Assistant Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court in California

00:44:22

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

Cheri T. Pham, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court in California, shares her family's immigrant journey to the United States, her experience as a trial lawyer in both the public defender's office and the district attorney's office, her election to and service in the bench, the challenges and the potential for wide-ranging impact from leading and managing the courts. She also provides advice and inspiration for those considering joining the bench.

Relevant episode links:

Orange County Superior Court, The Grapes of Wrath

About Cheri Pham:

Judge Cheri T. Pham was elected unopposed to the Orange County Superior Court Bench on June 8, 2010; she now serves as Assistant Presiding Judge of that court. The Superior Court of California, County of Orange serves the third most populous county in the State and the sixth largest county nationwide. The County of Orange is home to approximately 3.2 million. This fiscal year, there are 156 courtrooms and 6 virtual courtrooms operating with 144 authorized judicial positions, 1,501 authorized employees and an annual budget of $218.8 million.

She has the distinction of being the first Vietnamese American to be elected by voters directly to the bench in California. While waiting to take office on January 1, 2011, Judge Pham was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger in the interim, enabling her to assume her judicial duties on July 21, 2010. Since March 21, 2020, she has been the Criminal Supervising Judge, supervising the Felony Trial Panel and Criminal Operations for the Orange County Superior Court. Her prior judicial assignments include the North Panel, the Family Law Panel, and the Felony Trial Panel. Judge Pham is the first Vietnamese American to serve as Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in California.

Judge Pham has been a resident of Orange County for 47 years, having immigrated to the United States as a refugee from Vietnam in 1975. She graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, Los Angeles, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics/Business in 1987. She attended and received her Juris Doctor Degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1990.

Prior to her election to the bench, Judge Pham practiced criminal law for 19 years in the Orange County Public Defender’s Office, the Orange County Alternate Defender’s Office, and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Pham was also the first Vietnamese American appointed as a Commissioner and Vice-Chair of the John Wayne Airport Commission, from 2008 to 2010. Since 2019, Judge Pham has served as an Adjunct Professor at Chapman University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, where she teaches Advanced Criminal Procedure: Adjudicative Process.

Welcome to the show where we chronicle women's journeys to the bench, bar, and beyond and seek to inspire the next generation of women lawyers and women law students. On the show, I'm pleased to welcome Judge Cheri Pham of the Orange County Superior Court. She is the assistant presiding judge in 2023 of that court and, in 2024, will become the presiding judge. Welcome, Judge Pham.

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me.

I'm excited to have you and also excited in terms of what your role represents across the state we were talking about. The number of women who are coming into presiding judge and assistant presiding judge roles around the state of California at the trial court level is nothing short of remarkable. It's great to talk to you and talk about your experiences in that regard and your path to the bench, in general, to inspire others, to think about that, and to have the next wave of women PJs coming in the future.

That would be great. I hope this trend continues.

Exactly. We're getting started. I wanted to start first with what drew you to the law and what caused you to want to go to law school. What did you think you would do with that degree?

I have to go way back. I decided to go into law because of my father. I wanted to realize his unfulfilled dream of becoming a lawyer. My family and I immigrated to the United States in 1975 as refugees from Vietnam to escape the Communists. Before we came, my father was a retired Army captain who was working as a journalist to support a family of five and putting himself through law school.

When we came here, we lost everything. My father was never able to finish law school. In fact, he couldn't cope with the thought of having to start life over in a new country empty-handed and deteriorated into a very deep depression from which he never recovered until the day he passed. That was what motivated me to go to law school when I was in college.

As far as what I thought I would get out of it or liked about the law, I have to confess that, at the time, as a 21-year-old graduating from college, my idea of what a lawyer was and what the profession entailed came from a TV show. This is probably before your time, but back in the ‘80s, there was a very popular TV show, LA Law. The thought of becoming a trial lawyer trying cases in court before a judge or a jury was appealing to me.

LA Law is responsible for a wave of people entering law school in the ‘80s.

You remember the show. In fact, I still like it, but I can't find it on reruns anywhere. After law school, I discovered that I like being a trial lawyer. I wasn't wrong.

That's good. It's good to have a particular reason why you're going to law school and what your vision is. Sometimes, that vision changes. Sometimes, it gets reinforced as it did in your case, going, “Not just the spectacle of it but what's involved in being in trial, I like that. It's a good fit.”

I did it for twenty years. I loved it.

Both in the public defender's office and in the district attorney's office, that is unusual. Most people will take one side of the representation and not do both.

That is somewhat unusual and not many people do that, but I was fortunate. I started in the public defender's office when I was a law clerk after my second year in law school. They hired me after I passed the bar after I graduated from law school. I always say that the public defender's office raised me. When the bankruptcy happened in Orange County in 1994, the contract with the private conflict attorneys expired. The county could not afford to pay private attorneys to handle conflict cases. These were cases that the public defender's office couldn't take on because of a conflict of interest. I was one of the, I believe, eleven attorneys recruited to start the alternate defender's office, which is still around. We also started an associate defender's office, the third level of conflict.

I went to work for the alternate defender's office for two years before I switched to the Orange County DA's office in 1997. The reason why I did that was I started a family. I was pregnant. I hate to say this but to be honest, I didn't want to spend my weekends visiting my clients in the jail anymore. It was not a physically healthy environment for a young mother to take home to a baby, so I applied to the DA's office and was hired by them. I was there for almost fourteen years before I ran for judge.

I did take a break between the time that I was in the public defender's office and the alternate defender's office to work for a small boutique civil law firm that specialized in representing school districts as well as community colleges. They did education law. I discovered during that year that I missed trial work. That was when my belief that trial work is what I'm cut out for was affirmed during that year.

Isn't that interesting? Sometimes, you have to experience something else to go, “I like that.” That's the particular part of litigation. That's something for law students who tune in to think about that. Often, you think you're either going to do transactional or you're going to do litigation. To recognize that within litigation, there's a whole range of different things you can do, not just subject matters, but what your experience is in your career is very different. If you are in the DA's office or the public defender's office, you're doing trials in court a lot much less than you would be typically in civil litigation.

The PD’s office and the DA’s office, they're required to probably be on trial every day or in a contested hearing every day. I always tell my students, because I also teach at Chapman as an adjunct professor, “Even if you don't choose to be a criminal lawyer as a career or stay with the PD’s office or the DA’s office, they are a good starting point because having the trial experience will go a long way in your career as a lawyer. If you decide to work for a law firm or go into corporate, a lot of corporate law firms look very highly upon actual trial experience. You can never go wrong by starting in the PD’s office or the DA’s office.”

You have a lot of opportunities to build skills and opportunities as a newer lawyer to do things that would take many years to be able to do in a large team in a law firm. It’s great skill-building. Also, it has an impact. If you do go into private practice afterward, you treat all of the pre-trial things differently. Once you've seen a trial and been in trials, you understand the bigger picture of where the whole case is going. It’s nice to have that when you're at the beginning of a long civil case.

Exactly. The other thing is trial work. Being a trial lawyer for either the PD’s office or the DA’s office will help you master the evidence code. You can study the evidence code on paper and be brilliant at it, but when you are on trial, that's when you are tested as to how well you know the evidence code also aside from the fact that they do great work on both sides.

It's good. I was thinking about your background but also particularly working in a trial-oriented practice like the DA or the public defender. Knowing the evidence code and all of that and having a broad experience with a lot of different kinds of cases is good training for the bench, too.

I will be the first one to tell you that I am able to preside over trials very easily right from the beginning because of the fact that I had the experience of trying cases in offices.

What caused you to consider then a judicial position?

After I had practiced, by then, already twenty years of being a lawyer, it happened fortuitously. A seat opened on the bench. In fact, that year, there were five open seats. I decided, “I've practiced for twenty years as a lawyer.” Having done both sides, I thought I would make a fairly competent judge. I thought, “Here's my opportunity. Why not take it?” I was very fortunate enough that the seat opened up. I was unopposed, and then I got elected.

That's an interesting thing that we talk about on the show, too, which is the path to the bench and the methods of getting to the bench, some states are completely elected. There may be a commission in between, but you run for the seat all the way up to the state supreme court. In California, we're generally an appointment process except for there are some opportunities to be an elected judge. You took one of those opportunities.

The other thing is after having practiced as an attorney for so long, I thought, “I can do more as a judge. My decision will have a far wider impact in terms of helping people on both sides for victims of crimes, for defendants accused of crimes to protect their rights, or in civil matters as well to help both sides resolve disputes and conflicts.”

As an attorney, you are an advocate for one side or the other, and your decisions or efforts will only help your client. That was the other thing about being a judge that attracted me and motivated me to run for a judge. I was fortunate that there was an open seat to run for, but after I got elected, I was also fortunate in that my seat was already vacant. The governor at the time, which was Governor Schwarzenegger, appointed me in the interim to assume my position early. I would've had to wait until January of the following year to start my term, but I started in July 2010.

That's an interesting combination of events. That usually doesn't happen.

I have a certificate of appointment from Governor Schwarzenegger even though I was originally elected. It's something that is unusual but also something that I'm proud of.

It is like being doubly approved, endorsed, or something like that both by the public in the county and then by the governor's office. That would give you a good amount of confidence going into the job. On the other hand, I would think, “If I could have been appointed, I wouldn't have to have gone through the whole election,” which can be challenging, but there’s that.

In California, every six years, all superior court judges have to face re-election. Even if the person is appointed originally, at the end of that term, they have to run for re-election. There was a new appointment in our court. He is a great judge. He is from the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office. Unfortunately, he got appointed this 2023 and his seat is up for election at the end of this year. He's already having to run for retention. It's a lot of work for him.

Fortunately, in Orange County, usually, there's a class of judges who are up for retention. There is always someone who volunteers to oversee the filing of the paperwork and the deadlines and the filing of the fees to run. It's very helpful, and also to get all the requisite nomination signatures. That's the one interesting fact about being a judge in California on the Superior Court level. It is that you do have to run every six years.

Sometimes, there can be challenges very early. Someone who was appointed is up for election very soon after that. Sometimes, the challengers think they have an opportunity and then it becomes contested.

We have had that in the past. Some of our judges have been challenged. Sometimes, we can't figure out why because the challenger is unknown to the judge who is being challenged. They've never appeared in front of the judge. The rest of us and the judge himself or herself would be scratching their head like, “What did I do to get challenged like this?” It is very stressful. In Orange County, it's a countywide election, so it can get expensive when you're challenged.

I remember Judge Motoike. That happened to her very early in her process. It was like, “I barely got here.”

That happened almost immediately after she got appointed.

That was a lot to take in. You're joining the bench and learning your new role, and then you have to work with that as well. She was gracious and graceful about it as she always is.

Fortunately, the legal community rallied behind her. It's always disconcerting and it should be discouraged to challenge a sitting judge because we're not political office officers. We're not politicians. It’s very unnatural for us to have to run to retain our seats. Our seats should not be political at all, but that's the way the system is in the state. We have to accept it.

Exactly. You have to work with it the best you can and move forward. What you mentioned earlier about joining the bench and thinking that you could do more service-wise and also having a different way to impact the law after a long career in a certain set of roles, sometimes, you say, “Maybe there's something else that I can apply my experience to and do some good.” Was it hard changing from being an advocate to being a decision-maker on the bench?

I have to say not really because I focused on what is the goal or what was the goal of the case before me. When I first started on the bench, I was assigned to family law. That helped me understand my role as a judge because you’re dealing with broken families. To talk about the far-reaching impact of my decision, that would be the one area where my decision could affect people forever, especially children.

In family law, there's no jury, so the buck stops at the judge. The judge cannot blame the jury for any decision. Every decision that a judge makes in family law has to be thoughtfully deliberated. We have to think about the impact on the family long into the future after the case is over or after the final judgment. It was a very important assignment for me. I was there for almost four years. It taught me a lot also.

It was a great training ground for a new judge because it taught me how to write statements of decision. It taught me to justify every decision that I made with reasons. The decision had to be corroborated based on the evidence and the law. I look back on that almost four years of experience as invaluable to my growth as a judge.

That's interesting because that is often an early assignment for a judge. The way you're describing it makes good sense as to the skills that you're learning in that role.

Having done nothing but criminal law as a lawyer, to get thrown into a family law right away was a bit challenging. After the first two years, I felt comfortable enough that I knew the law. I knew what to do with the cases. Also, family law is very practical. You focus on the goal here. The goal is to try to help this family in front of you move on and make sure that the children are not permanently damaged somehow from the breakup of their parents and that they have the resources to continue with their life and education pursuits or career pursuits. The goal is to help spouses move on as well with their lives. It was an emotional assignment because, unfortunately, when people lose their livelihoods, when they lose their children, or when they lose their properties, tension seems to be the common denominator. The desire to get back at each other prevail instead of focusing on what is best for the family.

I think about that, too, in terms of having a broader impact. First of all, that's a deep impact on the individuals, the family, and even the extended family who are going to be impacted by the rulings. It also has an extended impact on the community. If you allow the children to blossom and the next generation to move forward out of that, then you're also having a ripple effect on the community. It fits in your original criteria of why you wanted to be on the bench.

These children are going to be adults. How they live their lives and how they treat their children are going to be a product of what happened to them when they were children. That's something that every judge in family law, independency, or any assignment that involves children has to consider.

Exactly. It’s quite a role to step in when the family itself is not functioning. This court system needs to step in and try to move things forward. I wonder what kind of advice you might have for lawyers who are appearing in court in terms of how they can better prepare things or make life easier for the judge in terms of written submissions or arguments at trial or on motions.

The judges do like written submissions. My first advice would be that as a lawyer, you need to be prepared. You need to know your case thoroughly in and out so that you can be ready to answer the judge's questions. The written submissions are good in the sense that you have to guide the judges and steer them in the right direction as far as case laws are concerned and as far as statutory laws are concerned. It makes it a lot easier for the judges to make a decision. Judges have to look up the law as well, and they should, but as a starting point, you as an advocate need to give them a starting point and a point of reference so that they can know which direction to go into.

As a lawyer, you need to be prepared. You need to know your case thoroughly in and out so that you can be ready to answer the judge's questions.

The one pet peeve I have is when the attorney who appears in front of me is not prepared. It is disconcerting. It's doing a disservice to their client as well, no matter which side you're on. Whether you're getting paid by the county or by the client, or even if you're doing pro bono work, you have to have pride in your work.

Also, you have to remember your goal as an advocate that you are working for your client. You got to do the best you can to prepare the case and convince a judge to rule in your favor or your client's favor. Being prepared is the first or the cardinal rule before you, appear in court.

I admire all the attorneys who come prepared and who have their case laws, statutory laws, or authorities. Even if you don't have any case laws or any authorities to support your positions, knowing that there are no authorities to support your arguments but asking the judge to rule in your favor is an example of excellent advocacy right there. You have to know that there are no authorities out there that come up with an answer for you. That would be my advice to new lawyers who are starting out.

Particularly as an appellate lawyer, when we're able to stand in front of the panel of justices, that's our only opportunity to have a conversation about the case. You want to be prepared. It's the same as you mentioned. Anytime you are in court, it's your opportunity to explain things, advocate, and provide answers to the judge who might have questions in making a ruling. That's a good point that you made. Be prepared for that conversation.

Knowing the facts of your case, too, really helps because the more you know about your case and the more laws you know, the more persuasive you are not only with the judge, but also with a jury. You can argue the case more zealously.

The more you know about your case and the more laws, the more persuasive you are, not only with the judge but also with a jury.

If you know the limits and say, “I’m making a creative argument here, but there's a good reason to extend the law in this way. I'm aware there's no case that clearly says it should go this way, but here's why,” that's credibility raising too.

You're more effective.

What about advice for those who might be considering the bench at some point in their career? What kind of things would you say would be good preparation for that or a good way to make sure that it's something that is a good fit for you? As you were saying, “I found out that being a trial lawyer was a good fit for me,” the same question needs to be asked if someone's thinking about being a judge. It’s like, “Is being a trial judge a good fit for me?”

First of all, as an attorney, know your craft, do your job well, and also cultivate a good reputation among the legal community. You don't want to burn goodwill on any one case. Civility should be the cardinal rule when you're practicing as a lawyer. If and ever you want to apply for an appointment to the bench or run for election, you have to remember that people will remember how you treated them. Your reputation will go a long way. If you apply to the governor for appointment, the governor will send out questionnaires to the people in the legal community, the people whom you have opposed or worked with that are judges. If you have a good reputation, that will help your application tremendously.

The other thing that I would advise attorneys to do is to get involved in positions of leadership in bar associations as well as community activities. This particular governor, Governor Newsom, according to the Appointments Secretary, Luis Céspedes himself, and I have heard him speak, they emphasize community outreach. They emphasize charitable work. If you work for a government agency, you can volunteer in any activities like soup kitchens, for example. Do volunteer work that will not conflict with your jobs.

If you are in a law firm, do a lot of pro bono work. Reach out to the community as well as education. Go and speak to elementary school students or junior high or high school students. Volunteer to judge mock trials at colleges, high schools, and competitions. Volunteer to coach them. Those activities are huge with the governor and I dare say any governor.

As an attorney or as a judge, community outreach should be part of your job description. Like it or not, leaders in the community, the people look to you to educate them about the legal system and to give the profession a push to give the public the impression that the system does work. They won't have that image unless people in the business reach out to them, help them, and teach them about our profession. That would be my advice.

The other thing is I want attorneys to never think that they're not qualified to apply. Don't fall into this imposter syndrome of, “I'm not good enough. I don't have enough experience.” You have to overcome that if you do have any thoughts that resemble those thoughts. If you have the requisite number of years as an attorney, you should apply because our bench is looking for good people. Our bench needs people to arbitrate and decide cases to resolve disputes between the parties. Society cannot function without judges. I strongly encourage you if you have the requisite number of years of experience under your belt as an attorney to start thinking about it.

I know that you've probably heard this, but we are at a point where a lot of our judges are reaching the age of retirement, so we have a lot of vacancies in Orange County, unfortunately, and statewide. This is the time for attorneys to be thinking about applying and getting all your applications together. Send it to the governor. This is a good time because the governor is very focused on a diverse bench. Women especially, I strongly encourage women to apply. Back in the day, women were few and far between, women judges. The more, the better. We've come a long way, but at the same time though, we need to continue that development or that progress.

You always need to carry on in that regard and keep that momentum so we have more women PJs too. That's great advice. Particularly with regard to what this particular governor and appointments secretary is interested in, but that theme of service of being beyond yourself and looking about serving the community in some way or in a variety of different ways is a common theme. Most governors like to see that. You didn't wake up one day and go, “I suddenly want to serve in this way.” If you have servant leadership or a servant's heart that's been shown over many years already in different ways, then there's a sense of at least a certain amount of humility when you get on the bench that you'll retain because you're there to serve and serve the community at large.

You have to lay the foundation. You have to lay the groundwork.

Exactly. If that's who you are in terms of wanting to serve in that way, then this is another way to do that.

Exactly. That's what we are as judges and public servants.

We've talked about you being an assistant presiding judge and then will become a presiding judge. What does that mean? How does that happen? How is that role different from a judicial role generally?

First of all, in our county and every county in California, these are elected positions we're elected by our colleagues, the judges. In Orange County, we have a two-year term for each. The presiding judge has the option of running for 3rd year after 2 years. The presiding judge is in charge of the entire court in the county. It's in the rules of the court. It's a long list of duties and responsibilities for the presiding judge. It's 10.603 to be exact, the duties and responsibilities of the presiding judge.

The presiding judge can delegate all but two of those duties and responsibilities. One is to determine the compensation package for the court executive officer. The second duty or responsibility that the PJ cannot delegate is to make any changes to the compensation package of a court executive officer. In terms of judicial oversight, for every other duty listed in that rule of court, the presiding judge can delegate to the assistant presiding judge or any other subordinate judicial officer.

My duty as an assistant presiding judge is to support the presiding judge in everything that she does as well as I have specific duties delegated to me. I oversee and manage the responses to complaints about our judicial officers that come in from the public. If they are about a particular judicial officer who's not in a supervisorial role, then I delegate that to the supervising judge of the respective panels. It is where that particular judge is assigned for that supervising judge to conduct the investigation and respond initially.

I then review the supervising judge's response and make sure that it's appropriate. I make sure that I edit it appropriately and then make sure that it's sent out. We are bound by the canons of ethics, the code of judicial ethics, to respond to every complaint that comes from the public or anybody. It could be from staff as well. That's one of my particular duties.

I also chair the finance committee for our court. Court finances are a lot more complicated than I thought. We, in Orange County, for example, are the 3rd largest in California and the 6th largest in the nation. We have a budget, this 2023, of $245.3 million. That's a huge budget to oversee and manage, but we have staff. We have a chief financial officer. We have accountants to tutor me on how much it costs to run a court. It's a daunting task. We have to be mindful of how much funding we get from the state. We have to always advocate for more because we're underfunded. Since we are such a large county, neither Judge Hernandez, my presiding judge, nor I carry a calendar.

That's what I was wondering. That's what I was going to ask about because in some cases, in the smaller counties, that's true where the presiding judge and the assistant presiding judge will still have calendars.

It’s too busy for us. Judge Hernandez is an exception because she does have the Young Adult Court. That was her project. She founded that court. It's close to maturity in the sense that they are still conducting a study on how effective that program is. I don't know if she's ever going to give it up, but she is probably an exception when it comes to a large county presiding judge. She has that calendar. In Riverside, for example, Judge Clark, the presiding judge, does have a calendar and so does San Bernardino. Judge Lisa Rogan, the assistant presiding judge there, does have a calendar as well. In my particular case, to answer your question on how my role is different from being an actual judge, it is that I don't have cases.

I asked that because I wasn't sure. I thought that was the case given everything that's going on that you handle. I think of it as being the CEO or COO of the entire court. That's very different than being a judge that's there and handling the particular cases that are in front of you. You have such a larger view of operations and making sure the court is working and all of that.

The various issues that come up every day are very unpredictable. They're unattractive like flooding, house damages, and structure issues. I do miss it sometimes. I've been in my position for close to six months. I do miss judging cases and making decisions but I realize my decisions have an impact on the entire court system in Orange County. I realized the importance of my role here as well. It's not that I don't like it. I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in the big decisions.

I did keep a few cases here and there, the 1172.6 petitions or the resentencing petitions. I always tell my supervising judges that anytime they are short, I would be happy to fill in and take a calendar or something like that. In this day and age, we have to because of the judicial shortages, and it’s like continuing education.

Exactly. I was going to say even if you're good with serving in a different way, for a couple of years at least, that you're like, “I want to stay robust and flexible for when I go back into the role of having my calendar,” it takes one opportunity.

You are getting those skills.

Exactly. You’re going to keep up to speed there and keep those skills going. That's good. It's good to have those opportunities to do that. You're like, “I'm happy to do it because I want to keep those muscles flexed for when I go back to my cases.”

You don’t want to get called busty here.

Exactly. That is something you want to pay attention to. It's an opportunity to exercise very different skills in the management capacity of the court and also a much bigger vision for where the court is going and try to implement that, whether it's through sufficient funding or other initiatives that the court is working on. What you do could be fruitful or have an impact maybe 5 or 10 years down the line in terms of where the court goes.

There are procedures that have to be implemented with all these new legislations as well. It's a very important role for me as well as Judge Hernandez. It's not all fun and games.

It's not all honoring the presiding judge, cocktail parties, and things like that. There's a lot of rolling up the sleeves as it were.

Especially in these times when we're coming out of COVID as well, a lot of things have changed. We have to deal with the remote hearings. We're continuing to make sure that our courthouses are safe for the employees, staff, and the public. I heard that we are still getting positive cases of COVID. It’s’ that we have vaccines, so the effects are a lot less severe on people. Those are concerns that will never go away. This is the post-pandemic world here.

That's true. That's something I've had discussions with, let's say, chief justices of other state supreme courts and court systems. They've all commented on that in terms of post-pandemic on how they're going to adjust and how their courts are adjusting. A lot of them are moving forward with remote hearings in a lot of cases because they realize that it's useful and helpful, especially for people who are representing themselves in cases or whatever. It's much less disruptive to their lives to have that option. Since the infrastructure is there within the court system and a familiarity with it, that is something that they're moving forward with in different cases.

That’s for sure. It's much less costly for them. For a large majority of the population, getting to a physical courthouse is still a challenge. We have to be mindful of that. In California, we're coming up to the deadline for the statute that allows us to conduct remote hearings in civil and criminal matters. There are new legislations, fortunately, that are being pushed to extend those deadlines for us. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to continue those remote proceedings to allow the public to have access to the courts.

Even for those who do have lawyers, to be able to do a remote status conference or some hearing that's not deeply substantive where you'd want to be in the courtroom arguing, that's helpful as well for people.

It saves the cost of litigation because represented clients don't have to pay the lawyer’s travel times.

It’s travel time for your five-minute appearance on something. It’s nice to have that option. Thank you so much for joining the show and sharing all of your journey and your new journey in the administrative role with the court. Usually, I close with a few lightning-round questions. The first one is which talent would you most like to have but don't?

Musical talent I'd like to be able to play the piano. I took lessons a long time ago but never followed through.

That sounds good. I always wanted to play the harp, but I didn't do that because it didn't fit on the bus. That's on my list one day. What about your hero? Who is your hero in real life?

My mother. When we immigrated to this country, she was previously a stay-at-home mom, but because of my dad's situation, she had to go to work. She started in a sweatshop in San Diego and then went to work as an assembler, sewing pieces of artificial hearts for a medical lab. She retired from that job and ended up working for more than twenty years.

That's a lot of resilience and doing what's necessary to move things forward. She is a strong lady.

She is my hero.

I can see why. She is a very strong lady. For what in life do you feel most grateful?

The opportunity to live here, come here, and have gotten as far as I have, and for my family as well. My immediate family was all able to come over here. We've had the opportunities that most people don't have. We get to enjoy the freedom and the opportunity to move up in our careers. That's something that people in other countries or some people who live here or were born here do not appreciate. That's something that did not exist in my country and other countries as well. It is the freedom and the opportunity to succeed in life. I will forever be grateful for that.

Enjoy the freedom and the opportunity to move up in our careers.

It's quite the trajectory of your own family coming here. Being in the position you're in is remarkably fast for your time in the country and your family's time in the country. That is a reflection of the opportunity that's here as well as your own grit as I can see in your mother. It’s in the family.

Thank you.

Given the choice of anyone in the world, with us or not, who would you invite to a dinner party?

The former Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye. She's another one whom I admire tremendously not only for her strength and courage but especially during COVID.

Her leadership was amazing.

Plus, she's one of the greatest, if not the greatest orator I've ever seen. I've heard her speak. I met her in person in 2010. She's amazing. She's who I would want to be when I grow up. That's what I want to say.

She's remarkable. She took over as chief justice at a time that was challenging for the courts with the funding and all kinds of things. It was like, “Here's the job. Good luck.” She took it in stride and did a lot of work for our court system.

Especially during COVID, our budget was cut. The trial court funding was cut significantly. I give her all the credit for restoring that to our branch.

Exactly. Who are some of your favorite writers?

My favorite writer of all time is John Steinbeck. The Grapes of Wrath made an impact on me as a teenager. That was a big book. His writing was so vivid.

That's right.

It was easy to understand, but very vivid. I could picture the scenes throughout that book.

Exactly. I was thinking that. He's able to paint them. In some of them, you have a vision of them. You're able to visualize them. He puts you there and it stays with you. I like him, too. The last question is what is your motto if you have one?

The buck stops here. In fact, I'm looking for that sign.

If I find one, I'll let you know.

It's important for a person in a leadership role to be accountable and to understand that you are ultimately responsible for any job and any decision that you delegate to others. You should not blame the staff. You should not blame other judicial officers whom you've delegated because that's what being a leader is. It is that you have to accept the responsibility that you are ultimately responsible for, in my situation, at the court and eventually as a PJ as well. That's always been my motto all along even as a lawyer. Every decision I make, I have to own up to it. I have to be accountable for it. I cannot put the blame on anything else. I can't make excuses other than they were my decisions. They were my own doing. That's my motto.

It's important for a person in a leadership role to be accountable, to understand that you are ultimately responsible for any job, any decision that you delegate to others.

That sounds like a good one and an appropriate one given your role and upcoming role. To that degree, that attitude gives confidence to those you delegate to that you are not going to say, “I delegated that. It's your problem.”

I’m like, “It’s off my hands.”

Exactly. Oddly, there's that sense of support from leadership that empowers people to take responsibility if you're going to delegate something and do a good job knowing that you're going to have their back, too.

I would want that.

That's what I was going to say. You would want that, right?

Yes.

It helps others grow in their own leadership and build the next generation of leaders for the court, too.

I agree.

Thank you so much for joining. I enjoyed it. I really appreciate your being part of the show.

Thank you, again, for having me here. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Thank you.