Episode 29: Lee Smalley Edmon
Presiding Justice of the Second District, Division Three of the California Court of Appeal.
00:57:26
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Justice Lee Smalley Edmon is the Presiding Justice of the Second District, Division Three of the California Court of Appeal. She previously served as a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and was that court's first female presiding judge. Before joining the bench, she practiced civil litigation at Adams, Duque & Hazeltine and Dewey Ballentine, and served in leadership positions in numerous bar associations and legal nonprofit boards, including as President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Tune in as Justice Edmon discusses her inspiring career, and shares advice for newer lawyers on developing their careers, including applying to join the bench.
Relevant episode links:
Justice Lee Smalley Edmon, California Judicial Mentor Project, California Judicial Mentor Program (Appellate)
About Justice Lee Smalley Edmon:
Justice Lee Smalley Edmon
Justice Lee Smalley Edmon is the Presiding Justice of the Second District, Division Three of the California Court of Appeal. She previously served as a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and was that court's first female presiding judge. Before joining the bench, she practiced civil litigation at Adams, Duque & Hazeltine and Dewey Ballentine, and served in leadership positions in numerous bar associations and legal nonprofit boards, including as President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Tune in as Justice Edmon discusses her inspiring career, and shares advice for newer lawyers on developing their careers, including applying to join the bench.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to have joined the show, Justice Lee Smalley Edmon, the Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Division 3 in Los Angeles. Welcome, Justice Edmon.
Thank you so much for having me.
I'm so happy that you, in particular, agreed to participate in this podcast because I still have such very positive and warm memories of how kind and inclusive you were when I was a new young attorney in Orange County, which is quite a drive from Los Angeles. You had some questions and wanted to talk to me about some initiatives we were doing with the bar down here. You took it upon yourself to make that drive and come down and meet with a very shiny new lawyer. I always remember that and what a great leader you were in the bar as well before joining the bench. It means a lot to me for you to join the show. I appreciate it.
You are very nice to say that. Quite frankly, I remember it well. That's part of the job of we, the more senior women lawyers or judges, to reach out and make that connection with younger lawyers. It was my pleasure.
I remember it to this day. I saw that you were that way with many other people too. It was a good role model position. When you are in that position exactly, pay it forward to other people and be sure to do the same thing and be accessible. That's what you can do in those contexts pay it forward.
I certainly had the benefit of that as I was coming along. That's what I owe.
That's the only way I know to carry on with it and to honor the way people have been with us beforehand. I do want to talk about your bar service and your work in that regard prior to the bench, as well as your practice. First, I wanted to ask, how did you come to the law? How did you decide that you wanted to go to law school and become a lawyer to begin with?
It was interesting. I was teaching grade school and did not know that I wanted to be a lawyer. I left college and went back home, where I had grown up in Downstate, Illinois, which is about two and a half hours South of Chicago, close to Peoria. I became a grade school teacher, 5th and 6th grade, for the year after I graduated from college. It was a lot of fun. I now go back and visit my mother in Illinois. I sometimes see those kids who are now married and have kids of their own.
I remember that it was a lot of fun during that one year but along the way, I decided that it was not for me. I didn't get the satisfaction that I thought I wanted out of a career. I thought I wanted to change, which by the way, I frequently tell young lawyers that they need to focus on a job that makes them happy and satisfied. That's the way you are going to succeed.
In any event, during the course of that year, I decided I wanted to do something different and kept thinking back on my experiences in college. I have been very active on the speech and debate team. The team coach kept poking me throughout the entire time I was there, suggesting that maybe I ought to think about going to law school based on my performance in the debate, analysis, and presentation. It was his theory that I would love the law and like being a trial lawyer.
In the law industry, teaching is so important at every level of our career and something that we have to spend a lot of time on.
I kept thinking about that and decided maybe I ought to give it a try. I applied to the law school that happened to be two hours down the road, the University of Illinois College of Law. I went to law school and took his advice. On the first of many occasions where mentors have given me good advice, I had the least good sense to follow it. I absolutely loved law school, the practice of law, and being a judge. It was great advice.
I have certainly heard from others that speech and debate team where they are entrée, whether they recognized it or someone else recognized it in them, that there was something maybe to pursue with that interest. A common thread is people recognizing things in us that we might not recognize for ourselves.
It's absolutely true.
What do you think you bring from the teaching experience to either practice or the bench? Do you think that impacted how you tell stories or, as an advocate, how you think about persuading juries?
Teaching is something that I did enjoy. I was pretty good at it. Probably, if I were to think of anything to bring to the table, I've gotten very actively involved in the teaching of judges while on the bench. I'm very active in our CJER, which you're familiar with, the California Judicial Education Research arm of the Judicial Council. Teaching is so important. While I didn't want to spend my entire life doing it in a grade school, teaching is so important at every level of our career and something that we have to spend a lot of time on, and I have.
Whether you are conscious of it at the time or in retrospect, it makes sense, and all of these different pieces of your experience and your skills that come together to have that sweet spot at some point. In your case, fellow teaching judges and bringing your teaching skills to bear in that regard. I agree with you in terms of we want to continue to grow and learn throughout our careers. If you are not feeling challenged or you want a little bit of a challenge, it's important to continue to do that or you will stop growing.
With the constant changes in the law, it's important for judges. Unfortunately, I think the State of California is far ahead of many other states in terms of education. The Judicial Council spends lots of time and effort making sure that judges are advised about changes in the law or important ethical issues that need to be focused on. They do a very good job.
After law school and before you joined the bench, you were a trial lawyer and litigator for many years. What stands out to you from your practice in terms of your experience as a litigator and a law firm?
A number of things. First is my track to California. I happened to clerk for a Law professor at the law school who was, believe it or not, from Los Angeles. He recommended that after my second year of law school, I ought to come out to Los Angeles and try a Los Angeles firm. Everybody coming from the University of Illinois goes to Chicago.
He said, "You can always go to Chicago after your third year if you decide you don't like it but try Los Angeles." It was a December day when I got on the plane to make my callback interview in Los Angeles, and about 5 feet of snow on the ground. I came to Los Angeles, and there was a heatwave, and I was thinking, “What's wrong with this picture?”
I got an offer after my second year of law school. I came out here and loved everything about Los Angeles and its firm. I still got an offer to come back. It was one of those things where we were very close in summer clerking class and gave each other gifts at the end of the summer. Mine were those big plastic sunglasses as an indication of how wide my eyes had been during that entire summer in Los Angeles. I loved the firm and the practice of law there.
It was a California-based firm initially. About six years later, I moved to the Los Angeles office of a New York firm. One of the great things to me about the firm I started in was the fact that it was civil in every sense of the word, not only in the practice of law but also in teaching you that professionalism in every aspect of your career is so important.
The first partner that I worked with came to me literally from the get-go and said to me, "You need to not only do the work on your desk but you need to advance your development in Los Angeles and give back to the community." How important it was to pay back based on the blessing that I had of being a lawyer. His suggestion was you can do it in any way you want. It could be community work, church work, or bar association activities but he was particularly connected with the LA County Bar. He suggested perhaps that would be an area that I should think about starting in, which is precisely what I did. I became active in the LA County Bar.
While I loved the work that I did at the firm, it was very fulfilling to have the opportunity to do the work. I started in the very stressful section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and worked my way up to President of the barristers. Doing that work that I did, in my view, I can't measure how important it was in my entire career. The work you get to do with people in the county bar that you would never have had an opportunity to meet otherwise in your practice from all across the county, a diverse group of people and practice group.
I got so much value out of the opportunity to work with those folks. Literally, many of them are lifelong friends. That's another piece of advice I give to all young lawyers that you ought to think about getting involved in some community activity. I particularly think it's easy to do at the county bar at the barrister's level.
I have the same thing that I tell newer lawyers as well. It's important that they get out of their particular office space and even their whole office and get to know other people outside the firm and contribute in whatever way they feel is appropriate. You need to start doing that early so that you can not only meet people but get into the habit of contributing to the community. It has become second nature. Bar leadership is particularly good in that regard. I remember being on the women lawyers of the LA Board. It was the same thing. It was so great because it's such a vast county in particular.
You wouldn't meet everyone you meet on the board but such a vast array of practices, different types of practices. You get the microcosm of what it is to practice as a lawyer in that particular geographic space, which would take you so much longer to meet all those people and understand what it means to practice law in many different ways in your area. You get their wisdom, too, and their understanding of issues that you might not even see because it's not your area of practice.
Once you get bitten by the bar association bug, I did expand, too. I served on the WLALA, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Board, as well as the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and moved to the ABA. You bring up the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and it's particularly good because its board is so big and broad. It has wonderful people. I agree with you completely. The involvement in WLALA is very helpful to a lawyer.
It was completely formative to me and my whole experience practicing in Los Angeles. If I hadn't been on the WLALA Board almost from the very beginning that it would have been so different. I wouldn't have had many friends from that experience that I still see and keep in touch with. You and I both concur in the bar service area but we are also involved in other aspects of our communities. I say that to you in terms of, if they are nonprofit boards, artboards or legal nonprofits or things like that, go for that in terms of contributing as well. It should be something that you enjoy doing and see value in.
That's a very good point. I would not recommend that somebody do something for the sake of doing it. It should be something that you enjoy and get satisfaction from doing.
It's important that judges have a variety of experiences.
You have many leadership positions within various bar associations, including the ABA. You got a lot of leadership experience across those. How did you decide then you wanted to go from practice to joining the bench?
By this time, I was a partner at Dewey Ballantine, which was the Los Angeles office of a New York firm. After leaving the barrister section, I've gotten more actively involved in the big bar with a senior bar. I've gotten involved in lots of different committees and gone on the leadership ladder of the association. One of the committees that I think was the most significant in terms of you say formative, that's a word that brings true to me, is a committee that was called the Blue Ribbon Commission on Superior Court Improvement. It was working with a number of other senior high-powered lawyers and judges on the Superior Court to talk about changes that could be made in the administration of the court that would improve the administration of justice.
It was a project that went on for a number of years, a very valuable effort by the county bar. When all of that was finished, and I got through my period of all those years in the county bar leadership, ending up serving as President of the county bar, by the end of all, it was easy for me to decide that I was going to get the most professional satisfaction if I took some role in public service. It was at that point, in particular, because I had worked so closely with the superior court on that other project, that I decided I wanted to apply for the bench. My period as a President of the county bar was from '98 to '99, and then I applied to the bench and was appointed in 2000 by Gray Davis.
That was pretty swift. I know sometimes there are multiple applications and multiple times through the system. I'm very grateful for that. That's one of the things that when people join the bench, they don't recognize the role or the power of the administrative aspect in terms of access to justice and how the justice system works. You had that on the front end with the committee and were able to see the potential for that, adjudicating individual cases also.
Seeing that larger picture and saying, "I like doing this work,” and had that opportunity to do it. That's great. You were on the trial court, the Superior Court bench. You have quite a bit of experience there, which you have brought to the Court of Appeals as well. Let's talk about being on the trial bench. How was that? Was it what you expected? Were there surprises that you hadn't anticipated from being on the other side of the courtroom?
If I had to identify any surprises, first of all, I was surprised by the fact that I didn't miss being a lawyer and advocate. I loved the position of being a Judge that you get to be the decision-maker. You get to be neutral, unbiased, impartial and do justice. For me, that was heaven. I didn't miss being an advocate. The only other thing that surprised me was I started in Family Law. I had never practiced Family Law. I had never been in a Family Law courtroom.
There are lots of surprises in Family Law. Probably, the biggest surprise and the most unfortunate thing was the number of self-represented litigants. I never had any idea that all these folks were trying to somehow navigate the system on their own without a lawyer. It is obviously very difficult for them. It's difficult for the court. It puts extra pressure on the judge to make sure that you try to explain everything in a language that everybody can understand, which is very difficult if they have not been in the system. It's stressful enough to be in a Family Law courtroom, even if you have a lawyer.
Being all on your own is so difficult. That, to me, the most disturbing was the fact there was a huge percentage of people who were self-represented. Fortunately, the court has done a lot to try to fix that. They've got self-help centers and volunteers who come in and will help assist in filling out forms. Thank goodness the LA County Law Library provides a lot of services in that regard but even so, it is an eye-opener for me of the number of people who don't have help. It makes a huge difference obviously to the results of cases, particularly if one side is represented and the other one is not.
In Family Law, it seems like there are a lot of opportunities to come to court over various things. There are continuing disputes or changes in family circumstances or whatnot. It isn't like you are going in once. It's a regular time and very hard if you're doing it yourself. It's hard to be your own advocate anyway. When you are not a lawyer, it's a whole other thing.
I also think that sometimes people who apply to the bench or say, "I would love to be a trial judge. I would love to be a judge in this particular area, a Family Law judge or a Criminal Law judge." I'm like, "You can have many different roles. If you are appointed, you will become a trial judge, a Superior Court judge. Over that time, there could be so many different assignments. You have many different areas." If there's only one area you want to be a judge in, that's not how it works.
On the other hand, having the different subject matters, different parts of the court you are involved in, to me, it's being in the bar association, where you see the different parts of what that means to be in that court system and to see maybe different things that you could do better in terms of access but also a full understanding of all of the disputes that are being resolved in the Superior Court of which there are a lot and a wide variety. It keeps you engaged because you have to move up fast, "I'm a Civil Lawyer. I have never done Family Law. I've got a ramp up and learn that." If you move to another area, it's the same thing but it keeps you sharp.
It keeps you young. It was a constant learning curve. I think that it's important that judges have a variety of experiences. I went from Family Law to Criminal to Civil. I went back to Criminal for a little bit and back to Civil and ultimately then into the administration of the court.
In that role, because that was the part you had seen prior to joining the bench too that must have been gratifying to be able to do that from the judicial position.
It was indeed. I enjoyed my supervisory positions very much. The Supervising Judge of the civil departments first before deciding to move on to Assistant Presiding Judge and then Presiding Judge.
Those are positions that the judges themselves agree with, "Yes, this is the person we want to be our assistant and then the presiding judge." It's nice you recognition by your fellow judges, too, in terms of, “This is a good leader for us administratively.”
It certainly is nice. We had been a court around only for about 130 years or so and never had a woman. When the vote comes from all the judges for whatever reason, there had not been one before. I was the first woman Presiding Judge in the years 2011 and 2012.
That is truly remarkable. I hadn't realized that. Late in the process, but that had not been the case. I would have thought there were to be at least one before you.
You know how it is. It's one of those things where one person has to get there, and the flood gates are open. I was the Presiding Judge from ‘11 to ‘12, and Carolyn Kuhl came behind me by a couple of years. We are almost about to have our third woman Presiding Judge in Samantha Jessner. It's all very good news. It was one of those things that took some time.
You were a great role model in that regard, so everybody is happy to have very capable women follow you. Judge Kuhl is amazing. I admire her as well.
It was a test of leadership, however. What you do is you go from being an assistant presiding judge to presiding judge. It's basically a 4-year term, 2 years as an assistant and 2 years as presiding. I was elected as an Assistant Presiding Judge going into that leadership ladder in September of 2008. If you remember, in October of 2008, everything crashed, the market and the economy crashed, and the Superior Court went into a tailspin.
It's very important to be as prepared as you can. If you get something you don't expect and don't have the answer to, be honest and confess that you don't know the answer.
I spent my next four years figuring out how we were going to deal with losing 30% of our budget, laying off employees, and dealing with a lot of crises on the bench. Thank goodness the judges stepped up in such a big way. They were incredibly supportive and understanding of the very difficult circumstances that we were in. It was a pretty tough time. We were closing courtrooms and closing houses. It was one of those challenges of leadership that you are grateful for afterward. It was a challenging time.
It seems like in times like that, when there are challenges, you hope you are the right leader for that moment and that particular challenge. When you do get elected to those positions, especially in the longer term, you have no idea what particular challenges or opportunities you are going to face in that timeframe. You hope that you are a good match for those when it comes up.
There's no way anybody could have predicted that.
I can think even of my friends who were bar presidents during the last couple of years with COVID, and they are like, "We didn't see this coming," but you work with it. That's why you were put in that leadership position as somebody thought you could probably handle whatever might come. That's good as well.
It's good that you had that broad experience in the subject matter area, as well as in the presiding judge category, given now that you are reviewing a range of decisions at the trial court level and are now Presiding Justice in your division and the Court of Appeal too. Maybe you decided after that, you are like, "That's it. I've done my best. I'm going to go to another court. I've given my best to the Superior Court." Did you decide you wanted a new challenge or is it seemed like a good time to go to the Court of Appeal from the Superior Court bench?
It's interesting. What I did was right after my year ended as Presiding Judge, I went to the complex departments, which I loved. That was a wonderfully challenging and interesting assignment. Along the way, I got a call from a force of nature named Joan Dempsey Klein. She said, "We want you over here." I talked to the leadership of the court, and they said, "Okay, stay a year, and then you can go over there and pro tem with them."
I went and pro tem in Division 4. I was so grateful to have the opportunity to pro tem because I did have some questions about whether I would like the Court of Appeal. I love the trial court, the lawyers, and the interaction I have every day with lawyers. It was getting challenging work, and I wasn't all that sure that I was interested in the Court of Appeals. I pro tem with Division Four, which at that time Norman Epstein was the Presiding Justice.
They had a vacancy. I came in, took that vacancy, and sat with them through August of that year. The appointments came through, and I found out that I was appointed not to the Division 4 vacancy that was there but to the Division 3 vacancy that would come open when Joan Dempsey Klein agreed to step down. Joan was the Presiding Justice, and they asked me to step in being the presiding justice when Joan retired.
I went over for the balance of the year to Division 3 and worked with them until Joan retired in January of 2015. All I can say is talk about a mentor. Joan Dempsey Klein, I am sure she called me, the governor, and everybody else you could think of to call, to say, "We want her here." I was the beneficiary of that. She was absolutely a lovely human being. The only reason she had decided to retire was that she was age 90 and up for election. She was asking the people to elect her to age 102. She felt that she could not do that. She said, "I want you over here." She was such a lovely person and a strong force. She was very nice to me.
For women lawyers and women judges in Los Angeles, Southern California, she is everything, an icon for all of us. To have her be the one to suggest that you might consider that and ultimately be in her chair after that is almost too much to believe.
It has been such a blessing. She had a good group that brought together. I have enjoyed every minute of sitting in that seat. That's a long way of saying I did find out that I loved the Court of Appeal. I was concerned about some isolation.
That's often the concern because you are in the fray when you are in the trial court and see people regularly. The second difference that people are concerned about is, "I get to make the decisions. It's my decision." Whereas there's a lot more collective decision-making, there are at least 3 or 2 of you who need to agree on a particular outcome in a case. Some people find that hard.
On the first issue, in terms of isolation, I have not felt that at all since I have been in the Court of Appeal. On the Superior Court, you are making all the decisions all by yourself. You don't have time to talk to your colleagues in great detail to dig down deep into the issues in a case, nor do you have time to spend a week on it yourself. You've got to make a decision and move on. We've got the blessing over in the Court of Appeal of having time to think about things and have a lot of contacts. I was worried about not contacting lawyers. I have three research attorneys who are brilliant, and the opportunity to work and talk with them every day about the issues in a case.
For me, it has been lovely. On the second issue that you raise, I, fortunately, have wonderful colleagues. We are in a division where we can sit and talk through issues. It used to be better pre-COVID where we could sit down and do it live but we have lots of conversations over Zoom and some live still. We had a Zoom conference call about a difficult issue that is coming up in a lot of different cases that we have. We had on the Zoom screen. I couldn't even see it in my mind's eye. The three justices were down one justice. We've got a vacancy but the three justices and all the research attorneys. There are twelve people on screen talking through various cases. For me, it's heaven. It is very enjoyable.
I certainly enjoy that part, especially about appellate practice. I know there are some appellate practitioners who are solo and enjoy doing them themselves but I always feel like having that debate on the give and take with a small crew or group makes everything rise to a different level. You see different things that you wouldn't see if you were doing it yourself. I like that give and take. To me, I'm like, "That sounds great." It's good to engage everyone, especially on the issues that you continued to see across various pieces. It's good to be proactive in discussing those.
You have so much experience bringing stakeholders together and working with different people and interests that it's almost like you are able to bring the leadership from the bar associations into the role that you have in being a Presiding Judge or Presiding Justice. You bring that to the internal debates on cases that you have with your colleagues as well. You might be in a different position and transitioning from a trial judge to a Court of Appeal than others might be who weren’t as involved as you were in those consensus-building activities.
I agree with you that it's important that consensus building is an issue. It's interesting. We had an Appellate Justice Institute where a member of the Supreme Court was talking to us about the whole consensus-building process. The Supreme Court is very good at that. They have a lot of unanimous opinions and value the importance of working through to a consensus if you can.
Obviously, there are cases in which dissent is important. If you can, you need to have trust and confidence in the Rule of Law as it comes out to have unanimous opinions when you can, it's a good idea. Maybe I brought some skills to the table but I'm very fortunate that I have colleagues that are very good at that, too. It's a very pleasant process in Division 3.
The other thing is, as you pointed out in terms of the appointments, in Los Angeles, where there are so many different divisions that operate autonomously within the division itself, the overall district that you don't know which one you will be appointed to or a small group you are going to be working with on a regular basis. You have to be nimble in that regard too. It's nice when it turns out that everybody naturally works well together.
The good thing is because of the vacancy that we have, and we are having pro tems. We have a number of Superior Court judges come to sit with us. They get the benefit of working with us. We get the benefit of working with them. Maybe it gives you a leg up in terms of knowing the kinds of people that you would be working with.
It's important to be very direct and responsive to what the justices ask.
It was with your division, Judge Neil, down here from Orange County, sat with you.
She's terrific.
She and I know each other from the Orange County Bar Association. We were campaigning together for the bar board months before she was appointed to the bench. We have a lot of in the trenches, fun campaigning experience with each other, and she's a lovely person. I'm so glad that you were able to experience her.
We enjoyed our time with her.
She's a great lady. What advice do you have for advocates who might appear in front of the Court of Appeal, whether it's the oral argument or brief writing? Are there particular things you would recommend that people do to make your job as appellate justices easier?
On the brief writing, first of all, as you know, that's so important on the Court of Appeal. The way we operate, we typically have a draft opinion going in. That first impression that you have made with the brief is going to be incredibly significant in the way the case comes out. A few tips, being brief in your brief writing is always a good idea. As a presiding justice, I get all the motions before the case is heard, and many motions come in asking for expanded words and give us some more space. It's hard to cut down a brief but it's very valuable to do that, by cutting it down and taking the time it takes to focus your arguments.
It becomes a much more powerful tool at the end of the day. Being succinct and brief is a good idea. Being very focused on letting us know right out of the gate what it is that you want the court to do is important. Sometimes, it's pretty unclear exactly what the brief writer wants us to do. It's very helpful if it comes right out of the box and advises the justice on what they want. I start with the table of contents to figure out what this case is going to be about, and reading through that and if it can tell a story is very helpful. Those are a few thoughts that I have about the brief, but I can't overstate the importance of the briefs, particularly in light of the way that we approach the cases.
That's 100% true and even more important for your court in terms of how you proceed. I remember clerking for a district judge, and there would be times, while the papers might not be the strongest but the trial lawyer would come in and make a great cogent argument and be like, "I see what you are talking about." There might not be total clarity and alignment between the briefing and the argument, but you could rescue that in the trial court but it's harder to do that in the Court of Appeal.
I can't say that you can't rescue it but it's going to be much harder than it otherwise would be. On the oral advocacy, the only things I can say is, first and foremost, to be totally prepared, know your case backward and forwards, and know it better than the justices do. I tell everybody before each oral argument, “Read the briefs and look at the record.” We may have specific questions, and hopefully, you will know the answers to those questions. This is important. If you don't, you ought to say it. You can't fake your way through this. Don't make something up.
If you don't know, ask us for additional time, and you would be happy to brief something if the justices think that's important. It's very important to be as prepared as you can. If you get something you don't expect and don't have the answer to, be honest and confess that you don't know the answer. It's important to be very direct and responsive to what the justices ask. You shouldn't be afraid of questions. Sometimes they are softballs and friendly questions. Sometimes they are serious questions but regardless, you need to answer directly and respond to the question that's asked.
The final tip that I have is, if there's something new that you have discovered, either because a case has come down or you were preparing at the last minute and found this nugget that you didn't have the time, be sure and tell the other side about it before you come in and tell us. It comes off as being very unfair to us if you haven't let the other side know in advance that you are going to spring this on them at the time of the oral argument.
The other side is like, "What case?" I didn't know you were going to talk about that, and they are not prepared to respond, and that doesn't seem fair. The questions are important. That’s what we are there for argument is to have a discussion about the case. It's the toughest thing when you are the advocate and there are no questions at all. You don't have any sense of what's important to the panel in terms of, “Can I clarify anything?” Questions, while they can be challenging, are also very welcomed.
In some cases, we have started giving tentative rulings and indicating how we are leaning. We try to make it clear to everybody that it is tentative. We can't change our minds but people seem to appreciate the fact that they had at least some direction and a way to focus their argument at the time of oral argument.
I knew several years ago, Division 8 had started that a little bit in terms of, "Here's what we are thinking or here's the area we would like you to focus on. In a very rough way, here’s where we think we are going or might be going but tell us if we are missing something." The more input, as far as I'm concerned, on our side, the better because we can be more responsive. We go, "You are concerned about that?"
Sometimes, it can happen during an argument, saying something a little bit differently or putting together different parts of the record to talk about the story. Both you, as the advocate, can be surprised when you are preparing for an argument. You would think, "I know this all up and down,” but then you are like, "There's another way of looking at this." That would be relevant or helpful to the court. It's nice to be able to provide that other perspective.
The clarification that you can provide in an oral argument is so important. I quite frankly would advise anybody that I talk to not to waive oral argument. Oral argument is so important. Maybe it's not going to change every case but it sure clarifies things. There are some cases where we say, "We need to wait and hear an oral argument on this issue."
Thank you so much for sharing the tips from your perspective at this point in terms of advocacy. People always benefit from having those. What advice would you give to newer lawyers or lawyers who are considering that maybe someday they might want to be a judge or want to be either on the trial court or the Court of Appeal?
There would be a few things. First of all, every governor in memory has wanted to see the community work of some kind. Keeping that in mind, you made this point earlier, start as early as you can in your career, doing something to get out in the community and show that you are giving back. It will be something that you would be able to put on your application when you get down the road.
The second thing to remember is every person you come in contact with will probably get a Jenny evaluation form for you. At every turn, this is advice for everybody, whether you are going to apply or not. Regardless, you ought to be civil, professional, and respectful in absolutely everything you do because somebody may have a chance to put something on a form about your performance going forward.
If you have been kind and generous with people, that's going to stand out. They are going to remember that, and that's what you want at every stage of your career. The third thing is it's always helpful to have a mentor. If you've got a mentor on the bench who you know and can talk to about these things, that's very helpful. Mentors don't even have to be on the bench. They can be mentors of any kind that you can talk to about the whole process.
Anybody from across the state can apply in the First District and get justice from anywhere and still get a mentor. It's a perfect time to use that system.
Mentors, in particular, who are on the bench are people who have gone through the process. They may be able to provide helpful advice. The timing of this is particularly good in light of the new California Judicial Mentor Project. The California Judicial Mentor Project started at the LA Superior Court trial court level. It is now spread all across the state of California.
All you have to do is apply, say that you would like to have a mentor, and the court will assign a mentor to you, a mentor judge, to talk to you about the whole process and walk you through any questions that you might have about the process in general. That program has now expanded to the Court of Appeal. We now have the California Judicial Mentor Program (Appellate). It started as a pilot project in the First District Court of Appeal but they are assigning justices across the state for those people who apply.
Anybody from across the state can apply in the First District and get justice from anywhere and still get a mentor. It's a perfect time to use that system. It's something that was a joint project or has become a joint project of both the executive branch. Luis Cespedes, who is the appointment secretary, is all in favor of it, as well as the Governor's Office as well as the Judicial Branch.
I'm on the executive committee. Martin Jenkins is on the executive committee, and Teri Jackson is from the First District. It's something that we are going to take to the Court of Appeal as well. It's something that everybody should take advantage of if they are interested in joining the bench, either at the trial court or appellate level.
That's a great recommendation. I didn't realize you were so involved in that. It doesn't surprise me but it's great because that is helpful. There are people who, in an informal way, have those networks to help people discern whether they do want to join the bench and help through that process. I know I have been the recipient of some of that assistance in the past, and it's helpful.
It's doing a moot court before an appellate argument, so nice to have that. At least you are familiar with the process and the kinds of questions that can be asked so that it's not quite brand new when you're going through the process itself. It's great. I didn't realize that I had assumed that the First District program was limited geographically and would spread out but that's good.
Basically, you can get somebody as a mentor from anywhere in the state, so it's very good.
In my way, I hoped that the show would serve that role for people who might be interested in getting little tidbits from you and others who were on the show in terms of your stories and seeing that it's possible. Sometimes people will discount themselves or say, "I don't have the background that's necessary or that somebody would like to see to be on the bench." There are plenty of people with very varied backgrounds. It's useful to see that.
Let me respond in a couple of ways. First of all, you are absolutely right. The show does exactly that. I do appreciate that you are doing this. It's such important work. I do think that's going to be of great value to people who have an opportunity to read how people who never dreamed they were going to be on the trial court or the Court of Appeal, you can get there. Second, your point about a diverse background is why this project was started.
The goal is to expand the applicant pool by letting folks who might otherwise not have applied might think that, “It’s not for me or I would never be chosen because I don't have political connections or whatever else.” That's the point of this project to get a mentor, have them talk to you, and let you know that you don't have to be a particular person that we are looking for very diverse candidates literally from all areas of practice, all different backgrounds. It's a good project.
I'm so glad to know you are involved with it. I wanted to close up with a few lightning-round questions if you are willing to go with it. Which talent would you most like to have but don't?
If I could wake up with a talent tomorrow that I don't have, it would be to play the piano well. I have colleagues like Justice Arthur Gilbert, who you know plays the piano in a group and does a wonderful job. I have always been jealous of that. I played the piano as a kid but didn't follow up with it. I'm sorry that I didn't, maybe in my next career.
You can go back and revisit that later. Who are your favorite writers? It doesn't have to be legal writers.
I spend so much time reading cases, briefs, and opinions. When I'm going to read for pleasure, it's very often something not very weighty. I love a well-written mystery. I love people like Louise Penny, Elizabeth George, Kristin Hannah, Tana French, and Michael Connelly. Those are the things that I like to read in my downtime.
I was on an Appellate Judges Conference panel on storytelling, and one of the Justices from Illinois, David Ellis, is a writer who writes legal thrillers and mysteries and things like that. It's pretty amazing that he's able to do that while also on the bench.
I'm going to make a note of that and watch for that. I was on the phone with Margaret McKeown, who is a Ninth Circuit Judge. She is also an author and has finished a book. We should watch for that as well.
That's wonderful. I didn't realize that. I will be talking with her on the show soon. She's someone else I admire. That's neat to know that.
It's perfect timing. It's on Douglas. Apparently, it's about to be issued, so stay tuned.
Who is your hero in real life?
I have so many heroes. If I can very quickly tell you three. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. She came in to become the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, and had not been on the Supreme Court before, came in as Chief Justice literally on the same day that I became the Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court. Based on what we have talked about before was the worst time economically for the courts. The budgets were slashed, and she had to deal with the issues that we were dealing with in LA. She had to deal with that statewide.
You ought to be civil, professional, and respectful in absolutely everything you do because somebody may have a chance to put something on a form about your performance going forward.
Several years later, she's still the Chief Justice. She has now gone through two years of a pandemic and had to deal with how to deal with the courts on that issue. In my view, she has done a remarkable job leading the courts and somehow has, in the process of it, kept the courts together and created a bond with the legislature, which is all remarkable feats. That's number one.
Number two is Shirley Hufstedler, who has always been somebody that I had been so amazed about. In 1962, she was appointed to the LA Superior Court. There were 120 judges in the LA Superior Court at the time. It was surely at 119 men, a remarkable time. Two years later, she went to the California Court of Appeal. Two years later, she's appointed to the Ninth Circuit. She was the only woman judge at that time on the Ninth Circuit. Ultimately, she's pulled away from the Ninth Circuit to go create the Department of Education.
She's the first Secretary of the Department of Education literally creating it out of whole cloth. She hires 900 people to do it. She's such a remarkable woman. We lost her in the last few years. I had the joy of doing her oral history. Over a period of literally three years, I would go on a Saturday to her house, sit and talk about her history and it was a joy.
The third, I will very quickly say, is my mom. My father was an architect. When he retired, their plan was to travel. Unfortunately, he became sick and passed away rather suddenly. Her entire life was all about service, and she has always told her kids that's what life is all about. She hit the road and went, served out and worked with missionary folks, took care of their kids, and taught schools in Albania, the Philippines, and for more than ten years in Thailand. This was all at the age of 70 plus. She's an absolutely remarkable person and taught her kids what's important in life. Those are my heroes.
Your description of them makes complete sense of why each of them would be, and the chief justice has been tremendous. It's so important to have a good relationship with the legislature for the courts to make sure that you have the funding and the support that's necessary to continue to enhance access to justice in the states. She does a great job in that regard. It's such a good thing to learn about the story about your mom because sometimes people think, "No, it's too late to do whatever it is you want to do." That story says it's not.
It's not according to my mother.
She's inspirational in that regard, maybe for some people but not for her. Instilling that sense of service from an early age that I share with my parents it's nice to have had that growing up. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to dinner for a dinner party?
I may be a product of this moment in time but it would be Ketanji Brown Jackson. I was so impressed with her in the hearings. She is so accomplished but, at the same time, so humble, empathetic, and kind. I was so impressed with her and her background. I would love to sit down for dinner with her.
She is a neat person and a great conversationalist, and all of that too. It would be fun and interesting now, given how far she's come. We both became members of ALI the same year. We are at a dinner party at the beginning of that. That was my first meeting with her.
Have you had dinner with her?
Yes. I had dinner with her. She's lovely but long ago when we were starting out in ALI.
Maybe at some future ALI meeting, I will have that opportunity.
Maybe we can arrange a dinner is what I'm saying. We could possibly do that. That would be cool. Last question, what is your motto, if you have one?
It would be a couple. One is always to be kind. That's a lifelong motto that if you can follow, and it's not always easy but if you can, it pays off at the end of the day. It's always to be kind. The other is I always ask myself, "How can I contribute? How can I help in some way? If I've gotten a new project that's come my way, what can I do to help and contribute to making this better?”
Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me. On behalf of those readers and our next generation of lawyers and judges, thank you so much, Justice Edmon.
It has been my honor. Thank you.