Episode 13: Ann Scott Timmer
Vice-Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
00:45:21Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Vice-Chief Justice of Arizona's Supreme Court, Ann Scott Timmer, shares her tips on brief writing and oral argument, and discusses her path to the bench and role on her state's supreme court.
Justice Ann Scott Timmer
Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer joined the Arizona Supreme Court in 2012. Before that, Justice Timmer was a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2012, serving three years as Chief Judge. Notably, she chaired the Court’s Legal Services Task Force, which recommended rules ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court that create a new tier of legal service provider and eliminate ER 5.4. She currently chairs the Court’s Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee, is a member of the National Conference of Bar Examiners Board of Trustees, the Board of Trustees of the Appellate Judges Education Institute and has been elected to The American Law Institute. Most recently, Justice Timmer has been named Vice-Chair of the ABA’s Center for Innovation Governing Council. Justice Timmer earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Arizona, her J. D. magna cum laude, from Arizona State University Law School, and a Masters in Judicial Studies from Duke University Law School.
I’m very pleased to have a Justice from the Arizona Supreme Court, Ann Scott Timmer. She is the Vice Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Welcome, Justice Timmer.
Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here.
I want to talk about a lot of things as much as we can in our time together. I wanted to start first with how did you become interested in being a lawyer and what attracted you to the law?
I’m one of those people who was interested in the law all the way back when I was in high school in an American Government class. I remember because I had a very enthusiastic teacher who was the first that had emphasized the role that lawyers and judges played in the development of the country. It has grabbed my attention, and at the very same time, my older brother was going through law school, so I was familiar with it. He was pursuing the law.
This teacher was exciting me about what lawyers do and how important they are. I decided when I was fifteen years old that that is what I wanted to do. I want to go to law school and be a lawyer. To this day, I would tell younger people not to have such blinders on about something like that, but it worked out for me, and I have never regretted that I pursued that path.
There is a fine line between having a goal and being focused and being too focused that you miss other interesting things along the path, but it worked out for you. The focus and direction worked out well. Did you clerk for a judge before entering?
I did not. I graduated in 1985 and the economy was booming then. Lots of legal jobs were available, and no one, at least at my law school, was emphasizing or even talking about clerkships. I can’t even tell you that I have ever heard of such a thing. I can see the benefits that would have had and wish I had an opportunity to consider doing that three or so. Back then, I went right from law school right to private practice, and I missed that opportunity.
Did you go to a large or small firm? What focus did you have in your practice?
I always thought I wanted to go to a large firm, and I clerked in my second-year summer with the largest and oldest firm in Arizona at the time. It turns out I didn’t care for the big firm experience. It turns out I’m not much of a rule follower. My experience has been that the larger the firm, the more little rules they would have. I like a more flexible approach. I went with a firm that was a spinoff from a larger firm. In Arizona, I would call it midsize, about 20 to 25 people. That would be small, but it turned out to be perfect for me. They did a lot of representing home builders, property law and real estate.
They had a lot of great cases and not a lot of bodies to throw at it. They had the teaching method of throwing you in the deep end of the pool and seeing if you could swim, which fit me perfectly. I was thrilled to do hit the ground running, be in court and make depositions. I second chair a three-month jury trial in my first year, like due-on-sale clause issues and nice complex stuff. I was very fortunate in the firm that I chose. It fit my style a little bit better.
It is your style, but also the opportunities you had. I know one of the things where you go into litigation, and you think you are interested in it, and you might like to be a trial lawyer, but until you have had a trial, you don’t know if that is what you would like. In the larger firms, it can be years before you have that experience of a trial. It is good to get that early, see what you like, and cut your teeth on things.
It was very enjoyable, especially in Commercial Law. You are not going to get a lot of trials ever. It is unfortunate because it is too expensive, and it makes sense that clients are not paying for us to have fun. We have all those things, but it is great when you have the opportunity to do that thing.
For working parents, the appellate court is an ideal job. You can read briefs during soccer practice or even when the line is long at the McDonald's drive-through.
Did you practice at one firm prior to joining the bench?
I had several firms. I left no firm standing. The firm that I clerked for in the summer, the oldest firm in Arizona, imploded or exploded over something. It had nothing to do with me. My first firm ends up merging with a big firm. I came in right before we had any national law firms in Arizona. It seems like we went through a period of big firms coming up into Arizona, and to grab a foothold, they would merge. That was what happened to me. It seems like any firm I was in kept merging with firms. I’m not thrilled with little picky and rules, so I wasn’t as thrilled with those mergers and kept trying to avoid it.
I’m looking back to all the firms that I have been in that don’t exist anymore because they have all been bought up, merged, reemerged, and rebooted. Both my brothers are attorneys. One in your firm in California, and one in Florida who already retired. Both of them had one firm post-graduation, yet I could seem to go from place to place to the point where my mother would say, “Why can’t you hold a job?”
How did you decide that you wanted to be a judge?
I never ever envisioned it in law school. I don’t know that most of us do when you are so focused on being the best lawyer you can be. I had no inclinations at all until my mid-30s. The Arizona Court of Appeals or Intermediate State Court of Appeals was having issues in civil cases. They were backed up two years or so. They put on a program called Department S where they would have one regular judge and get two attorneys from the community agreed to help them make their way through these cases. You approach him, sit on the bench, hear all the arguments and right decisions, and the whole bid. There are supposedly the easier ones they thought would not end up being a published opinion or presidential value.
It was a great experience, and I loved it. I thought, “This is a wonderful job.” It is a very purely legal job where you don’t have to deal with the business of law of developing a practice. By this time, I was married with three small children. They were starting to enter school, and you could see which way things were going. I was like, “The demands on your time are incredible.” As you rise up in your law firm to become a partner, you are expected to bring in more business. That takes more time. It doesn’t contribute to your billable time. That is the first time that that planted the seed that, “This would be a wonderful job to have.”
It is such a unique opportunity because I have served pro tem, and there are opportunities to do that on the trial court bench, but that seemed like a unique program at the appellate level to do that.
I know they have never done it again. It had not worked out as well for them. When I agreed to do it, I sat on 3 or 4 different panels. I got to meet the different judges and got to write the case. These are judges, so I dropped everything I was doing and made sure I could write what I could write. I got it out quickly, and they were very appreciative. A lot of lawyers that did this were not treated seriously. It took months and months, and they were constantly trying to track them down, “Where are you with this?” It was difficult for me to believe. They have never repeated the program. What they do now for conflicts and whatnot is they would call up the trial-level judges come up.
That is what we do here in California if there is a gap. The trial-level judges will sit on the appellate court.
It was wonderful. As a result of that, one of the regular judges called me up one day and said, “We have got some openings that are going to be coming up in the next few years. You were good. We liked the work you did, and this would be great for you and your lifestyle with kids and such. You should think about applying.” My reaction is, “I never thought of that. I couldn’t do that.” When somebody that you respect says, “You would be good at something,” you start mulling it over. That has what got me to say, “I could do this.” That is what got me on that path.
That is a frequent refrain that I hear having someone say, “You should seriously consider this.” Whether it is a judge on the court or someone in the appointments process who taps you and says, “You might want to consider this if it is something you are interested in doing.” Sometimes you need that extra nudge to take it seriously or to seriously consider it for yourself.
It is something I bear in mind. They know that they are talented, but everybody needs that feedback and positive reinforcement. I have never forgotten the experience I had with that, so I try to do the same thing.
That is the only way to pay it forward. You pay it back by paying it forward of how people have helped you or opened your eyes to the opportunity to do that for somebody else. For the Court of Appeal in Arizona, is that an appointment or elected process?
It is an appointed process. It is the same as the Supreme Court. California does it at least for your appellate. There is merit selection, where the governor appoints after you get vetted by a citizen-dominated group and then you are on the ballot for the appellate lawyers every six years. I’m on this coming year in 2022.
Did you go directly to the Court of Appeals for your first appointment?
I went right from private practice to the Court of Appeals. I was still on the younger side for the Court of Appeals. I was 39. The governor at that time had said she wouldn’t appoint anybody under 40 because she thinks people should have some life experience. I was probably the only woman in America saying I was 40-ish.
Forty was not so traumatic because everybody kept saying, “That is pretty young.” It is funny how that mind perspective like, “I feel young.” I did not go to the trial court route, even though that was more of my background. It was child work more than appellate work. I had three kids, and I knew that I did not want to have that schedule of being tied to the bench all day. It was a great deal of flexibility being on the appellate court, even back then before technology caught up.
Now it is even more flexible, but for working parents, it is an ideal job. You can read those briefs at soccer practice or even when the line is long in the McDonald’s drive-through. It is a terrific job to have for parents. I also knew myself, and I liked double and triple-checking everything I had been arguing. I thought, “I’m going to end up second-guessing myself on a lot of these things.” I will go home, research everything what I did during the day, making sure I did everything right and that will drive everybody nuts. I would not have the luxury of time that trial judges don’t have. They have to move and react. I like being able to take the time to consider it and write.
Those are two good points. First, you are tied to the bench for a certain period of time. During the day, there is less flexibility as a trial judge. If there is soccer practice or things like that for the kids, you won’t be doing that, the flexibility overall where you can read briefs on the record and the cases in a lot of different places and still be doing your job, and also your temperament that you like to carefully parse and double-check things.
There is the opportunity to do that at the Court of Appeal or appellate level, but not at the trial court. It is amazing that you had the opportunity to try it out and see if you like the job by sitting with the justices. The justice that reached out to you and the original Court of Appeal division you sat on, was that the one also you had sat essentially pro tem on or was it a different one?
I know California has fourteen different courts. We technically have one Court of Appeals with two divisions. The major one is in Phoenix with six judges on the Court of Appeals here and six in Tucson.
I have argued in the Tucson Court of Appeal and filed some briefs in the Phoenix Court of Appeal. I practiced with Snell & Wilmer for several years.
Were you in Arizona?
No. I was here in Orange County.
Both of my law clerks are going to Snell & Wilmer after they leave me.
People need to be able to debate without anger behind it.
Because of that, I did some Arizona appellate work. I know there is much less than we have here in terms of divisions. I was asking that because it is important to the justices on the court that they see that a colleague would join them who would be a good colleague. They would enjoy working with them.
Another difference between the trial bench and appellate court is that you don’t get to decide things by yourself. You have colleagues that you have to work with to work towards a resolution. I know at least here that the justices would rather have people they know they can get along with, work hard and all of that stuff be in the mix for an appointment because it makes their job easier, too.
It is very different to make collective decision-making, which I enjoy. The give and take with intelligent, well-prepared people and talking about issues professionally without having anger issues and things like that, which was increasingly an experience in short supply. People need to debate without anger behind it. That’s what the job is. It is truly a delight even when I disagree with my colleagues. It is always a wonderful experience, the back and forth and such, so I enjoy that.
A lot of trial court judges think they might be interested, but then they will come out. They are not. They want to make the call themselves. It is not for everybody, the appellate work versus trial work. You are right about wanting to like the people you work with. We have such a terrific dynamic. We have no control over who our new colleague would be. Every time an opening comes up, you cross your fingers hoping, “Please don’t let this be a real jerk.”
One change in one personnel on the appellate court from an advocate’s perspective changes the flavor of the panel. It is another input into decision-making and can impact things. It is important.
It is almost like jury selection, where you are trying to identify the juror that might persuade the others. It is the same with the panel that you know that there is always one that is their area or personality that the others listened to more.
You were on the Court of Appeal and then you went to the Supreme Court. Did someone in the court recommend that you apply for that position?
It is a natural progression once you are on the Court of Appeals. You think, “Where do I go? Do I stay here in my career or is there somewhere else to go?” I have clerks who end up here. The Supreme Court calls on Court of Appeals judges to fill in for contracts. I had done the work up here. The work of the court is very similar. Identical in terms of deciding cases. A little different in terms of numbers. The Supreme Court does only about half its work in deciding cases. I think it is the same in California, but not exactly because your legislature has more of a rule.
In Arizona, it is all under the court, like the regulation of attorneys. All the rulemakings, oversight, and probation are under the Court in Arizona, which is part of the reason that attracted me to the job. I was on the Court of Appeals for twelve years. I was a Chief Judge there for three years, so I had done everything at the Court of Appeal, and I would have been happy to finish my traditional career there. Going to the Supreme Court gives you a larger trade of work that you can do and accomplish things in a larger way.
It is good that you had the opportunity to do that.
I would never have anticipated that, but it has been years since I have been a judge as opposed to as a lawyer. You never know where your career takes you.
You rotate in the chief and vice chief positions. Those on the court elect others to the chief and vice chief.
It is a five-year term to be the chief judge and vice chief as well. It is pretty much that the vice chief will be the next chief unless they make a mess of it. Your colleagues have to vote on you.
You do have some wonderful colleagues, like Justice Bales. I enjoyed working with him through some Bar Association work and Judge Hurwitz, who was prior to you on the court.
Judge Hurwitz, I took his place. I still know him. Justice Bales was our chief justice and did an excellent job. When he finished his term, it was not typical. He is retired. He is back mediating and that thing.
They are both smart, affable, and great gentlemen. It represents your court well as it is to you. Do you enjoy all of those additional roles that you play on the Supreme Court or is there something about the decision-making that you are making statewide for the Supreme Court that makes that job interesting, too?
It is both because they are two very different things. The decision-making is different from the Court of Appeals because you are very aware of the fact that whatever you decide is going to be established in Arizona for the foreseeable future. You want to make sure you get it right. In most cases, it is a matter of the Arizona Constitution. It stops with us. The only thing that would go on to the US Supreme Court is if it is a matter of Federal Law or the US Constitution. Very few of those are ever taken. For the most part, it stops with you.
When you are at the Court of Appeals, you do think, “I messed this up. They can correct it at the Supreme Court level.” In here, you don’t have that. They tend to be the bigger cases and have more eyes on them, especially in the last few years with many government cases coming our way. It has been interesting with elections. I have noticed the change. It seems to be the first arrow in a candidate’s quiver to challenge something. You don’t have enough signatures. She didn’t dodge dry. She didn’t crush her teeth.
There are challenges for things to go on the ballot in the first place, be it initiatives or candidates. You go through all that and then there are challenges about what was passed and on procedures. Because of those things, they are very hotly contested in the political arena. All of a sudden, they are coming into our arena. All eyes are on you for that. That has been interesting, sometimes disappointing, because somebody is always going to be unhappy when you make a decision and one side loses. It is disappointing that you start to get tarred with the idea that it is a political decision. That is disconcerting because it is not true.
That is not the role of the court, but it is hard not to have that and not be their perception.
It is shocking to me how people don’t understand the court system in the state or the Federal system. They don’t understand what judges do. They don’t understand or trust what they are told that they are impartial or trying to be impartial. They are not trying to act like political appointees, but people don’t believe that. I find that sad.
You would like to think that the courts are not involved, and the matter would not be perceived that way, but it seems hard to escape that perception these days in any realm, anything that is not politicized.
I enjoy the decision-making. The other part of it, I enjoy that too. There are aspects of it that it can get tedious doing rules. We have so many rules. The book sticks with all the rules. If we do those twice a year, a big one in August and a small one in December, that can get tedious going through all the comments and people’s concerns and listening to that. Some of those rules are not earthshaking. They just have to change because the law changed. It is an opportunity to do things very differently. To see a problem and be in a position is nice to be one of seven that can say, “This seems to change. How about this?” It happens.
For example, Arizona eliminated peremptory strikes effective January 1, 2022. There are no more peremptory strikes for criminal or civil. That is very controversial. The knee-jerk reaction of lawyers was like, “You can’t do that.” We are trying to change the culture. We have made some other changes to return to what we thought it should be, which is that people have a right to serve on a jury if they want to. It is a constitutional right.
In brief writing, be concise because we have so much to read. The quicker you can make your point clearly, the better.
If the only reason they don’t is if they should be stricken for cause, we are trying to beef up the for-a-cause inquiry and trying to get judges to not rehabilitate people with the leading questions by saying things like, “Despite the fact that you say you can never believe a police officer, you can be fair.” They are going to say, “I could be fair.” We are trying to work with that and try to have a more robust for-a-cause inquiry and system and no more peremptories for a number of reasons.
It would seem that if you were to not have the peremptory anymore, you would have to have a pretty robust cause.
That is an example of rulemaking that will make a difference. We will follow it to see what happens, but other things we added. One of my big passions was with Justice Bales. When he was here, he had me lead a task force in what we can do to close the access to the civil justice gap. Most people can’t afford lawyers for their simple, everyday legal problems. They are either doing it themselves online, through bad advice of friends, ignoring legal problems, or stumbling through the system, which has been difficult for judges in Family Courts and such that are unrepresented and difficult for people.
We want to have the court system be accessible to anybody. As a result of that, we have created a new tier of legal professionals called the legal paraprofessional, like a nurse practitioner. We are licensing them to practice law, but only in discrete areas primarily where you don’t see attorneys ever or rarely, like in Family Law. They will be able to go into court and represent in the whole nine yards.
We have done that and eliminated some rules on partnering. You can partner now with non-lawyers, and we are now starting to license entities to be more innovative, especially through the tech industry in reaching out to people to deliver legal services to them. That thing, especially if it works, is very gratifying because you realize you are in a position again to affect a positive change.
Utah has done some of the same changes, and Washington previously had a pilot program, which they are not implementing anymore. Also, in California, there are proposals with regard to that also. It seems like that is something that courts are interested in trying in terms of finding ways to enhance access to justice. It is stepping out because there are a lot of lawyers who are not happy or concerned about that. Even some public interest organizations have concerns, too. It is a bold move for you all to do. That would be interesting to see what comes of that. You hope that it affects the positive change the way you hope it does.
I have been following California. I have spoken to your task force out there. Justice Deno Himonas from Utah and I from Florida have partnered for that. It is not only for people. It is for lawyers as well. The way we look at it is that the ethical rules that define the market that lawyers operate within and have not been changed for a long time. When you look at those with fresh eyes, and you think, “This is necessary to protect the public.” That is what we were looking at. The rules would be an eye as a regulator.
We had lawyers, solo and small general practitioners, coming to the court saying, “We are suffering as lawyers because the bread and butter that we once had are things like wills, articles, and corporation.” That is gone now because you have got the online do-it-yourself folks who have swooped in, and they have filled that vacuum. Now, you have a billion-dollar industry, which goes right around the regulatory scheme, and the lawyers can’t compete with that. They can’t get money in it. They can’t partner or get an influx of stuff to help with technology.
A part of why we did it was it wasn’t necessary for our view the way we set it up to protect the public and constrain lawyers from being able to be a little bit more innovative in their own practices, not only to benefit people but to benefit themselves. Those lawyers, the small and solos, are the ones representing regular people. It is not the big firms. It is not your firm that is doing that. We have a vested interest in keeping those lawyers healthy and practicing. A part of it was a delicate balance.
It is important that you point out the solo and small firm lawyers to continue to practice because that is serving a whole segment. If you are concerned about access, you want to make sure that their concerns are heard. One of the things about this is that you are able to tailor the answers to these questions to the particular circumstances of your state, court, and law practice as it is in your state to see how we can craft some rules that would be most appropriate for this setting. That might be slightly different in another state. It is good that we are able to do that to tailor it to different settings, and what access looks like might look different in different states.
Utah and Arizona are very similar. We have worked together. We have been doing this all along, so I’m familiar with them, and they are familiar with us. We are very similar geographically and population-wise. We have got a much greater population than they do but having an urban center where everything is not many people spread out through a very large geographic area.
For example, Mohave County is a county that is larger than some states back East. They have six attorneys. That is it in the civil work in Mohave County. People there count on not having a lot of assistance. You have the reservations that have their own issues with traveling distance and Wi-Fi and all that thing. California has some of that, but not as much.
There are different parts of the state, but there are so many more urban and suburban areas where it is so much more concentrated. It would not have the same situation in as many counties as you might in Utah or Arizona.
I know Utah is about for those people that live in those areas that perhaps the answer will be technology. The place doesn’t even have legal aid. They do in Phoenix, but you can’t if you’re in Kingman and Arizona. It feels like Arizona, but it is the same.
I know Utah has the sandboxes and things where they can try different things because you don’t know how that is going to work out in practice, si it is good to have some backstops. In terms of that saying, “We think this will work, but let’s see how it does.” That would be helpful for other states, including California, to see what happens with your proposals and how it works and what areas, so people can factor that into their decision-making if they want to change something.
We already regulate entities. I have no idea. I have never been able to figure out why, but we regulate defensive driving schools. We also regulate fiduciary firms. We do juvenile correctional facilities for some reason. We already have a whole infrastructure around that thing. That is why we were very comfortable with the idea of regulating alternative business arrangements as we are doing. The difference between us and Utah is that the regulatory sandbox allows non-lawyers to practice law or non-licensed people. We don’t. No matter what your arrangement is, a lawyer or a licensed legal paraprofessional with narrow confines has to practice law.
It is slightly different. It is not ripping off the Band-Aid and saying, “Have at it.” It is a much more controlled system, and the lawyers are the ones in charge. From what I have seen, the entities that have taken advantage of this are who I thought they would be, at least initially. It is the law firms that have figured out, “We can expand our businesses in this way. Let the CFO or the lobbyists know that we want to keep or make them a partner, or the state planner with the accountant to do one-stop shopping.” That is what I thought would happen. It is nothing controversial.
It will be something interesting to watch as it unfolds. In California, we will be watching that since we have some similar proposals here. I have a question for you in terms of advocates. What would help you the most in decision-making in terms of brief writing? What is the most helpful thing they can do in a brief and also at oral argument?
In the brief writing, be concise because we have so much to read. The quicker you can make your point clearly and quickly, the better. Be scrupulously honest about the record. I’m always amazed when I read briefs and track down, “Where is this?” Even you look at the citation given, and it didn’t say that at all. I’m all for, “You can embellish a bit, but you can’t misrepresent.” It is surprising how many do. I always think, “Are you trying to lie?” I have to think the latter that they think that, “It says this. I remember it that way. That is how it came across.” Make sure it says what you think it says when you cite something.
For both brief writing and oral argument, you need to be prepared to address your weakest points. The best litigants are the ones that know, “The reason we are here and took it is because it is a close call, a gray area, or something is up.” There is another side to your side, so you need to be able to identify what that is and be ready to explain it to the justices. “This is why they are wrong. This is why it doesn’t apply. This is how I can assuage your concern.” The best appellate advocates do that. They use oral argument and may want to lead with their strong, but they are ready to dive into the weak as well and turn it around. The ones who are not as strong of an advocate pretend that there is no weak side.
Especially at the Supreme Court level, there is an unanswered question or a challenge that goes far beyond the case that is being argued. There are going to be some tough areas, but they are not clear cut, or you wouldn’t have taken the case.
Many times, I will ask hypothetical or a situation off of whatever is argued, and I get back the same answer, which is, “That is not this case.” I’m like, “I know that is not this case and you are right. Maybe it doesn’t apply here, but my fear is this is going to guide people for future cases.” It is how you would play out what you are advocating in another scenario so that we can get a handle on it. You have to understand that that is what the justices are thinking. They are thinking not only about your case but the next case.
Especially at the Supreme Court level because you know you are deciding this rule and you want to be able to vet, “I know these facts I’m deciding this law on, but is there some other scenario I haven’t thought of that would reveal that whatever rule I’m going to adopt may not be the best rule, or I need to tweak that rule a little bit?” That is my experience. One of the biggest differences between the Appellate Court argument and the Supreme Court argument is that you have to think about all of those implications because the court is, and that is your job on the court to think about that. It is not just this case.
There is that old adage, “Bad facts make bad law.” We have all read that one. You read an opinion you think, “This is not well-reasoned, but it is very result-oriented.” That is a bad case.
Bad facts make bad law.
It is not helpful because it makes you wonder how much of that is going to extrapolate out to other circumstances as clearly driven by the particular facts here or a concern from these facts and this outcome, which is natural. Those are all good and helpful pieces of advice. Justice Corrigan on our court here in the California Supreme Court, every time she asks that question, which is, “What about one step beyond this case? Is there something we are not thinking about with regard to this rule?” She is very committed to that, making sure there is something that they consider everything they can consider when they are going to adopt a new standard. I’m going to do a little lightning round of a few short questions to conclude. What talent would you most like to have that you don’t?
Singing. There is no talent.
You like to listen to it. You appreciate music.
I love music, and I love to sing, so I should say singing well. I don’t sing well, but I love to sing.
Who are your favorite writers?
These days, all I read are briefs instead of pleasure writing. I will go with my go-to book. I always love The Three Musketeers. I like Alexandre Dumas. That is all I can think of at the moment as far as the old writers that I admired.
It always helps to read anything that is well-written. It impacts your own writing and your writing of opinions and other legal writing.
It is John Grisham’s fun stories. I like a good story. When I read for pleasure, I’m thinking in terms of, “I want a good story.” He tells a great story. I love reading good time travel because I love that thing.
For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
My family, parents, siblings, husband and my kids. Family is the bedrock of everything you do, all the support and joy you take from them.
The silver lining of our experience with the pandemic is that it has brought us back to family and close friends to what is important. Who is your hero in real life?
I don’t have many heroes. I have never been one for a hero-worship type of thing because I’m so cynical. I think, “I don’t know that person.” A little small sliver that I admired the feats and what he accomplished was Jonas Salk with the ability to cure some disease. That is amazing. Instead of a person or group, the people I admire and things that I consider heroic are people that are willing to lay down their life for other people no matter what. For me, it is anybody in the police or military that does that thing or firefighting people that will rush in and protect us from the mess of the world. I know I wouldn’t do it, and I couldn’t do it. Maybe that is why I’m so appreciative of the people that are willing to do that for the rest of us. For me, it is a group rather than a person.
It is not natural to run towards the fire.
We had that out here. A police officer called out in the middle of the night because somebody was doing donuts in a car. He is looking for a car and doesn’t have his gun out. Somebody jumps up, pops, and shoots him six times. It is such a dangerous job. That is why it was on my mind thinking people for as much grief as police get, and how much we need them for those things. Most people are trying to do their best.
It seems particularly dangerous and difficult these days. You would have to have a call to want to do that and serve in that way. That is a special person. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you like to invite as a dinner guest?
It would be interesting to talk to somebody like Queen Elizabeth, but then I thought, “What would I serve her?” I had to go down and scope a little bit. Maybe one of the justices on the Supreme Court like Justice Roberts. He seems like a nice guy, or Justice Thomas, only because I did have breakfast with him once. He was so entertaining and delightful. I enjoyed hearing him talk about his experiences, not only on the court. He likes to go out. He and his wife take their mobile home, stay in Walmart, and get his special fueling gloves out to do the diesel fuel. He was pretty hilarious, which I never expected. That would be fun to have.
Last question. What is your motto if you have one?
Be kind to people and forgive them when needed. Give people a second chance. That is not very sexy. I should come up with a better motto.
It is a good ammunition. It is a good thing to remember and make yourself think about that before you take off on someone, to be kind to them. Thank you so very much for joining me on the show and talking about your career and some of the interesting things you are doing in Arizona. Thank you so much, Justice Timmer.
Thanks. I enjoyed it.