cases assigned to us or given to us by the Ninth Circuit. There's guaranteed oral argument for the students. We prepare the briefs for a real client and then they argue the case for the client too. A lot of them are immigration cases, but there are a lot of other types of cases, like prisoner rights cases. Almost all of the cases I've done through the clinic have been asylum immigration cases.

Aren't you special? That is such a wonderful opportunity for your students to have a teacher like you who cares and is willing to walk them through the process is amazing because not all students get that.

My goal is to make sure, even if they're not planning to be appellate lawyers at the end of it but at least they have great writing skills and good advocacy. They have good core skills to apply.

They know their way around a courtroom. That's amazing that you're doing that. I'm going to applaud you for that. That's special.

It's been many years since I've been doing that at Loyola and UC Irvine as well. So far, we're doing quite well. We've got some very good results for the clients. Students have done a great job arguing and it's been good.

Don't you find the students passionate about their clients and want to get the best result?

They're passionate about the law, particularly in immigration cases, but they're good learning and teaching vehicles because there are so many layers to it. Not only learning how to do the appellate brief, but the immigration law is quite complicated. Working through all of that, you learn it's not just enough to be empathetic to someone. You have to go through the administrative procedures and explain in a critical analytical way why this also makes sense to give the client another chance or that they're entitled to asylum, pat, or whatever.

Coming from a family of immigrants, that work is life-altering and meaningful. When you get the intended result, it can change someone's whole trajectory in life. It’s important work.

I wish we had those things when I was in law school, but clinics were just getting started at that point.

They had clinics at Loyola when I was there, but it was in the infancy stage. When I went back to teach a clinic, it had burgeoned. There were lots of clinics. Many took it seriously.

It's on a law firm with all of the different clinics doing different cases.

That's how I wanted to do mine. I had the students dress accordingly and take them to court as much as I could. They came in, had to do writing and work hard in the role of a lawyer even though they had not yet become lawyers so that they could get their feet wet and see what it's like to manage, do intake, and manage a case from beginning to end.

That's a good experience. All of the clinics are a great experience. It’s more appropriate depending on what you're planning to do or not. We get a lot of law reviews in new court people in the Ninth Circuit Clinic. They like to write. It's fitting. Every once in a while, there are some who do find what they want to do. They didn't know there was appellate law. They find it and are very excited about it. It's super gratifying to be one of the people that introduced them to the law you want to practice.

You get to shape young minds and help young lawyers find their niche. People don't realize how much of a privilege that is and how much impact you can have on their future. If it's a bad or great experience, it shapes their future.

I don't think I'd still be doing it. It’s rewarding in terms of seeing the impact on the individual students. What advice would you have for those who might be considering the bench?

Be the best possible lawyer you can. Try to avoid disciplinary issues. Even if it means you got to work harder and late hours, do whatever it takes to do the best job you can for each and every client. The ones who can pay or who don't pay all have to be treated with a certain dignity and respect. Develop a discipline of being prepared for all that you do.

There's nothing worse than a lawyer who isn't prepared to engage in an argument or hasn't prepared their case well. It's hard to come back from that. Developing that skill and discipline is what will take you through because you have to be prepared to be a judge and a justice. You have to be prepared for each and every case and review it until you feel like you've got a handle on it. There's no short shrift or cutting corners in this work.

You also have to be willing to read a lot. People often ask me, “What is that like?” It's like 50 term papers a month. They're all yours and you have to review them all and make sure that they are written appropriately. You can't let up and do less on this case and more on that. You have to give each case the detail that it needs. Sometimes those cases come in a big box, sometimes in a big room.

You may have to read a lot. What I try to do is remember that behind each case are human beings, the perpetrator and the victim or the litigant, or the plaintiff and the defendant in civil cases. That case is their world. Even though it's one of many for you, it's their world and you have to treat it as such so that they know that you have given them the time that they deserve and they feel heard no matter who it is.

To me, that's been the way I've managed cases from small claims court to the precedent. You see it in small claims court because that case is everything to them. They come in there. They're terrified. They just want to be heard. They feel like an injustice has been done. If you don't treat it with that dignity, they know and feel it. They're the ones who complain the loudest to the presiding judge and the CJP. It's in your best interest to treat people with dignity and know your cases so that you can talk about them.

It’s in your best interest to treat people with dignity and know your cases so you can talk about them.

In family court, I used to make sure I knew their children's names. They would be so surprised when I would say, “How's fifth grade going for little Johnny?” “How did you know that?” “I read your case. I know how old your children are and how old fifth graders are.” That lets them feel like you do care. It wasn't just a trick.

I did care because knowing those things helped me to understand how they got there, why they were fighting, and what was at stake. You're talking about people's children, homes, and money, the most important things. A lot of judges don't like doing that assignment because it's emotional and so toxic at times. You can make a difference in any assignment. I enjoyed every assignment, criminal, civil, and everything. I enjoyed them all and still do to this day.

When you had that lightning moment with Perry Mason where you are like, “This and this.”

I love Perry Mason. I binge-watch it all the time. I've got my research attorney and one of them is young and never heard of Perry Mason. He watches it now. It's a generational thing. My aunt introduced me to it and I've introduced other kids to it. It's very old school, but the objections are right on the money. You get to see how a case is put together and what happens. I didn't even realize they were mostly prelims until my research attorney, who's very young, told me.

He said, “Did you notice that those were all prelims?” I was like, “I thought there were trials.” Every now and then, he did a trial, but primarily there were prelims. I didn't notice that. I feel better now because you didn't notice any. When you go back and watch it, you're like, “There's no jury here. They're talking prelims. It's just a judge and the two lawyers.” The arguments were very well done.

It stands up.

They did a survey of the ends of the court and almost all the lawyers said Perry Mason was their favorite lawyer, even though he is a fictional lawyer. They didn't pick a real lawyer. They picked Johnny Crocker and Perry Mason. I thought that it was very interesting that he was the favorite lawyer. Many people sighted them as their hero.

I would think that or maybe Atticus Finch or something.

That's the number two choice. You are right on the money. I read it in the National Bar Association Magazine. I was surprised that people didn't say LA Law or something like that. They picked Perry Mason and Atticus Finch as lawyers with integrity, honor, and dignity.

Very skilled, but also all of those other things. We'd all like to believe we're one or both of them.

We've all seen lawyers who are not at all full of character.

Thank you so much for doing this, for joining the show, and for having this discussion. That was a lot of fun. I appreciate you doing this. Usually, I end with just a few little lightning-round questions. The first question is, what talent would you like to have but that you don't?

Being able to do difficult calculations in Math like Calculus, Trigonometry, and all of that. I always wished I was better at that. My brother was amazing at it. I struggle through Algebra and Calculus. After that, I was like, “Done. I'm going to be a lawyer, not a doctor.”

There are some defining moments like that. Either you can't stay on the side of blood or whatever it is. You're like, “Not that avenue. It's got to be something different.”

Surprisingly, that doesn't bother me. It was the stuff that you had to go through to get there.

Everyone's different. Who are your favorite writers?

I have a few. I like Toni Morrison. I like her books and poetry the most. There are a few other writers I like, but I don't have a favorite. I just like to read. I read all kinds of books by all kinds of people.

Some people just love to read all different kinds of things.

Here's my secret. I primarily read books on Old Hollywood. You probably wouldn't know the writers, but I love reading books about Old Hollywood and movie stars. Hollywood Babylon is one of my favorite books because it talks about the other side of Hollywood and what people went through in those days. It’s about kids working and being exposed to things they shouldn't have been exposed to. It's a whole side of our life. Everybody's heard of Errol Flynn and all those actors. To read the other side of their lives is fascinating to me. If I can pick a book, it's probably going to be about Old Hollywood.

I love Old Hollywood movies.

Some of those books would make the movie seem dull. There weren't a whole lot of controls in place for celebrities. We think celebrities now are wild, but no. There was something else back in the day when there was no TMZ and they could pretty much get away with anything. If you get your hands on Hollywood Babylon, read it. You'll be surprised.

I will read that.

Most people expect me to say something very erudite, but I like fun reading because what I read is serious.

You need balance in those things. For what in life do you feel most grateful?

I feel grateful to be alive. I'm grateful that my parents had the courage to come to America to get polio treatments for my oldest brother, or I wouldn't have been born here. I am grateful to have that dual culture. It brings me a lot of depth of understanding of people from different walks of life. I'm grateful for the basic things, health, family and grandchildren, love and support, an amazing husband, and being able to work with people. Other people perceive it as difficult. I see it as a challenge. I like working with people who have different points of view.

Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a dinner guest?

President Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and President Biden. I would love to hear what makes him tick.

Sometimes the mixture of the group is interesting too because there are a lot of interesting discussions.

Oprah because she's talked to everybody. There are lots of questions I have about different people. Barbara Walters was that for me as well.

That's in the same Hollywood question, the same thing as the book.

What makes these people tick? What was it like to talk to Fidel Castro? Barbara Walters did an interview with him and I was riveted.

People shared things with her.

She was charming, which is not what you expect from a dictator. I enjoyed watching her and Oprah after that. They need a new person to come up and fill that deal. That era is passed.

Oprah has her soul sessions and other things that are online.

That standout interviewer like they're used to. The lady named Diane Sawyer was fascinating to me and so good at what she did. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw her interview. We need a new generation of Diane Sawyers, Oprah, and all those people who were able to get those cool interviews with top-notch people so you could see the other side of them.

We identified a gap, a need that I hadn't thought about. Last question. What is your motto, if you have one?

Mentoring is the most important thing you can do. Pay it forward. Each one should teach one. There would be no me, but for a mentor before me. My mentor were Candace Cooper, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, and Justice Arleigh Woods. Were those people not in my life, I don't know that I would've had the courage to do what I do. It's important. Always speak to kids. Go to elementary schools, not too soon to mentor kids, encourage them to live their dreams, and tell them that they can have your job.

Mentoring is the most important thing you can do. Pay it forward.

They can do what you do. “It's not that farfetched because years ago, I was like you, a kid from the city not knowing if I could ever dream to do this type of work. If I can do it, you can do it.” I do spend a lot of time doing that. People say, “Why do you go to elementary school?” That's where it starts, high school, elementary school, college, and law school. It's very important to spend time with kids who are interested in learning and open to learning.

The earlier, the better.

You'd be amazed by the questions you get from an elementary school kid about what you do. They are fascinated. They want to know, “Why do you wear a black robe? Why is it black? How do you make a decision? What if you make a mistake? What happens when you make a mistake? Can you fix it?” I always say, “Anything but a fully executed order of execution can be fixed. Once that's happened, it's done.” They're fascinated by how things work, what you do, and how you make decisions.

You get great questions about, “What if the defendant isn't guilty? How did you go out and find the other person who did it?” They're shocked to know we don't. They assume that that's what you would do. Find the right person. They don't understand the differences between the three branches of government. They're always curious about that. What does the President, Congress, or the Secretary of State do? They want to understand all those different things. Civics is almost dead. It's important to bring it to schools. If you don't bring it, it's not likely to happen.

I was surprised at how late in the process, if at all. It comes into education so late in high school.

I remember learning Civics in elementary school and that's pretty much gone. In high school, it’s too late.

That's why I was involved early on in the iCivics or the O’Connors program. That was so valuable because it doesn't depend on it being in the lesson plan, although the teacher can incorporate it, but can do it at home, play the games, and learn things.

Our Chief Justice was very much an advocate of Civics because she knew that if with you don't understand how government works, how can you know your rights and how can you develop that curiosity? Civics is very important and it was a travesty when it was taken out of early education.

I was surprised at how late it was. That's good, but it needs to be much sooner. That's a good point. That's also what you're contributing early on when you go earlier. You're at least having some exposure to that.

I want to change one of my earlier answers. One of the persons I've always wished I could interview was Justice Thurgood Marshall. I felt like he must have had a story to tell in doing all those cases and being the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and then going on to become the first African-American Justice in the Supreme Court. Imagine what he experienced in the ‘50s.

I'm fascinated both by him and Justice Ginsburg because of that.

I love the Notorious RBG. She's my favorite justice. She was amazing. I was lucky enough to hear her speak and I missed her. She was just an amazing human being. If you ever got a chance to watch her life story, that tiny woman was a dynamo.

She is very disciplined, hardworking, and all of that together.

She did it at a time when women weren't doing what she did. She had to break that glass ceiling with a hammer, but she did it. Who is your favorite justice?

I also like Sandra Day O'Connor.

She is an awesome human being, a very astute justice, and smart. I like her too.

She is very good at building consensus and all of that.

It is a talent.

She gets slack for that, but there's also a benefit to that. You're going to get an opinion that lends at least some guidance.

Consensus building is key to what we do.

In her case, her experience as an elected official clearly helped her in that regard that you bring all your different experiences to the back. She was able to use them in different ways.

I know justices were quite shy and would struggle with that. To see her just go right in there and do it was amazing.

It's an important skill. Thank you so much. I enjoyed this.

I enjoyed you. I hope to be able to talk to you in life and learn a little bit more about what you do.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it and I appreciate that you are joining the show. I know that a lot of young people will get a lot of good things, insights, and inspiration from you.

I love talking to young people. If you ever need me to talk to one of your classes, I volunteer. Take care and have a wonderful day.