Episode 45: Joan K. Irion
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
00:34:54
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Justice Joan K. Irion of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, shares how her seemingly unconventional background and experience in tax law led to her appointment to the bench. Justice Irion emphasizes the value of having mentors and sponsors to ask for guidance from as you figure out your niche in the profession. Tune in as she shares practical tips you can use in court and more advice on building a career in law.
Joan K. Irion
Justice Joan K. Irion was appointed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, in September 2003. She was found to be exceptionally well-qualified for the position of Associate Justice by the California State Bar Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission and was unanimously confirmed at a public hearing of the Commission on Judicial Appointments. Before appointment to the Court of Appeal, Justice Irion served as a San Diego County Superior Court Judge.
Justice Irion devotes substantial time to the improvement of the courts, better access for self-represented individuals within the California Court system, judicial education and community and youth civics education. She is a frequent lecturer at judicial education courses and continuing education classes for the appellate bar. She has appeared on several education panels for the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers. Justice Irion was instrumental in designing and implementing the high school education program for the December 2004 and September 2016 San Diego Special Sessions of the California Supreme Court.
Justice Irion received her undergraduate degree, with high honors, from the University of California Davis in 1974. Two years later,she earned her master's degree in the field of public administration, with highest honors, from San Diego State University. In 1979, she received her law degree from the University of California Davis, King Hall School of Law. From 1978-1979, she served as Managing Editor of its Law Review.
After law school, Justice Irion entered private practice as a civil litigator, where she remained for more than 20 years until her appointment to the Superior Court of San Diego County. She specialized in representing taxpayers before state taxing agencies and in litigating tax and business matters in the federal and state trial and appellate courts. She was a shareholder in the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, and its managing shareholder in the San Diego office from 1998 until her judicial appointment.
Justice Irion is the Court of Appeal liaison for the Civil Appellate Self-Help Workshop, a joint project of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the San Diego County Bar Association's Appellate Practice Section, the Legal Aid Society of San Diego and the San Diego County Law Library. The monthly Workshop offers legal information, education and assistance to self-represented litigants in civil cases. Justice Irion appeared in an introductory explanatory video that is shown to all participants attending each Workshop and is available on YouTube@.
As a member of the National Association of Women Judges, Justice Irion conceptualized, developed and was the first chair of the organization's Informed Voters Fair Judges non-partisan education project designed to increase public awareness about the judicial system, to inform voters that politics and special interests have no place in the courts, and to give voters the tools they need to make sure judges are appointed and elected based on their character and abilities. The Project produced an Emmy-Award Winning Public Service Announcement, "Fair and Free," featuring United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Retired), which is available on YouTube@. Justice Irion accepted the Emmy Award on behalf of the National Association of Women Judges.
Justice Irion is married, has two married stepsons and a granddaughter. She has run several marathons and half marathons, likes to travel and pamper her dog and the local hummingbirds.
Transcript
I'm very excited to have join the show, Justice Joan Irion, from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, in San Diego, California. Welcome, Justice Irion.
Thank you, MC.
Thank you so much for joining us and being willing to talk about your journey to the bench and your career. I wanted to start first with how you got into law. How did you decide you wanted to go to law school? What interested you in that regard?
It was interesting in my case. As with many young individuals, men and women, your choices are influenced by your folks. My folks were both in medicine, which was not a career path for me. My father suggested that I might want to consider law. He said, “It's a job you can do part-time.” I remember going back to him and saying, “Daddy, if part-time is 80 hours a week, you can do it part-time.”
I was thinking, “That's a different perception.”
It was the perception at the time that you wanted to have a family and do something worthwhile and intellectually stimulating. You have to remember this was someone who was in the ‘50s. That was the advice that I got at the time.
I've always felt that it made a difference to me that my father was the man who it didn't matter. If it were a son or a daughter, he would say the same thing in terms of accomplishing your best. I realized that there could have been a different attitude, and I'm grateful that there wasn't.
They took one look at their eldest and said, “Not going in the medical field.”
Sometimes part of finding your path is knowing what your path is. It’s definitely not this, so looking elsewhere.
Family and mentors are people who could say, “Have you thought about it?” They can introduce you. I do recall that he introduced me to the lawyer at the company he was working for and took me out to dinner. They’re like, “What is the practice of law? What do you do with every day?” It's so important. You have different avenues to learn about jobs, such as your show. At that time, that wasn't as available.
You had to have parents or friends introduce you to individuals who would take the time and talk to you about “What is it that I do? What is it that I like about what I do? What is that I don't like about what I do? What are your options? If you're interested in this, let me introduce you to some other people. You can follow me and shadow me. I will help you.” We all had to have a little help.
I'm certainly always willing to do that when some family friend or somebody says, “We don't know any lawyer, but we know you. Can you talk to my son or daughter about what might be involved?” Even after they're in law school, if there are any tips. They’re starting their job. People are willing to help if you reach out.
If you reach out, people are willing to help. I have had children of friends of mine come into my chambers. They weren't sure what they wanted to do. They wanted to see and we’re more than happy to help.
It can be a little intimidating to think about asking that, but to know that people are usually happy to help. That's a good point too. We don't have lawyers in the family. Law practice is very different from what lawyers do, but at least talking to someone about one aspect of the law and what they're doing in it can help you figure out if that's something that would be a good fit for you.
Not being afraid to reach out to someone and say, “I'm interested. Can you give me some tips about what I do to learn a little bit more about it?” Nine times out of ten, they'll say, “Why don't you come down and spend a day with me? Why don't you come in down and watch a hearing? Why don't you come down and let's have lunch?”
You can contact people who are lawyers. If you have your alumni association, whether it's a high school, college, whatever it is, and say, “I see that you're a lawyer. I'm thinking about that. Would you mind spending a few minutes on the phone?” The worst that you'll get is, “I don't have time right now, but why don't we set a time, and we'll talk?”
People are generous and gracious in that regard. One of the better stories I have from something like that is someone who's a good friend of mine now and is now a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. When she moved from law school in Washington State to Orange County and didn't know anybody, she looked around. She looked for women lawyers in Orange County working on women's issues and things she was passionate about. This was pre-email.
She sent us snail mail letters asking us to meet with her or to have coffee. She said, “Two people responded to those letters.” It was another former bar president of the Orange County Bar Association and me. She ended up working with that woman. She and I became friends and have worked on cases together since, but that took a lot of guts to say, “Here are some like-minded people. We might get along.” The people would be willing to respond to that cold call letter thing. I certainly appreciated the confidence in doing that and her taking the time to figure out we're like-minded in that regard. We're interested in advocating for women and girls. We might have something in common in that regard.
You have to get up your gumption, write snail mail letters, and pick up the telephone, but most women would be willing to help.
That's been my experience too. You ended up deciding you looked pretty good after these meetings, and you went to law school. How did you decide what law to practice after law school?
Sometimes things happen. I got my first job with a large insurance defense firm in San Francisco and was trying tort cases. I moved into doing a little more business litigation with them. I was pretty active in the state and local bar associations, which I would strongly advise.
I do too. It's wonderful to meet people and get out of your particular office zone, meeting people with all different practices in your area. It's nice.
You have the Young Lawyers of the American Bar Association, usually young lawyer divisions of the bar associations. It was through the bar associations that I met my mentor, Joanne Garvey. She said she had some big cases and needed a litigator to work with her. I moved over and did state and local tax litigation, which I took in my tax class in law school. I was sure I was going to mess up. It wasn't a field that I was particularly drawn to, but she said, “I'll teach you.”
If I can litigate about pencils, I can litigate state and local facts. I developed an expertise in litigation for regulatory agencies, trial courts, and appellate courts doing state and local tax cases. Ultimately, I ended up in the United States Supreme Court with a tax case with my mentor some ten years later. That was my path. It was certainly unconventional. I remember when I was first a judge and had been a criminal assignment.
They said, “Judge, it's the tidy defense,” and trying not to look absolutely dumb, “Counsel, approach the bench, please.” I leaned over and said, “The tidy defense?” They said, “Judge, the other dude did it.” I said, “Got it.” There are many paths to the bench, and mine was all tort, commercial employment, and state and local tax. There's not just one path.
I would have had the same thing as tax law in law school. I wouldn't have thought that would be number one on my list or that I would be the best at it. Even if you had that experience, you're like, “I'm open to considering it.” In practice, maybe there's something different in terms of practice as opposed to the academic approach to things. There's a lot to be said for being open to opportunities like that.
You have to look for someone you want to be like and figure out why you would like to be like them.
Keeping an open mind. When doors open to you, don't say no. Say, “Maybe. Tell me a little bit more.” You could ultimately decide no, but for me, it took me places I never thought I would go. It has an open mind and someone else willing to help.
Part of what made you open-minded was that you had someone you liked and respected who offered that. You say, “I know I would like to work with that person. Let me consider the subject matter.” Mentors and sponsors in a career at various junctures are important.
The men have had mentors and sponsors forever. There weren't a lot of women there. If you were hoping to get a woman mentor, there weren’t a lot of them at the time. My mentor was eighteen years older than I was, which is another generation, so I learned so much from her. Mentors and sponsors are very important. You need to seek them out.
You need to be able to say, “Who is it that I would like to be like? Who is it that I would like to emulate? Why is that?” and seek them out. I remember that I asked Joanne Garvey, “Will you be my mentor? I still respect you. I'd like to be like you.” She was a little taken aback and said, “Of course,” and the whole course of my career changed.
That's true, being vulnerable enough to say that, ask that and be upfront about that, both vulnerable and willing to take a risk in that regard.
She could have said, “Are you kidding?” You have to look for someone you want to be like and figure out why you would like to be like that lawyer. You can approach that lawyer and develop a relationship. You don't come up out of the blue and say, “By the way, can you be my mentor?” It would not be the opening line. You can talk about cases and how they feel. There is an informal relationship that develops. You have to be vulnerable to it, but in the process of trying to find your mentor, you will get an awful lot.
A lot of information and good things come from that process. You're open to learning and soaking things up from people.
People like to tell you, “Here's what I did right. Don't ever do what I did because that was an unmitigated disaster.” Most of us will tell you about unmitigated disasters, and we've all got them. If you can avoid an unmitigated disaster by going to someone who's got more experience, who said, “Here's how I handle it. Here's what I would do.” The question is, what would you do now, knowing what you know? Maybe you can avoid a mistake.
What would you say to that question?
It depends on the mistake. If you could say this was the situation, what would I do? Sometimes there's nothing you can do when you think about that and sometimes you can.
That's a good thing in general. This is a small microcosm, but every time, for example, I have an oral argument and appellate argument, no matter how painful it might be, I always go listen to it or watch it or whatever recording and see what I can learn from that. There are some things you get when you're doing it. Other times you're in it, and you don't see the whole 360-degree view of what was going on. You can either see like, “That was a friendly question inboard, and I read that wrong. I should've taken a different approach.”
Everything from how fast you're talking, to your demeanor, all different things that if you could disassociate a little bit from that emotional part of it and say, “I'm going to be objective and look at the performance and what could I do better?” That's the only way to improve. That's the same way with anything. It can be hard, but you have to go back and say, “What did I learn from that?” Making new mistakes, like different mistakes, that's fine, but not the same one over and over. It's good to have self-awareness and be that constant evolution. You want to grow.
Essentially asking yourself, “If I had it to do over again, what would I do differently?”
It can be hard to be objective enough to do that and force yourself to do that. You have to do that self-evaluation as well. It’s helpful. You want to be learning and getting better. Sometimes it's with the help of others, and other times it is doing it for yourself. I didn't realize you went to the US Supreme Court with a tax case.
We ultimately lost. The Solicitor General's office for five previous administrations had supported the taxpayer. There was a shift in administrations, and the Solicitor General decided it was the dormant commerce clause. When the case came back down, we were ultimately able to get a good result for the client through the work that we'd done on that case. It was exciting. I didn't argue the case. I was the second chair.
It's so amazing to be there and have a case in the US Supreme Court and be in the courtroom for the argument.
I had started with it. That was the case that she needed help with when she brought me over. You never know what experiences you're going to get.
How did you decide then that you wanted to become a judge?
I always had it in the back of my mind. I have a little judge mouse, which was interesting. I kept it at my desk. Wouldn't it be interesting? I was in practice for some 25 years before ever deciding that the time was right to go ahead, to apply to be a judge if I was going to be a judge. I was like, “Wouldn't it be interesting? I've been a lawyer in a large firm, a managing partner.” I have done the things that I had wanted to do. It was a good time if I wanted to try to make a switch. There is no guarantee.
As I said, I never tried a criminal case. I thought, “That would disqualify me.” It was not. You don't get too many tax cases going through the courts. I'm not sure that will be a plus. It turned out that it was. I figured it was now or never. After 25-plus years in practice, I submitted my application and jumped off the deep end to see whether it worked. Sometimes, it will. Sometimes, it doesn't.
A lot of people go through that. I also think some of the views of what certain governors are looking for in appointments can change over time. Even in my practice time, 15, 20 years ago, I can think like, “You apply at this part of your career.” It's like the cherry on top of your career. It's much later, but in fact, that's changed. That's moved. Younger lawyers are applying for and obtaining judicial positions.
The common view is that being a district attorney or having lots of trials and the criminal experience was important, but it's not the only way you've indicated. It's important for people to recognize that and not take themselves out of having that option or going for it because they don't think they have the quintessential background that they thought even several years ago was what they see the pattern of those joining the benches.
There are several ways. The courts handle a lot of different kinds of cases. There was a lot of commercial and civil litigation. I assume that's what appealed to the governor when I was appointed. I told you the story about handling a criminal case and what the tidy defense was and having no idea.
I've noticed they definitely use a lot of lingos. Not everyone knows the shorthand.
I used a lot of lingo in tax too.
Everybody knows, but you're like, “Can I get included in the lingo for this particular thing?”
Don't take yourself out of the running if it's something you want to do.
Don't take yourself out of the running if it's something you want to do, whether going to law school or a particular path in law, or ultimately going to the group, but don't sit there and say, “They wouldn't want me.” You don’t know that.
Tina Byrd, who's on the Los Angeles Superior Court, and I were at Irell & Manella together. I always looked up to her too. She was an amazing lawyer. She had so much experience dealing with complex financial experts in documents and doing some criminal work at the US Attorney's Office. She said that knowledge has been helpful as a family law judge, which is dealing with a lot of technical accounting things. She loves it and never would have thought that her skills and experience in that regard would translate to the family law bench. If somebody had asked her, she wouldn't have thought that's where she would be, but it's great.
It helped me. Once I was appointed, I was on the family law bench for about two years. I can divide the assets between a divorcing couple down to the half-penny. It was the result of having the tax and financial cases.
You never know. There isn't anything on that subject matter, not doing white-collar crime or something in the state Superior Court, but those skills are very helpful and translatable. You don't know what you'll end up liking. That's what I thought was so interesting about Tina. She's like, “I would never have thought I would like this, but it is the thing I like to do. It's so great to see when people find things that they love.” It’s very unexpected in different ways. What did you like about being on the trial court bench? Now you're on the Court of Appeal, but how was that being a trial court judge?
A large part of my experience as a trial court judge in family law, I did 6 or 8 months of criminal, which was interesting because I was like a duck, smooth on top and running underneath, trying to relearn the criminal law. I looked to other judges who had a lot more experience in criminal law in terms of helping me with that. I spent two years in family. One of the things that I've found in family, which was very interesting, is the number of self-represented individuals who didn't have the money to have high-priced lawyers.
In the world in which I had grown up at the time, everybody was lawyered up. Here are folks who needed something from the courts but couldn't afford a lawyer, and it was bringing home to me how the law is something that is so critical to so many people. I found that difficult but also very rewarding. Family law was there. I enjoyed that. Could I have seen myself spending the entire time in family law? I don't know when I had an opportunity to go to the Appellate Court because that was like going home.
Given your experience, you’re very comfortable with that.
I'm very comfortable with that, but even on the appellate bench, we have criminal appeals, civil appeals, and motion appeals. I know appellate law. That’s what I did for twenty-some odd years. There's always one pew over. There is something to learn. One of the things that I liked about the law is that there's always something to learn. There's always something that keeps you intellectually challenged and a little unsure of yourself. You have to be like that duck swimming smoothly on top of the surface of water and paddling like the devil underneath.
That’s what I love about appellate law as well. We're dealing with totally different subject matters as practitioners as well, from one day to the next, from one case to the next. We tend to follow where the law is developing. It depends on where those open questions are in terms of where our work goes. It keeps it interesting.
You're learning something new every day. That's one of the interesting things about law.
That's good timing in terms of there being an opening on the Court of Appeal as well for you to apply to. That can also be a challenge during one's career in terms of the timing for openings.
Somebody said, and I don't remember who it was, “Timing is everything.” To a certain extent, they were right. Stars have to line up. You have to get certain breaks. There can be many people who are qualified for different reasons. You have to be in the right place at the right time with the right experience. Having done the work ahead of time, out in your community, and active, so people knew you, you had to have been the best lawyer you could be. You had to have been nice to people all along.
When they go to do the interview, if you haven't been nice to someone, courteous and professional, it's going to come back and bite you. You wouldn't have done anyway, but those are all the things that you have to have done, lined up, and taken your shot. It might or might not work, but if it's something you've always thought you wanted to do, don't self-eliminate.
From your time on the Court of Appeal bench, I wonder if you have any advice for lawyers or advocates who have appeals in terms of brief writing or oral argument. What is most helpful to you and your colleagues?
You have to look at how decisions are made. A lot of times, advocates sing out of their own hymnal without realizing that from our standpoint, we have to make a decision that fits the law and the case. If you can put yourself in the other’s shoes and argue your case from their perspective, it's helpful. There was a lawyer from San Francisco Bar Association who used to say, “I can argue trust and antitrust,” which when you stop, you go, “Huh?”
In terms of being helpful to the decision-maker, you have to understand that, in my view, at least, judges are neutral decision-makers. They don't have a dog in the game. They don't have a client there. They have to come to the right decision under the law, given the facts. If you can look at a case neutrally and say, “If I were the decision-maker, what would I be interested in?” the other side is making this argument that's persuasive.
What is the answer to that? Why is it that that is right or that is wrong? First of all, you're helpful to your client because you can advise your client. Second of all, you're helpful to the bench because you will have thought through all the questions that the bench has got to answer at some point before issuing a decision.
In terms of preparing for an argument that one of the most important things I do is ask smart people who weren't on a regional team that wrote the brief to read all the briefs and come up with questions. What are your questions? Which things were important to you in the case? The more questions from the more angles you have, the more holistically you can view the case. You can see, “I hadn't looked at it from that way.”
Even the same way, I try to be as objective as possible in reading all the briefs again and say, “What does every question I have at each point I'm like writing in the margins on all briefs? Where are the questions? Where are the gaps? Do I have questions about certain cases?” Try to be as tough on your side as you are on the other side and be able to explore those because the court needs to explore those. The court is thinking about the case, but the law as well and where everything fits in. As for law being applied well, not only for your case but for others, does it make sense in other settings as well?
You've got to come to a measured decision under the appropriate rubric of the law. That's got to make sense not only in your case but in the whole area of law as well.
Have that perspective because if you come in totally with one side, you have blinders on the rest of it, which doesn't serve your client well.
If your client's position is nonsensical, you've got to be able to tell your client that, or they're going to come back and say, “What do you mean? Why didn't you tell me?” It's important to have that perspective not only to be helpful to the court but also to be able to advise your client as to the strengths and merits of the case.
If you're an appellate lawyer working with the trial lawyer, you're supposed to help them understand, “We're in a different court. Different things matter at this juncture.”
It’s not a do-over.
The record is what the record is. We're working with that.
Those are very helpful from the court's standpoint but also from a client’s.
If you can put yourself in the shoes of the decision-maker, you'll make better arguments.
That's a good perspective both for brief writing and oral argument. You're in your presentation of argument and when you're writing your briefs, to begin with, thinking. Obviously, you want to advocate from one perspective. You want to put it in a larger context of the law because that's the context in which the court is going to have to decide things.
If you can put yourself in the shoes of the decision-maker, you'll make better arguments.
That's why I asked being helpful because that's the question you're trying to be helpful to the court. What does that look like? Thank you so much for joining the show, Justice Irion. I appreciate your stories and advice. It’s been great. Before we wrap up, I wanted to ask a couple of lightning-round questions. What talent would you most like to have but don't?
I would love to have clairvoyance. I don't, so I have to rely on counsel and do my own independent research, but it would be nice.
That has to be an entirely unique answer to that question I’ve yet had in an interview. That's so funny. The first question that came to my mind when he said clairvoyance, I thought to myself, “Clairvoyance? Why not like clairsentience or some other clair? That's an interesting one.” For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
My family’s a real blessing for me and my opportunities, but that had been given to me. I’m very grateful for them.
Who is your hero in real life?
My husband. He puts up with an awful lot.
Have you been married a long time?
We’ve been married for many years.
That's an accomplishment on both sides. Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite as a dinner guest?
That's an interesting question because there are so many people that I'd like to find out about their journeys. One that I thought about would be Barack and Michelle Obama. They certainly embraced a new path and did so much good for the country, but it wasn't easy. I'm sure they have some tales to tell.
Both of them have their own individual tales to tell in that regard. That would be pretty interesting also. Last question, what is your motto, if you have one?
Just keep on trucking. Things get a little tough sometimes. You’ve got to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
One way is persistence, but I like the visual on that one. Sometimes, all you can do is keep moving and stay in it.
Stay grounded and keep moving forward. Thank you so much for having me, MC.
Thank you, Justice Irion. I appreciate it. It was very enjoyable. I appreciate your joining the show.
Thank you so much.