Episode 11: Leah Ward Sears (Ret.)
Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court (Ret.)
00:53:08Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Leah Ward Sears was the first African-American female chief justice of a state supreme court in the United States. When she was first appointed as a justice in 1992, she became the first woman and youngest person to sit on Georgia's Supreme Court. She is now in private practice at a major law firm. Justice Sears shares her path to the bench, and the importance of mentors in her career journey, as well as tips for newer lawyers and advocates.
This episode is powered by Clearbrief, Trellis, BriefCatch, and CSBA.
Relevant episode links:
Justice Leah Sears, The Red Tent, The Little Engine That Could
About Justice Leah Ward Sears
Justice Leah Ward Sears
Leah Ward Sears was the first African-American female chief justice of a state supreme court in the United States. When she was first appointed as justice in 1992, she became the first woman and youngest person to sit on Georgia's Supreme Court.
Upon retiring from the bench, she returned to private practice. She is currently a partner at the law firm of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP in Atlanta, Georgia.
Transcript
Welcome to the show, which chronicles women's journeys to the bench, bar, and beyond, and seeks to inspire the next generation of women lawyers to expand their horizons as well. We have Justice Leah Sears, who was previously a Justice and a Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, now in private practice. Welcome.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity.
You have such a great story so far to your journey and more things to come. Folks will find it quite interesting and a lot of pathbreaking parts to that journey as well. I wanted to start out to begin with how did you decide to pursue law as a career?
I was born in 1955 and right around the time of Brown vs. Board of Education. I was born then and wasn't reading the case. It didn't have a big impact on me from that standpoint. I could tell from the earliest breaths, like very early on, a young African-American woman growing up in the late-'50s, early-'60s came of age in the '70s, we wouldn't have many opportunities unless I can somehow get the whole race and the gender thing figured out.
I was born in Germany. My father was stationed there. By the time I got to the United States, it had become very clear that this country had a major race problem. I could tell growing up in my own family. Being a girl wasn't where it was at if you wanted to be like a chief justice of the Supreme Court or a doctor and all that kind of thing. It was a matter of necessity [to address racial discrimination] if I was to survive, be the woman or the person I wanted to be. You asked about the law.
How did you choose that?
It was because the law is what’s going to give me the freedom to breathe. You may remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, "Take your knee off my neck, my brethren." That's all I needed. I could fly and be smart. I knew all of that, but I needed air to breathe. I knew that the law gave you air to breathe because I grew up in the era of the Warren Court. Major changes were happening for women in the '70s and African-Americans in the '50s and the '60s. I was on board with all of them. I know that's a very long answer to that question, but that's the truth.
It's your time in history. When you can see the opportunities that it provided saying, "I want to be a part of continuing to do that and to have the law make the changes that it has."
I did want to grow another generation of young women, White, Black or Asian who had to climb the mountain that I was going to have to climb. I didn't want that for my daughter and my friend's daughters. I had work. We all had work to do, but I set about doing my work in the law.
Where did you think you could best accomplish that? On the court itself? Was that a goal from the beginning then [to become a judge]?
In my mind, I didn't grow up in a family of lawyers, but I was going to be like Thurgood Marshall Jr, a great civil rights lawyer. That's what I would go into the Supreme Court, and all the state courts, particularly the Southern ones, would mess things up. The laws would go through the Federal system and reach the Supreme Court, and things would be made right in the world or at least somewhat right. My problem was when I got to law school, and I did very well. I came out in 1980, a little bit past. I missed the whole civil rights thing because I was too young. A lot of the women's rights stuff, not all of it because I was at Cornell and took women studies courses and all of that, but I did well.
The law is what is going to give you the freedom.
I had very little money, and the law firms, which had 2 or 3 women in them, maybe 1 or 2, came knocking. I started with this law firm called Alston, Miller & Gaines, which morphed to Alston & Bird. There were three African-Americans and four women, no woman partner. It was a big deal if a woman wore pants. You're too young to remember it, but it was something else. I was the first Black woman lawyer at a big firm in Atlanta. There had been a few Black women lawyers, but they were family law and all that to be taken into a White male corporate law firm was unique. They were paying $30,000. I'd never seen that much money in my life in 1980. I took the job, which is laughable now.
That was big money. I wonder too if there is a little bit of more opportunity there that wasn't there previously. I know some of the judges I've spoken to who were even 15, 10 years earlier getting out of law school in the early-'70s or the late-1960s, they couldn't get a job in law firms.
I was told we’ve got to have 1 or 2 of them, and they meant Blacks or women that were going to have to do something. This was the beginning of the opening of doors for women and minorities. When I talk about minorities in Atlanta, I mainly mean African-Americans because the state is 30% Black.
How was that when you joined a big law firm? Did you enjoy the practice?
No, it was like joining a male fraternity, but I'm Black and female. My father was an army officer, so I grew up amongst Whites and Blacks, which wasn't a problem. I never went to a segregated school. I'm a little too young to know all about that. That's about 10 or 15 years before me, or it was my generation. The way I grew up, it was middle-class African-American, but that was something else. I felt not wanted and tolerated. There were nice people but ignorant, and that's the way it was all over town, all over the nation probably.
Odd comments, uncomfortable, there was nobody like me anywhere. It was the same way when I went to the Supreme Court. I was the first woman and Black. People didn't know what to say. They should have because I knew what to say, but they had all grown up all like themselves. They weren't used to difference at all.
You were appointed so young to the court. How did that happen?
I got to know Andrew Young, the mayor of Atlanta and civil rights person and ambassador to the United Nations from the US. He had become mayor, and his goal was to put more women and more African-Americans on the city courts of Atlanta. He put me on part-time in the city court of Atlanta. I loved it because I could go from my big law firm, of which there was me walking around the law firm, going down to the traffic court, and hanging out there.
I'm a people person, as you can probably see. I like being with people and talking to them. It's a ray of light. I enjoyed the process so much that I ran and won. I became the first woman on the Superior Court of Fulton County, which is the city of Atlanta. Governor Miller, the governor at the time, decided to move me up faster than I could have ever believed to the Supreme at 36 years old.
That's why I asked. It has to be a confluence of timing and the perfect opportunity to be appointed to the bench anyway. Particularly in your case, it all converged, but also you were given the opportunity to get the experience as a judge by Andrew Young and others. You were in a good spot to be able to take that position.
Maybe not as good as I thought I was. When you're young, you know more than you know, but not in a bad spot. I think I made a big contribution to the Supreme Court. I had the African-American and the woman lens and was 36. There was a big generational lens. The average age was 60, and there I was sitting there. Maybe the biggest oddity, the age difference.
It's how you approach things that was so different - and such a vast difference in generations.
My friends, White, Black and all that, were more like me. I wasn't an oddity to them for the most part. As the court changed, got younger and people retired, it became very tangible. Everything has grown up around you. I'm back at a very big corporate law firm. I have wonderful friends here at Smith, Gambrell & Russell. My daughter is now at Alston & Bird. Things have changed for the better.
In your time on the Supreme Court, and then you became chief justice, you said you saw changes within the court. Was the court's role also changing? Christine Durham, who was the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court, told me that she saw even the role of their Supreme Court changed after she joined. They became much more interested in giving guidance to the lower courts and developing some novel areas of the law where the court hadn't been that interested in doing it previously. I didn't know if there was any change in how the Supreme Court viewed its role or how it decided cases while you were there too.
Justice Benham, who was the first Black man on my court, when he came on 2 or 3 years before me, the court moved into the 20th Century finally. They decided to stop ignoring, for the most part, not always, issues, punting them. We're not going to decide these hot button issues, LBGTQ rights, race and uncomfortable things. The more modern court decided, "We're the court, and we're going not to punt them through the Federal courts. "
He says that when I came on the court, the court moved into the 21st Century, mainly because I was young. There were things that I and others who came after me wanted to do. There's a lot of power in the courts. We started ADR commissions, not just me, but one of the judges before me. We were doing liaison to things we wanted to see the courts improve. I think that is true.
That is something that is unique to the judicial position is not just are you deciding cases, but you also have a convening power around issues. You can identify issues or at least can get people to sit around a table and discuss issues, but they might not otherwise do if a judge hadn't invited them.
Yes. For example, during my reign as chief justice from 2005 to 2009, I was approached about the need for a pandemic handbook. I thought, "This is a bit weird." Pandemic handbook is strange, but let's go ahead and go for it. I set up a commission to put together a pandemic handbook. Chief Justice Harrell Melton the youngest justice, came up with this handbook. Put those on the shelf.
Chief Justice Melton became chief justice ten years later. He goes to the bookshelf and pulls out a pandemic handbook, and we're ready to go. We locked out. A previous court, wouldn't he have been given that a second? One of the older courts would not have thought that was our world. It was good that at least we could see that it's a little far-fetched. At least back then, it's not far-fetched at all. Let's go with it. It saved and helped us.
That's been one of the challenges is having the pandemic continue, and the courts continue to be able to do their jobs. Some were more prepared than others. Some had more technology than others. There was maybe less delay in some courts and more in others. I would imagine some didn't even have a blueprint. I think it's very helpful and important to access justice to have that.
We are the unified court system. The power of the court, bully pulpit, the chief and personality, and all of that is very important. You've got to be able to cajole people to come to the table and let's put these things out.
All the various stakeholders and all of the issues. What are you most proud of, from your time on the court, either as justice or a chief justice?
When I came on the court, there was little diversity other than Bob Benham. When I served on the court, there were seven justices. 3 out of the 7 were African-Americans, and two were women. We moved into the 21st Century, not to say that's enough. That part changed. It wasn't my duty, but I was pleased to serve in a court that had seen so much change. I think the other thing I found out is we all became friends. We are not all philosophically on the same wavelength. Civility was always the word. We always got along. Not all courts are civil, and we were. I'm very proud to have maintained that.
That's important, especially in an Appellate Court or a Supreme Court, because one judge cannot decide things for him or herself. You need to have consensus-building around opinions and dissents or concurrences. You have to have that collegiality to make it work.
People weren't used to differences at all.
There are some opinions that I'm happy about, but I think maybe the structural things at the core I'm very proud of.
I don't know that people think about that from the Supreme Courts' roles in the states in that regard, especially in unified court systems like yours. You have the role of deciding the cases but have this overarching role with regard to the administration of justice and the court system. That's an important role to play as well, and that can have a much longer impact on your tenure.
Absolutely. I was also a chief justice during the Great Recession. At least during the time I was there, we had some furloughs, but we didn't lay anybody off. People kept their jobs. I think a job is a family. You don't want to hit somebody's family court. You need to do everything. You're a leader. Somebody is doing their job to try to maintain that if you can. I'm proud of that.
That's a challenge for any organization during the Great Recession. It's the same thing for the court system.
Even a law firm, a business, a restaurant or what have you.
Do you think you had particular mentors, or I call them angels or sponsors who helped you at various points of your career as well? Maybe an example of what that looks like because I think sometimes people hear about these mythical words of mentors and sponsors but don't always know what that looks like when someone supports you.
I did. Throughout every step, I always had people who provided me different kinds of support, not always the same, but on the Traffic Court, there was a judge there who was going to help me through the weeds. His name was Larry Paul. Andrew Young was definitely a mentor. He still mentors me from time to time. He flew all the way back from Korea to swear me in with Justice Thomas. Having conservative Justice Thomas and a very liberal Andrew Young, I was sitting between them waiting to be sworn in.
They were having this conversation, and I sat there in a robe. I thought, "If this could only be recorded." They were talking about Thurgood Marshall and this and that, "I know you're a conservative, but we want your man." That was amazing. When they both got up to swear me in on both sides of the aisle, I was pleased.
Are you from the same part of the state as Justice Thomas?
Yes. We were appointed close to the same time I did to the Georgia Court and the US Supreme Court. He's a little older than I am. It was so odd. You're in Orange County. It's not from LA to Orange County. It's pretty close. From the airport to Newport Beach, if that makes sense. I'm a city person. He was definitely living out in the country for so long, but we had so much in common. We are philosophically not in the same way, but that never bothered me. You don't have to be my friend and think exactly like that.
If I felt like that, I wouldn't have made friends, given the way I came up through the system. Joel Fryer, one of the first Jewish judges on the Bolton Superior Court bench here, went to the mat. I still miss him every single day. He did tons for me. Joel could walk into a room and say like, "Do this for her right now." If I ask, it was like crickets. He'd come down and say, "Didn't she ask you for this? Get it." The next thing I would have is it. I'd be breathing and all that.
In that way, they are reinforcing respect for you and that your request should be honored.
It's unfortunate. I needed an older guy to do that for me. The Superior Court guy was only 32. Joel was 60. I needed somebody that other men would listen to.
It was nice that he stepped up to do that without you having to ask.
Sometimes I asked, but I felt comfortable asking him. I felt I could ask him anything, and he respected it. It was a good relationship. He's since deceased, but I miss him. I've had Black women and White guys. Across the board, I never turned down any help or anybody to give help. If you need me, want my advice, and are willing to listen, I'm willing to help you.
That's one of the only ways you can reciprocate with regard to people who help you is to pay it forward and do the same for others in the future.
The other thing is I enjoyed that. I enjoy watching young people absorb.
It's nice. I teach part-time in a law school clinic and appreciate both the students there and the newer attorneys who come in. Helping them grow and see them discover what they want to do with their life and what law they want to practice and then giving them the opportunities to shine in that is fun.
You get to a point in your career where you can do this and that. You've done that, and now it's time to give back.
It's very fulfilling, as you said. It's good that you're doing that, given all the help you've had throughout your career. How are you enjoying then returning to private practice from the bench?
When I was practicing law at Alston & Bird, the law was more of a profession. These wise older men, the business was the firm's business. Never say, my client, everyone wore a jacket and a tie. Since coming off, [the bench] there have been wonderfully positive changes, many more people, much more inclusion. It's much more relaxed, but I think the law practice is much more of a business.
I'm walking around reading the great books from the court and all of that. They're doing business. Law libraries have shrunk your computer screen and maybe three books out in the hall. I'm exaggerating. We used to have huge law libraries, and you'd sit in the law libraries all day on Saturdays and half day on Sundays.
When I left the bench, I didn't know about eDiscovery. I didn't even know how to text because I had one secretary text for me. It was a secretary, not an assistant, who did all my calendaring and all of that. I was this shell of a person that spit out opinions all the time. I've had to learn to do a lot more, but I liked it. I think it might be a good idea. It's not going to happen. If the appellate judges took a semester sabbatical off back into the practice of law to see what it's like. The extensions and continuances cost money, lots of it, and all the things you don't think of. You're doing your thing when you're on the bench, but don't have a full understanding of the impact of some of your decisions on clients and people.
When you’re a people person, you love talking with them and making connections.
The memory of what the practice was like is very difficult times.
It's stressful. If you're good and juggling 2 and 3 things, try to have a family on the side or even not. It's a lot.
That's an interesting idea of the sabbatical. On the one hand, it's nice that the judges are removed from all frays because you can look at issues with some distance. On the other hand, maybe over time, there's too much distance. A little knowledge of what's going on might also impact how you make your decisions.
Maybe not six months' sabbatical, but I don't think it would take your favorite judge to work with you. Don't ask them about any cases, but have them feel what it's like to come up to your clients. I don't know if you could get that sense in 1 or 2 weeks, but it would have helped me. I would have wanted to know more.
It's good to have served on the trial court before being on the appellate court so you can understand how those cases proceed, but it's also helpful to see from the business side what's going on. It's interesting too, because many judges like you who are appointed so young, when you leave the bench, the usual thing is either retire or leave the bench and become only a private judge because that's what you were doing. There are a few like Christine Durham, you, who are turning to yet another phase of a career in practice after being on the bench.
We had the chief justice of the Pandemic Court leave . He's only 54 and at a big law firm now. During the pandemic, the fairly young justice went back to Alston & Bird. It's becoming more where you go in a little bit early 38, 39. You put in 10, 15 years and go and do something else. My husband kept saying, "You want to get off and do something," but when you have the energy, and you're wanted by other people to do something. Once you hit 60 or 65, the opportunities begin to draw down.
As judges are appointed younger, now there's this opportunity. There's a window of opportunity that wasn't there when they were more uniformly appointed later in their careers. It's like a cherry on the top of your career instead of the middle.
It was you'd be like 55, 58, something like that. Somebody would descend on you say and that you're great. You should be a judge. You've been 10, 15 years on the bench, and that was your career. When I went on the court, that's what all the judges I was serving with initially had been their trajectory. In the late-'50s, early-'60s, retire at 72, 73, 74.
It's interesting to see that change. Both the state court and the federal courts are the younger people being appointed. How do you think that experience as a justice impacted now your role as a litigator? Do you think you approach things differently because of that experience?
I do after several years on the Supreme Court of Georgia. I have a Master's Degree in Virginia in Appellate Judicial Studies. I still, even as a lawyer, tend to look at things the way I was trained to look at things as a judge, which can be very helpful. You're writing for the fact-finder. I can put those sunglasses on and try to write that way or persuade in that way. Not a lot of litigators and a lot of appellate people don't do that.
They write for their clients or themselves, whatever makes them feel good and forgetting about the fact-find. I was seeing briefs that were, I call it, chewy like granola, hard to chew through when they could be smooth like cornflakes. If you go into a judge's chambers, it's reading all the time. You need to be able to get through things quickly. You don't have time to try to figure things out. The writing needs to be sharp, small, but powerful.
What would more important or significant tip for lawyers in brief writing be then?
This is something I say it's a little risky, but I say this from time to time, a brief is called the brief for a reason. It needs to be brief. I'd go a little bit further. A brief should be more like a thong. It should be very bare bones.
It takes a lot of work to get to that point.
Clients don't understand that. It takes a lot of effort like oral argument, which is only 15 minutes but to spend weeks understanding, you've got to pair it down and understand it fully so that you can respond to any questions that can come up. I can get a lawyer like you if you do this all the time, but very hard to get clients to understand that you've got to pair the brief down.
I think when people see the final product like that, they think it's easy to do. It's harder to do it that way.
It's easier. You're an expert at all this stuff. It's easy to dump a bunch of stuff on the paper than to pick out the 2 or 3 key issues when your client wants you to dump everything that they saw that went wrong from the trial court into the brief. The appellate judge can't weigh through that. It mucks up the brief.
It's like, "What do you want me to decide? I know all this stuff happened, but what's my job? I need to decide here." What prejudice that outcome too? That's another one. It seems like maybe if you were to say that to clients, it would be even more credible because you say, "I'm the one that's deciding this, and this is important that it be done this way."
You want to go in, have a lot of reading, get to the main issue and decide that. You don't need all this stuff.
I think sometimes that can be an issue of roadmaps that you provide for the court so that the court knows if you have any more issues, I don't need to decide those. That's great. That's good to know. I also think the disposition, like what you're asking the court to do for you? How do you want that opinion written? What exactly is the relief you wanted? I think that's important as well.
To be clear about it, I always ask it at the beginning and repeat it at the end.
People always say, "I want it reversed, but what, how, and what way?" and with directions or judgment. What are you looking for? That's something that is obviously unique to appellate in terms of what you're asking for. You're doing more than appellate work in private practice. You're doing a range of litigation, and how has that been?
That's very good. I won't try a full case, but I will come into cases. It's called embedded. It's waiting, watching, advising how to get complicated cases poised to appeal if that's in the direction that we're headed. You're aren't always working on appeals. You go through long periods of, "What am I going to do right now?"
I do mediations and arbitrations. Those are fairly easy. That's putting my quayside judicial hat back on. Fill in the gaps with arbitrations and mediations. I do some investigative work that people would want an old appellate judge because of their reputation to come in. They might be more willing to trust you with an investigation. It's a nice variety of work.
Anyone that wants to serve as a judge should know it's good public service.
The embedded in with the trial team has blossomed as a role for the appellate lawyer in the last several years, even moved earlier in the case at the pleading stage or major motion stage. Being involved in the strategy makes it interesting. It’s a different pace than writing the briefs and arguing them to the Courts of Appeal. For someone like you, who likes working and being with people, it's nice to work in teams.
It is the handoff. If you win, you're off. You don't have to start from scratch.
I always have that. It’s people like you to make post-trial motions. If you haven't been involved in the case at all, that's going to take a lot of time for me to get up to speed to do that. I haven't been involved knowing what everything's happening all along, but if you're involved all along, you can have more of a role in that regard. What would you recommend that women consider the bench? What do you think are the positive things about serving as a judge? Why might people want to consider that if they haven't already?
I enjoyed it. It was very much like my personality, seeking the truth as I saw it. You don't have a billable hour requirement, so you can keep researching. You can't do that in private practice law. You have somebody funding it. I liked the scholarly aspect of being on the bench. I was rearing my family while I was a young juror. You can control your schedule a lot better. It was a fun thing to do, but it wasn't my plan to do forever. Anyone that wants to do this, it's good public service. We run for public office here. I ran statewide three times. That's heavy. It's not for everybody.
It's very different being appointed to the judicial positions and running for election for them.
If you aren't up to going shaking hands and all that thing, you might want to try to hedge your bets with the federal appointment. There are many more state court appointments. It only takes up 20% of the litigation in the United States. It's way more opportunity in the state system but if you can get a lifetime appointment on the federal courts, more power to you.
The state courts are larger. There are more positions on them and more opportunities in that regard. I'm going to do a little lightning-round of a few things. We'll see what you think about these. Which talent would you most like to have that you don't?
Dress design. I love to do it. It's like Project Runway and all that stuff. I enjoy watching it.
It's a tough profession.
Sometimes you're up. Sometimes you're down. I don't have any of the talents. I'll be upfront, but I am likely in a product. I love the creative process. I like watching it.
Do you do anything else creative working with your hands or anything artistic?
I'm not talking about briefs, but I liked writing essays and poetry. I sometimes try to nip a little bit of that into the briefs, but not too much. I don't want to be silly. I do like to write. I like to get up early in the morning with a nice, good cup of coffee and go write when I have something on my mind.
I think good writing is good writing. You're improving your skills all-around when you're doing that. It does come across in legal writing. I know I took some short story and essay writing classes. A lot of the principles, you can see them in a different way when you're writing. It causes you to think about them in a different way when you're writing the legal brief. I think it does translate, even if it isn't exactly a short story you're doing. To that end, do you have any favorite writers?
I love Alice Walker. I don't have a favorite. There's a book I'm reading but I can't remember his name, but there's a young man who wrote a book. I had a brother who committed suicide. There was a book author in New York Times. He's describing what it felt like. I read about things that affect me. There was this book out a few years back called The Red Tent, which was about women who gathered in the tent during their menstrual cycle.
It's always about something that somehow strikes me. I have a niece who's a poet. I read her poetry a lot. Her poetry is going to be published by the University of Chicago. I read all the time, and so does my husband. We get the Washington Post and the New York Times. When George Floyd was killed, it was all the hell not to be an anti-racist, all these book clubs. I don't know lots and lots of stuff.
I even like children's books, and I shouldn't, but I'm a big fan of Dr. Seuss. He had a bad part of his life, but then a very good part. I wrote a graduation commencement speech that was Dr. Seuss-like. It was only seven minutes long. I remember turning to go back to my seat, and the president of the college was praising me, but every single graduate was, "That was a great speech." It took a long time to get the cadence. It was hard. I used an associate here who was a ballet dancer too. We were knocking it back and forth. It was fun to do, but I don't know. It may have been a little bit much.
For what in life do you feel most grateful?
I could say my children, but that's a little cliché. I'm divorced and grateful for remarrying and getting a second chance to get it right honestly. When I divorced, I thought, "I blew it." I didn't blow it, but that was my chance. I'm grateful to have this man walk into my life and give me many years of peace and comfort that I didn't know I would get. Many women don't get the opportunity to be married twice. I'm grateful unless he's messing up now, then we got a problem.
It's a great testament to your husband and yourself for growing and having that relationship and recognizing the value and the rarity of that.
I got married at twenty. I was too young. He was 21. We have two beautiful children. It's wonderful. We stayed married for twenty years. I divorced at around 40. I married at 44 to a much older man, and he was 57. At that time, I thought, "I'll marry this old guy." I don't know. We took the chance to do it again and get it right. I'm grateful for that.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a dinner guest?
Barack Obama. I'd like to meet him. He would need to bring Michelle. If they could come together, that would be great. They're very dynamic and interesting. They go together. They're a wonderful team.
That's a good way of putting it, good team. Finally, what is your motto if you have one?
I love children's books, my favorite one is The Little Engine That Could. It's all about persistence. That's the key. You don't have to be brilliant and beautiful. You can be beautiful if you make yourself beautiful. It's all about what you put in your head. You can be it if you think you can.
Much of it is internal and mindset. That's important. It recognizes what's possible even if it seems distant.
What is the chance that a young woman born in Heidelberg Germany in 1955 would one day rise to become Chief Justice of a deep south state, Georgia Supreme Court, and the first Black woman on that court? You have to think, or other people have to think it for you and sprinkle it on your head. I can always think of it myself. Three people told me, “You can do this, that,” and people who took me by the hand.
I think that's a beautiful way to conclude. I appreciate you talking and sharing your insights with everyone. You're so delightful. I appreciate it.
Thanks for reaching out to me. I appreciate it.