00:52:05

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

Massachusetts Appeals Court Justice Amy Lyn Blake shares her journey from law practice to the trial and appellate bench. With host MC Sungaila, Justice Blake has a lively discussion about what it takes to become a judge, the difference between law practice and serving on the bench, and the oral argument and brief writing process.

Relevant episode link:

Amy Lyn Blake , YouTube - Massachusetts appeals court Oral Arguments 

About Amy Lyn Blake:

Justice Amy Lyn Blake graduated from the University of Rochester, New York, in 1987. She attended New England Law School and graduated, cum laude, in 1992. While in law school she was named a New England Scholar and awarded the Amos L. Taylor Award for Excellence In Achievement.

Admitted to the bar in 1992, she served as an Assistant District Attorney until 1994, prosecuting cases in the District Court bench and six person jury sessions while supervising the District Attorney's Office in two district courts. From 1994 to 

2008 she focused her private practice on domestic relations law with the firms of White, Inker & Aronson, Yasi & Yasi and Casner 

& Edwards, rising from associate to partner. She represented parties in all aspects of domestic relations proceedings. As part 

of her practice, she filled the roles of Guardian ad Litem, discovery master, attorney for the child and conciliator. She also 

served on the compensation and long term planning committees. She currently serves on the Board of Editors of the 

Boston Bar Journal, and as an associate editor of the Massachusetts Law Review. 

In 2008 Governor Deval Patrick appointed her to the Family & Probate Court, where she was named "Distinguished Jurist" in 

2013 by the Massachusetts Association of Women Lawyers. In 2017, she received the Jurist of the Year Award by the Middlesex 

County Bar Association. Justice Blake is also a lecturer in Law at New England Law Boston. 

Appointed to the Appeals Court by Governor Patrick, Justice Blake joined the Court on September 9, 2014. 

I'm very pleased to have joined me on the show a Judge on the Massachusetts appeals court, Amy Lyn Blake. Welcome. 

Thank you for having me. 

Thank you so much for joining. I love the connectivity within the show. Judge Cypher have a lovely connection with you. That connection led to you being here. I love to see that mutual support of women on the bench. 

That defines Judge Cypher as a mutually supportive and unofficial mentor and friend. She had such a great experience with you and said, “I think you would enjoy doing it,” so I'm so pleased to be here. Thank you. 

Thanks for being part of the whole collection of amazing stories and personal histories and lives that are being shared here for the benefit of the next generation who may want to pursue being on the bench at some point in their careers. Also, showing folks what's possible and what’s involved in that. First, I wanted to start, as I usually do, with the whole idea of what it is that drew you to the law, and what caused you to want to go to law school, to begin with. 

Law school was a complete accident for me. I'm sure others have felt that. I grew up in a household where I didn't know any lawyers or there wasn't any lawyer in the background in terms of my high school. I thought I was going to med school. I went to college and started studying Biology. I liked it but I took an elective in Political Science. I thought, “This is interesting. I had never been exposed to any issues like that.” I then took another one and started to think, “There is something besides science and technology as important as those things are.” I would get out of science lab, pitch black at night, and feel like I had lost my whole day. 

I made the switch from Biology to Political Science, which was scary. I didn't have a plan. I decided, “I should probably work for a little bit to make sure,” because my whole life, I thought it was science. I was lucky. I got hired at a DA's office as a victim witness advocate. When I look back now, I'm not sure why I got hired because I had absolutely no skills for that job. On the first day of training, I opened the courtroom door to watch a proceeding and I thought, “These are my people. This is where I belong.” I knew at that point that I wanted to be a lawyer. It was not a direct path by any stretch but definitely the right path. 

That can be hard when you have what you've seen in the past as one thing and you are like, “This is what I've committed to. This is my plan,” and then to do something else. That can take some courage because this was not on the plan. This is something different. Going out and making sure to see what is involved is very helpful. That's true too in terms of you know when it's right. It feels like, “This is home.” Did you have that feeling? 

I absolutely did. It took a while to convince my parents. My mom has now passed on but I often say to my dad, “I am an appeals court Judge. Is that good enough yet? I know you wanted the whole doctor thing.” Everyone in my family is happy and proud of me but it did take a lot to make that switch. That's why I made that extra step of working to make sure. It turned out okay. 

I would say so. From there, you did also end up practicing in that area. Maybe you can talk about before the bench or what was your practice like. 

I went to school at night, which was a different experience. Because of student loans, I couldn't make it work going full-time during the day. I was fortunate. I stayed at the DA's office, and I was like a sponge. I was doing my job as a victim witness advocate but I was soaking up every bit of legal principle that I possibly could. When I graduated, they did hire me as an assistant district attorney. 

That was probably the most exciting time in my life to see everything come full circle, “I made this leap, and now I'm doing it.” Being able to stand up and make an argument was so freeing that this was the right decision. Finances become an issue, and prosecutors don't make a lot of money. I had student loans, so I made the decision that I needed to pivot to private practice. 

I was a prosecutor for two years. I did district court and jury, six trials, which was a great experience learning how to get evidence in making closing arguments. For anybody that wants to think about any aspect of litigation, I highly recommend doing even if it's a prosecutor or a defender program at your law school, just to stand up and make an argument, know where to stand, and get your name out. 

Sometimes getting your name out is half the battle. That was a great experience. Criminal defense attorneys are the most important part of our criminal justice system, but you also have to know what's right for you. I knew that was not the right place for me. By accident, I ended up doing divorce work and thought I would do it for maybe a year. 

My parents had a bad divorce and I thought, “I'm not doing that,” but I fell in love with it, surprisingly. It’s like the pivot from Science to Law. I practiced in private practice in Boston for sixteen years. I was at two different firms. At my last firm, I was the first female equity partner the firm had ever had. I felt like I was bumping up against the glass ceiling there, which was nice. 

My work in private practice honed my thought process about applying to be a judge because I knew I could represent a man or a woman in their divorce. It was a more holistic view of Family Law that I couldn't touch. I thought the best way to do that was the potential to be a judge. That's what made me start thinking about it. When I went to law school, I never thought I would apply to be a judge but that's what led me there. 

That's an important point in the journey too. Sometimes people think, “If I didn't plan it from the get-go or think that,” because we all know some people in law school like that, “I'm going to be a judge.” They think, “Maybe if I didn't do that, I'm not going to be able to succeed in becoming a judge.” Many people have that evolution that you are talking about in terms of, “I've done what I can do in this particular role. Where can I continue to grow and give back?” Also, see more of the whole system, “I'm just this part of it. Can I see a broader whole?” 

I wasn't one of those people that thought I would always want to be a judge. It was scary because as confident as I was in my skills as a trial lawyer, I thought, “Am I going to be able to make these difficult decisions?” When I go home and put my head on my pillow at night, “Did the kid go to the right place? Should I have entered a restraining order?” I realized there were many important decisions that I was making on a day-to-day basis. 

I was a Judge when I was on the probate court bench in the community where I lived. I would turn on the news in the morning while I was getting dressed. I’d hear about a domestic homicide and think, “Were those the people before me?” I didn't realize how impactful the role was until I was in those shoes and sat at that desk in made those decisions. From this side of the bench, you are making your arguments but you don't always take the time to think about what the judge has to think about. As a lawyer, you are an advocate. You are not thinking about the case as a whole. That was challenging. 

On the trial bench, the appellate court has a significant impact on people's lives and the law, but you are dealing with things that are important and pivotal to individuals at the trial court level too. The decision has an important impact on individual people's lives in your community. 

When you think about it in terms of probate and family court, in Massachusetts, we do the matrimonial side of things but also the trust in estates and will side. Most people are going to have some touch with that court at some point, whether it be through death, divorce or something in between. You are talking about people's money, their houses, their retirement, and their children. I can't think of another area of law where a judge truly impacts the day-to-day in a way that a probate and family court judge does. That was a huge responsibility. I took it very seriously. 

There is no other area of the law where a judge impacts the day-to-day in a way a probate or family court judge does. 

When you decided to, “I might consider becoming a judge,” what's the process in Massachusetts for you? Is it an appointment process for the trial bench as well as the appellate court? 

It's a similar process. It is appointed at all levels. It's a daunting process. I do wonder if it's designed that way to root out some people that maybe thought, “I will throw in my application.” There's no such thing. 

Make sure you're very committed to this. It's definitely true. 

It’s a two-part application. It's interesting. Your name doesn't appear on it initially. They use your middle initial and, if I remember correctly, the last four numbers of your Social Security number. That's what went on every page of your application. The first part is your resume like name, rank, and serial number. Where did you go to law school? Where have you worked? What have you done? 

If you worked at a firm where you were solo or your name was in the title, there was a way that they had you do that so they wouldn't know. My understanding is based on that package. There is a vote of something called the judicial nominating commission, and each governor has their own. It's 21 lawyers from all over the state who are from a variety of legal backgrounds. 

They review part one, and then they vote to interview you or not. Once they vote to interview you, they then look at part two of your package, in which your name is now there, and all the meat and potatoes about why you want to be a judge and what you think you are going to bring. If you are invited for an interview, you have an interview with 21 people. 

My interviews were all before Zoom. I was in a conference room at the front with 21 people staring at me. It's a twenty-minute interview, no more, no less. It's pretty nerve-wracking. After that interview, the commission then votes on whether to move you forward to something called due diligence. In due diligence, they look at your application. You have to list your most important cases. 

They then contact the attorneys and the judges involved. 

It’s everybody, but then they ask those people, “Who else should we call?” I feel like by the time you get through this, everyone in the world has been contacted. If you get through that process, you then meet with the governor's chief legal counsel and the head of the nominating commission. If you get through that process, there's a state police background check. That’s important, then you meet with the lieutenant governor and then the governor. 

You think, “Great. I’m done. The governor is going to nominate me.” You then have a public hearing with people that are elected as governor's counselors. Some are lawyers. Some are not. It’s a very interesting group of people, and you need four votes. There are eight people on the council. If it ties at 4-4, the lieutenant governor breaks the tie. You would say, “Why would you go through that twice?” I did. It is a daunting process. 

I feel like everyone that ever had anything good, bad or otherwise to say about me, they contacted. There are no secrets at that point. Once you are a judge, you're a judge until you're 70. It's our mandatory retirement age. There's no review unless you decide you want to move to another court, which is what I did. You then apply all over again from scratch. 

It's not like in California. We have retention elections for our appellate judges. You go up before the electorate. After the appointment, it's every twelve years. You don’t have that. 

No. 

You have all the front-end stuff but you don't have that. 

When I decided I wanted to try to go to the appeals court, I literally started with that same two-part application. 

In California, it changes with each governor a little bit. They ask a little bit of different questions and they have a little bit of different things that they are interested in. 

I would say that they probably each tweaked the application a little bit. The interviews with the governor depend on what's the hot-button issue that day. Did something hit the Boston Globe that morning that they want to ask you about, and that you've prepared for your interview but you didn't prepare for the morning headlines or that kind of thing? At least in the time that I have been on the bench, we've had two governors. They have worked hard on the diversity of race, gender, and geography but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be, unfortunately. They all set that as a goal. More women would be great. 

On the Court of Appeals, how has that been? Maybe you can talk a little bit about what you do and how it works because that's a different kind of court than the trial court. You are not the only one making the decisions. You have a collegial court unless you have another vote. At least you are not going to be in the majority in an opinion. 

I love being on the appeals court. That was also something that was not on my radar. I laugh and say, “If I hadn't gone the probate and family court route, I don't know that I would be on the appeals court because we are all supposed to be generalists.” There had historically been somebody with probate and family court background on the appeals court. We do get a tremendous amount of cases out of that court. At the time that I was even thinking about it, there was no one. The person that had been on the appeals court had been elevated to the Supreme Judicial Court. Timing is everything. You must go when the bell rings, and the bell is ringing so I said, “I better apply.” 

Being a trial court judge, I tell people all the time that it’s like calling balls and strikes. Being an appeals court Judge is playing well in the sandbox with others. The 25 of us, that’s 24 and a chief, sit in panels of three and it rotates each month. You can have a good month, depending on who you are sitting with. About 50% of our cases are criminal and 50% are civil. Civil encompasses everything you can possibly imagine. 

It's a much different skillset because I can read the cases. I can read the transcripts. I know what I'm doing but the negotiation is not just how the decision is going to come out. Is going to be affirmed, reversed, or somewhere in between? Also, how you get there. It's interesting. I find it’s sometimes easier for everyone to get to yes, but the trouble is how we get to yes. 

That takes a lot of finesse and social skills. We do have disagreements. I have dissented not often and I work hard not to dissent if I don't have to. Sometimes there's an issue that we need our higher court to clarify. Someone takes one road and someone takes the other. Rarely do we have a concurrence that's not as frequent. I would say most of our cases are unanimous, but it's a different process than as a trial judge. I also feel the safety in numbers because part of me thinks, “If this is what I think and the panel agrees with me, that's a pretty good sign that maybe we got it right.” 

The worst-case scenario is if we got it wrong, the SJC is going to tell us that we got it wrong. There is some comfort in being in an intermediate appellate court. We do things by the first impression. I've decided that the reason that they leave those cases with us is that we will do all the work for them. We will do the 50-state survey of a staff that we've never interpreted, and then put it all together with a bow. We hand it to them and they will say, “They were right. Good job,” but take credit for it. That's what I tell my colleagues on the SJC. 

It's also a place where, in a different way, I feel like I can make a difference. I take the opportunity, if I can, to drop a footnote and offer whether it's a practice tip. If you had done this, we would've avoided an appeal like in a search and ceasure case for the police officers to know. Maybe next time if this was in the affidavit, it might have come out differently. It's a different kind of giving back or helping to make a change. I still see it as an opportunity to teach. 

What you are saying about that is definitely something that I've heard from a few folks who were on the appellate bench who were previously trial judges. They're thinking when they are writing an opinion about providing direction to the parties, to the litigants, and to the trial judges who now have to deal with whatever the rule is. There's a concrete way. They are thinking about that when they are writing their opinion rather than, “Thanks so much. We now have to scratch our heads and figure out what this means.” It's being practical about providing that guidance on the impact of the appellate decision. 

One of my colleagues, a woman, had said to me when I first started, “You should think about writing for the losing party so that if the losing party knows why they lost, they are not going to agree with you because they lost. They can at least see that you heard them. You understood their argument but you disagreed with them.” That's something that has stuck with me and that I passed forward to new judges, even law clerks and law students. It's important that the people that don't win understand that they were heard. That's such an important part of being a judge. 

As a judge, the people that don't win must understand that they were heard. 

As you are describing it there, what that looks like is different when you are in the trial court than when you're in the appellate court. In the trial court, you can look them in the eye when you are telling these things. They get the body language and the sense that they've been heard, but on the Court of Appeals, it's your opinion and the words that you write in letting people know that, “We are fully vetted. Considered that but here's where we came out and here's why.” You were talking about your intermediate appellate court, which is interesting. It sounds like you have a lot of opportunities. You have over twenty judges on that court, and you could be sitting with any combination of those at any time. 

They say that the statute that created the appeals court was written this way. The goal is that, let's say, I will sit with every judge on my court over the course of two years. It's funny. I'm told it's a computer program called the Randomizer. I don't want to know how the sausage is made, just give me the calendar and tell me when I'm sitting and with who. It is interesting. I can go months and months without sitting with a particular person, and then randomly, I get them two months in a row. It does happen that way. 

What's nice about it is that everyone on our court came from somewhere, whether it be from practice or from a trial court, and has an experience that's different from mine. Let's use me as an example. If I'm not on the panel but somebody has a child support question. They are going to pick up the phone or email and say, “Amy, can I have a consult?” I do the same thing. I get a zoning case. I go down the hall and talk to Judge Green, our Chief, who was in the land court. 

It reminds me of practice in a way because I was a divorce lawyer but in a firm where I had other departments. That’s what it feels like in the appeals court. There are other people that I can say, “I need to read the law, and I will do that, but can you help me understand what this means? These folks are using this lingo that I've never heard of. Help me understand it.” That's what's so great about having 24 other colleagues. It is fun. 

I asked that because each appeals court can be organized differently too. In the Ninth Circuit, our Federal Court of Appeals is like that. The groupings of three-member panels and even the en banc court, that's the same thing. It’s a random selection and you could be sitting with any combination of people. In California, our state appellate court system has divisions and districts. In LA, in particular, it's such a huge court. They have divisions within Los Angeles. Those have four justices on them. Those 4 or 5 justices will be sitting in some combination for the rest of their time on the court. Once you are assigned to a division, you've got that group, and that group is going to be deciding and sitting together. 

That’s very different. 

Some three-member panel from that group will be o on the decision but yours is more organized like the Federal Court of Appeals in having more movement between the judges. Once again, who knew? Everybody has a different way of doing things. 

We had our 50th anniversary. Our court is only 50 years old. We are still young in court. It was created to help with the backlog at the SJC. We started with 6 judges, and now we are at 25. Roughly speaking, of all of the appeals, we probably do 98% of the cases by volume. That doesn't mean the SJC does all the first-degree murder cases and some hard cases. When you think about anyone who can file an appeal, then they have to get heard. We don't have the ability to decline to hear an appeal. We do everything you can imagine. That makes it fun too. It keeps us guessing. 

That’s an important thing too. It's not a discretionary review court. If somebody files a timely enough appeal that files their brief, there you go, you are going to be working on it. The fun part is the wide variety of cases. As an appellate lawyer, I love that the subject matters are so different from case to case. It's always interesting. It keeps you on your toes. 

Not that you've heard everything, but I will get my assignments. I will open the brief on my iPad because everything is electronic now and think, “That's an interesting argument I've never heard before.” That's why I love my job because lawyers and sometimes self-represented litigants do a great job at pushing forward. We all know that the world has moved much faster than the law. 

We see cases in which we are still trying to catch up with technology, science, and reproductive rights in the family court. It is exciting. People say, “There are only six things somebody can argue in a criminal case.” Even if that's true, you changed one fact and all of a sudden, it’s a whole new case. It's fun in that regard. 

Speaking of attorneys, litigants, and all of that, what kind of advice would you have to those who are advocating before an appellate court in terms of brief writing and oral argument? Any tips for either of those? 

They are probably very consistent with your other guests. For me, oral argument is answering the questions that we ask. 

I have a question first. Do you conference before the argument or is it after? 

It’s after. I sat and one of my colleagues asked three times a yes or no question, “Was something preserved or not?” and that's a yes or no answer. She refused to answer him. He got frustrated, and I appreciated why. He said, “I guess you are not going to answer my question.” She said, "It can't be answered yes or no." What I tell people is that you can say, "Yes, but" or "No, but." Please answer the question if we are asking it. There's a reason that we are asking it. 

I also think being completely honest about the record. I appreciate when a lawyer says, “Judge, I have to concede that.” I don't want you to concede something you shouldn't concede, but sometimes we see that with the prosecutor's office on some of the criminal appeals. There's just something that happened below that was wrong. I appreciate those concessions. 

I also appreciate someone that says, "I don't know, but if you would allow me to file a post-argument letter," and we have rules about what can and can't be in those letters. Telling that you don't know is honest. You can't know every case that's out there certainly. I may ask you about a case you don't know, and it's okay to tell me you don't. 

I think of brevity. My view of oral argument is your brief is your brief, but I want to get my questions answered and my colleagues want to get their questions answered. I work hard on this and you’re not doing it. The person gets their name out, and I have my first question. I realize I have to give people a minute to take a beat, take a breath, and compose themselves at the microphone. They’ll say, “We've read the record so get to your argument.” They’ll start with, “On October 3rd, a police officer was on patrol,” and keying into where we are going. Massachusetts has a reputation for being a pretty hot bench. I tell people, “Go up and watch before you argue.” 

Now you have Zoom. During the pandemic, we didn't miss a sitting. They were all on Zoom. You can go to our Zoom channel or our YouTube channel, put my name in, and see what I'm like on the bench. Preparation time is invaluable. You got to know the judge in front of you. I've had lawyers say to me, “Judge, if I could explain to you what happens in the probate and family court,” and I think, “Go right ahead. I only sat there for six years but go ahead.” Google me, and you will figure that out. 

There are easy things you can do. I would also say clock management. We have fifteen minutes. We have green, yellow and red lights. Sometimes people don't hit their stride until the yellow light, and that's tough. Having that outline of key points that you want to make, especially if we are going to be asking you a million questions, you want to be able to use those last minute or 2 or 3 to say what you want us to do and why in a succinct way as possible. Those are my thoughts. 

Always have interchangeable modules of things like the key points that you want to make and be able to reinforce those when you get the opportunity. Also, to think about the decision-making and the disposition. If the court agrees with you, what do you want the court's opinion to say? Is it reverse for a new trial or reverse with directions? What is it that you want? What relief do you want that is going to help you write your opinion? 

Sometimes they don't know the answer. It's a little shocking. I would say the same things I would apply to brief writing, which is to be honest about the record. I like brevity. I don't think you have to say something six times and hit me over the head with it. I do read everything. I don't know in California if you have the ability to file a reply and serve reply briefs, but I don't find those helpful when they are like, “What I said in my opening brief still holds true.” I find them helpful if the appellee brief raises something that you didn't raise or if something is waiting. 

That's your opportunity to respond to that. You can see where the engagement is. Sometimes, if I'm doing the courts for somebody else and helping them prepare for an argument, I start with the reply brief. That tells me where we have an agreement, where we have a tussle, or where we are in terms of how the issues are placed. I’m going through and reading. I like to read the table of contents of the different briefs to see what the arguments are, the facts and all that. 

One of the first things I do after I read the judge's decision below, if there is one or if it was a civil case or if there's a motion to suppress, is I put the briefs on my iPad side by side and look at the issues. They don't always listen to the same issues, which always confuses me. I line up the issues and think, “Why does the defendant have six issues, and the commonwealth has eight? What happened?” or vice versa. 

Sometimes I have to look at the other brief to make sure I understand the argument. That's troubling but it does happen. We don't do a lot of amicus in the appeals court. Every now and again, we do. I know our Supreme Judicial Court does a lot. If there is an amicus request and we get briefs, the reply briefs are also helpful to deal with something that might be read by the amici. That's my view on that. 

It's interesting what you are saying about how you read that. That's on the iPad. It’s the electronic version. Be conscious of how the court is reading your briefs. The formatting of it is different to make it more reader-friendly on a device as opposed to on paper. 

It's true because people put it in the record appendix. Let's say it's a zoning case. I now have photocopies that have been scanned or black and white photos that look like mush on my iPad. It's important. I don't know what the trend is around the country but we are a paperless court. Our eFiling is top-notch. Our clerk's office has to send out unclear orders, which delays things, “Papers 6 to 12 are unclear. Please send better copies.” Being thoughtful about that when you are putting your materials together would make a difference. We read on our iPads. We have a program that lets us annotate. I can highlight, put sticky notes or circle. The progress we've made is amazing. I used to carry around I don't even know how many pounds of paper. To have just one iPad is fantastic. 

That's amazing. Just thinking about the stacks for one individual appeal, it's pretty large. Although I still sometimes like to look at the paper, especially in the record or something else. I read it a little differently than if it's electronic. I will see something that will catch my eye to follow up on as an advocate. 

I draft and print. I have to read my drafts on paper. I can look at a screen all day and not see that I'm missing a word. Do you find the same thing? 

Yes, exactly. If I'm editing or even if I get a draft from someone else, “We have to print that.” If I'm going to review it meaningfully, it has to be in the paper, black and white, because you see more that way. 

I still like that feeling of the paper in my hands. My back likes not carrying around that record appendix of 23 volumes. 

On the other hand, it's nice to have that access electronically because you can check things. If you are reading the brief on the iPad and you are like, “Let me check that record site or the case site or something,” you can do that. It's there, instead of going, “I brought the briefs home and left the record somewhere.” 

Some of the lawyers have hyperlinks right in the briefs. I don't even know how because I'm not as tech-savvy as others. When they cite a case and I want to read the case, I just click on it. It makes my life much easier. 

That’s true. Hyperlinking is a thing that different courts allow. For the very first time here in California maybe fifteen years ago was when we were starting to do that thing to help the courts out. Most of the courts like having that option. 

It's definitely nice. It’s not mandatory but it’s helpful. 

We talked about this before we got on the formal interview, but in terms of anything unexpected serving on the bench, whether it's on the trial court or the Court of Appeals. For those who might be thinking about either one of those, is there something that you are like, “I wish I had thought about that before I did this? It wouldn't change my mind. I would still be here.” 

Many people that were on the bench said, “It's a very isolating job.” I thought to myself, “I'm social. I will make this work.” I have no regrets about applying but it is very isolating. I had to make a decision with a group of girlfriends who were also practicing attorneys. I said, “You have a choice. Do you want me to hear your cases or do you want to be my friend?” That was the chance for them to get out of the friendship. 

Being on the bench is a very isolating job, so if you're a social person, you will have to adjust. 

I made a decision after talking with this group. There were three women that, “I'm going to recuse myself. I'm not going to hear your cases.” That's nice to be able to do. In the appeals court, I feel much more anonymous. I don't think people have any idea who I am when I'm at the grocery store. When I was in the probate court, at the time, my son was young. We would be in the grocery store, and I would see somebody. I have a specific memory of saying to him, “We are not having milk today.” 

“We’re going to go to this aisle.” 

“The people over at the dairy do not like your mother,” but I didn't want to tell him that. You don't think much about your personal safety or being a judge in the community in which you live. It's interesting, by contrast, friends of mine who were judges in the district court hearing criminal cases say that they often get approached by people that they've sent to jail who have said, “Thank you so much. I got sober. I got clean,” or whatever it is. 

Nobody was thanking me for their custody decisions or their alimony awards. That took a while. The isolation was absolutely increased going to the appeals court because there are only 25 of us, and we hear every case from every judge. You can still go to bar associations and things like that but it isn't that same level of camaraderie. You find that your social network changes. For anyone that's social, that's an adjustment. I wouldn't have it any other way but it's a bigger adjustment than I think I realized. 

I don't know that we think about that means you're not going to be discussing whatever it is that you're working on with anybody else other than your staff in the court. There's certainly not that but then also the connection with people. People think, "I can continue to socialize and do the bar things," and that will be the same. This shouldn't be such a difference. 

I've definitely heard what you've talked about from others or from friends of mine who are on the bench, even the difference between the trial court and the appellate court being that way. There are people coming into your courtroom all the time. When you're on the trial court, you at least have a flow of different people. An attorney is coming into your courtroom. Once you are on the appellate court, there are not a lot of visitors. It’s very different. 

It's such a more formal proceeding. In the trial court, there may be a reason to see a trial at the sidebar or to have a friendly interaction. That doesn't happen at the appellate level and it shouldn't. That's another small difference. The good news is that you have friends that aren't in the profession. That's why it works. 

What kind of advice would you give to someone who might be thinking about becoming a judge at some point? 

A couple of things. One is don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it. I'm very proud of myself that I am where I am but it's a lot of work. If I had listened to the people that said I couldn't do it, then I wouldn't be here. In that same vein, at least in Boston, we say that it's a small bar. Boston seems like a big city, not compared to California cities, but it's a small bar. Your reputation is everything. They call everyone you've ever talked to, the court officers and the clerks. The way you comport yourself goes a long way if you want to become a judge. If you have a reputation as someone that's dishonest or that treats staff unwell, that's going to follow you. 

The other thing is to get involved in something. You don't need to be in a million bar associations but find something that is interesting to you, and take a leadership role over time in that. Number one, when you apply to be a judge, they want to know that you know the law, you can apply the law, and you can be fair and neutral. Being a judge also inherently means you are a leader in some capacity. 

Honing those skills, even if it's in the young lawyer's division of your local bar association, doing volunteer work, whether it's conciliation cases or doing voluntary arbitration or mediation and giving back to the legal community in some way are also important and will be helpful for you. Also, network. One of the things that I did as a young lawyer is I would finish trying a case and I would say to the opposing counsel, who was usually a man and twenty-something years older than me, “Can I take you out for a cup of coffee? Can you tell me what I did wrong?” At first, people looked at me but those were some of my best mentors. 

Even after settling cases. If it were a difficult negotiation, I would say afterward, “Let's go for a cup of coffee. What did I give up too quickly? What should I have pushed harder for?” It makes you a better lawyer. Just because you are on opposite sides of the “v” in a case, these are still your brothers and sisters in the law. You can learn so much from opposing counsel. Young lawyers forget that sometimes. 

When I had my public hearing for my trial court position, the line of witnesses for me were all of these old White men who had been unofficial mentors who I had said, “Tell me what I'm doing right. Tell me what I'm doing wrong.” They took me under their wing, and I'm so grateful that they did that. I've tried to pay that forward. That's important. 

There's so much wrapped up in what you said in terms of asking for input or feedback from opposing counsel. One of those is the good old-fashioned after we've been in the arena, we shake hands and have lunch together. That civility is welcome and nice. Also, that question of wanting to learn and grow and asking questions about that by asking for input from someone who certainly would know because they were on the other side of you. That's cool. I've talked to some opposing counsel but I haven't made that something I would do on a regular basis. 

I know that I always listen to my appellate arguments, even cringe in the beginning. You're like, “I hate having to hear what happened but I'm going to learn things from that. “I didn't understand at the time that that was a friendly question. I should have answered that differently.” It helps you move forward but you are talking about engaging others in that process of improvement. 

In my firm, when I was an associate and moving up the ranks, I had my bosses but they weren't in court with me. 

That's why I think that's so clever. You were like, “You would know.” 

“You would know when I screwed up, please tell me.” They were always honest, and I was always grateful for their counsel. When you stop learning is when you should stop being a lawyer because there's something to learn every day, whether it's from someone or something. That's how I saw these guys in my career. They've been supportive of me as I've worked my way up in the judiciary. I give them a lot of credit. Part of why I'm here is because they put the time into helping the new young kid on the block, and I appreciate that. 

When you stop learning is when you should stop being a lawyer because there's something to learn every day. 

What you said is important. As long as you continue to want to grow and learn, and also be curious enough to do that, then you're still in the right place. If you stop, especially as an advocate, I know when I get the other side's brief, I always have this moment of like, “Is there something I missed? Are they going to point something out?” If that ever comes to where you are not nervous about that or you’re not nervous before an argument, then it's probably time to go on to do something else. That quickening of the heart or whatever means you still care. 

I get butterfly still. When that door opens, I hear my court officer. I still get a little butterfly like, “Amy, this is it. You got to do it.” That's healthy. 

It's that sense of you have part of yourself invested in that still. As long as you have that caring for what you're doing, you're going to do your best. Many people's lives, individually and otherwise, depend on you doing your best, so it’s important to do that. I love your way of asking for input from opposing counsel. That's beautiful. You're also bringing them in and making them part of your growth. It probably throws people a little bit but then they are like, “We can give you some tips, kid.” 

“I’ll take anything you want to give me.” 

Since you were genuinely asking for it and had some humility in doing that too, then they responded genuinely to you. You could see some people being a jerk about it. 

You have to develop that relationship. You can learn pretty quickly who in your particular practice area is the go-to person, the people that people look towards, and whether or not they’re accepting of that unofficial mentor role. 

Also, if they’re open to that and interested in skill-sharing and skill-building in that way. A lot of people are because they want the next generation to be great. We want to have some legacy and impact on that. 

To pay that forward is so important. 

That's the only way to do it as they're doing it for whoever helped them along. Usually, the only way you have is to pay that forward to someone else. Do for them what somebody else did for you. Thank you so much for this discussion and for joining the show. I enjoyed it. I've learned some things from you, and some tips. I think I'm going to employ them. 

You’re going to go and ask opposing counsel for some advice. 

I'm going to get off. I'm going to call an opposing counsel and ask for some input in an appeal. I'm going to do that. They'd be totally shocked. 

You'll have to report back and let me know how it goes. 

I will report back on what I've learned and what input I've gotten from opposing counsel. It would be great. I love that idea. I'm going to adopt that. Normally, I close with a few lightning-round questions. My first question is, what skill would you like to have but don't? 

Not a legal skill. 

It could be anything. 

I secretly wanted to be the commissioner of the NFL but that would've required a different career path. I also wish I could sing. I think in my head that I can sing, but I know from my family that I cannot. 

From objective observers, it’s like, “No.” Who are some of your favorite writers? They don't have to be legal writers. 

What's funny about that is I read and write all day. It cracks my husband up too. Not that it's the best writing but I love to read John Grisham novels because you can't make those fact patterns up. I read his books and think, “My work is not that hard. It’s a crazy fact pattern.” I can get through my antitrust case. I like to read crime novels and mysteries but not as much as I would like. I got to make more time to read. 

There's an appellate justice on the Illinois appellate court, David Ellis, and he writes legal thrillers. He's written a couple with James Patterson, and now he has some of his own. It might be an interesting one to read along with John Grisham. 

I'm going to write that down when we get off. 

He’s an interesting fellow. He and I were on the appellate judges' conference panel together, talking about legal writing and storytelling. I thought, “You definitely know about this.” It's interesting doing that on top of the appellate court load but he does great. That's one of the few sitting appellate court judges I know who has that. 

That’s a good tip. Thank you. 

You're welcome. Who is your hero in real life? 

I would say, my son. I have only one child, and he overcame a lot of mental health issues and successfully graduated college. He’s working in his chosen career field and his level of perseverance is like, “I can do this.” On the days that I'm feeling imposter syndrome like, “I'm not sure if I should be in this job or not,” I think about him and sometimes call him. He gives me that pep talk. My son is my hero. 

That’s beautiful. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a guest to a dinner party? It could be more than one person. 

Both of these people are passed. One would be my mom, and one would be RBG. Almost for the same reasons. They were both strong women who were ahead of their time. My mom was a wife and a housekeeper if you will. Until my parents divorced, she had to figure out life on her own. It wasn't at a time when women did that. I was so impressed by her stick-to-itiveness and getting the job done. I see RBG in that same way. They would have an interesting conversation, and I want to be the silent observer of their conversation. Maybe they're up there talking to each other. You never know. 

I was going to say they might be already. That's so interesting the parallels of the challenges that they faced at that time. 

It's funny. I don't necessarily agree with all of RBGs positions. I don't think there's one judge that I agree with every position but the way she went about it and the way my mother went about like, “I'm going to pull myself up by my bootstraps and figure this out,” they are two very different ways but with the same goal in the end. I'd like to think I have a little bit of each of them in me in that regard. 

Last question. What is your motto if you have one? 

I asked my law clerks this question. 

This is the one you asked the clerks about. What did they say? 

I thought it was, “It is what it is.” I say that a lot but they said, “No, judge. You say,” and they are right. I often say, “It takes a village.” That's true about everything in my life, whether it's getting up the door in the morning and getting in my car and driving to Boston or doing a case. You can't do it by yourself. I needed my husband to be able to take care of my son while I was trying to become a partner in a law firm. 

Everybody has a village. Sometimes the village has more people or fewer people but you always need somebody. In court, I say to my law clerks, "I have no pride in authorship. If the guy at the front door who's checking IDs has a better way of saying it, then we're going to use the way he says it." It's important to have that village of people. From the appeals court perspective, the goal is you want the best product. It doesn't matter whose idea it was. I try to live by that professionally and personally. If you have a better idea, let's go with your idea. It can't be about me. It can never be about me. It has to be about the end result. 

I feel that way about producing an appellate brief or anything like that. I was like, “I want everybody's input. I want commentary because I want it to be the best. I don't have any particular, “It has to be my way,” or this kind of phrase. I want to crowdsource and have everybody together to figure out, “Is there something I'm missing? Is there some other approach we could take?” The focus is on the quality of the result and the product. 

That was a good way to end because we share that view, and it should be. It should never be about us. Whether it's the lawyer or the judge, it should always be about the case and the result. 

From the advocate's perspective, it helps the client to do that too. Thank you so much for doing this. I enjoyed it. 

Me too. I feel like we could talk for hours. 

I've enjoyed it. We have similar views. I've learned some new things that I'm going to try. I'm going to talk to the opposing council and see what they say. Thank you so much. 

Thank you so much. See you soon. Bye.