Episode 8: Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief Judge of the Southern District of Texas
00:49:54Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Lee H. Rosenthal is the Chief Judge of The Southern District of Texas. She discusses her distinguished career, special relationship with her law clerks, and role leading the Federal Rules Committee. She also provides tips for newer lawyers to grow and excel in their careers.
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal has been chief judge of the Southern District since November 2016. The Fifth Circuit judges selected her as their District Judge representative on the Judicial Conference of the United States for a 3-year term beginning October 2016. Judge Rosenthal was appointed a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in 1992.
Before then, she was a partner at Baker & Botts in Houston, Texas, where she tried civil cases and handled appeals in the state and federal courts. She received her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Chicago and served as law clerk to Chief Judge John R. Brown, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In addition to serving as a district court judge for over 22 years, Judge Rosenthal has been invited to sit by designation with courts of appeals around the country, including the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Rosenthal as a member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules in 1996.
She served as chair of the Class Actions subcommittee during the development of the 2003 amendments to Rule 23. Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Rosenthal chair of the Civil Rules Committee in 2003. In 2007, Chief Justice Roberts appointed Judge Rosenthal to chair the Judicial Conference Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which coordinates and oversees the work of the Advisory Committees for the Civil, Criminal, Evidence, Appellate, and Bankruptcy Rules. That appointment was extended through October 1, 2011. Judge Rosenthal is the 1st Vice President of The American Law Institute, where she also serves as an Adviser on the project to revise the Model Penal Code sections on sexual assault and on the Conflict of Laws Restatement.
She was an Adviser for the Employment Law project and the Aggregate Litigation project and was an Adviser for the Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure project. In 2007, she was elected to the ALI Council and from 2011 to 2016 was Chair of the Program Committee. Judge Rosenthal has taught, written, and lectured extensively, concentrating on topics in complex litigation and civil procedure, including class actions and electronic discovery.
She has taught Federal Courts at the University of Houston Law Center and lectured or taught recently at Yale, Duke, Cornell, Syracuse, Louisiana State University, and University of Texas law schools. She also teaches a summer class for state, federal, and international judges at Duke University School of Law. Judge Rosenthal served the allowable term on the Board of Trustees of Rice University in Houston, Texas from 2008 to 2016, chairing the Academic Affairs Committee. She currently serves on the Board of the Baylor College of Medicine, and is on the Duke University School of Law Board of Visitors. She has served as president of the District Judges’ Association of the Fifth Circuit.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to welcome Judge Lee Rosenthal from the district court in Texas. Welcome, Judge Rosenthal.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
You have played many roles in developing the law, both as a judge and in terms of your work with ALI and Rules Committees. I want to start first with how you decided to become a lawyer or became interested in entering the law.
As with a lot of people, it turned out that my childhood dream of becoming a great prima ballerina was going to be foiled by a total lack of talent. In college, I looked at alternatives and became very interested in Philosophy, particularly Philosophy of Law. I went to law school thinking I would become an academic perhaps. After my first year, when I spent the summer interning at a large law firm, I realized that I liked not merely the subject matter of law school. I liked law school, which not that many people did or do.
I also liked what I saw of the practice and went on to clerk for a judge after law school. The bug was a twin bug of backing into it through a different subject matter, the underlying philosophy and not having anything that looks better. Many people in the past defaulted in law school. I'd like much more what I see from my clerks, a path that has a gap between college and law school often and a considered choice. “I'm going to go to law school because I think that's the best thing for me.” It's much more thoughtful and much less lockstep than when I was going through it. That's a very good thing.
A lot of English majors and Political Science majors automatically went to law school.
It was science counterparts that went on to medical school.
I had somewhat of a similar sense about the law. Initially, I had the idea that I would be a poet or writer of some type. Rather than thinking whether I had talent or not, I didn't even get to that point. I had this image of poets. What do they do? They tend to starve in garrets. That doesn't seem like a very good thing. Maybe something else where you write and people are more willingly paying you for it. That's interesting. The philosophy at the law, your interest in that regard, has that impacted what you've done in practice and as a judge as well?
Not so much in practice. As a judge, even on the district bench, there is a greater opportunity, on occasion, to look at the larger moorings to think about the intellectual, jurisprudential, historical, institutional origins and evolution of the subject matter you're engaged with. Some cases lend themselves a whole lot more to that than others. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of it. On the district bench, it's busy and sometimes fast. The parties don't care. They want an answer to a particular question.
You can still love your job even after 30 years when you develop close relationships.
It's a balance between getting it right, which sometimes requires understanding the history and intellectual moorings. Sometimes does require that or doesn’t require that or justify it. As it shaped my views, it's made me more interested in the big picture, peripheral issues, things that cross subject lines that try to answer the permanent questions. How do people solve disputes, civilly and criminally?
How do people answer the twin demands of efficiency and justice? How do you control access to courts? How do you control what cases survive initial challenges? Who gets to demand the public resource of court time? Standing rules for jurisdiction? Stating claims? What kinds of motions are appropriate when answering those questions?
When you graduated and started in practice, was it private practice that you were in primarily?
I first went to clerk for a judge and then I went to private practice. Those days were a lot less mobile in terms of young lawyers. You went to a firm expecting you would stay at that firm, become a partner at that firm and live happily ever after at that firm. There was much less unpredictability and a greater sense that you were going to go here and this was going to be where you were going to be in five years or longer. People change very differently. I went to a large law firm and I did only trial work, but I did general trial work, both plaintiff and defense. I had a docket of small cases, so I could try them early on my own, automobile warranty cases, landlord-tenant disputes and very small contract claims.
I also was a member of a team on the mega cases and moved up the chain on those over time. I became a partner and some years into the partnership, not very many, then head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden. I introduced and passed the Biden Bill, the Civil Justice Reform Act, which not only required judges on the district court to publish every six months the list of motions that had been pending in their courts for six months or more but also added five new judgeships to the Southern District of Texas.
That gave enough vacancies so that one of them at least didn't have to be influenced by politics. I'm not being critical. It's always been influenced by politics, but I was not at all political. I was a partner at a big firm. I had four children, pregnant with two of them at the time. My oldest daughter has special needs. I didn't have time for politics. I had to rely on other sources of support and I was lucky to have them. Lightning did strike and I got one of those benches. Ironically, I was relatively safe because I wasn't from a political background.
That was right in 1992, a presidential election year. They shut it down right after I got through. I leapfrogged over others who had been waiting longer because I was inoffensive to both sides largely. I did draw some political opposition, but it was from a group that was not the group in power. When the group in power in the Senate saw that I was opposed by their enemy, they decided it was okay to go ahead and let me go because if they didn't like me, then those in power did. The enemy of my friend is my whatever and ended working for me. I was lucky.
I've had friends who have had that experience too. They're in line in the committee and then there are only a few who can go through before the end of the term or something like that. Some of them happen to sail through and others have been waiting there. Factors like that play into it, which again, you have no control over those. You have control over what you have control of.
I was lucky the uncontrollable worked in my favor. One of my colleagues in the Southern District was not so lucky. He had to practice law for another ten years before coming on the bench. He says he was able to send his daughter to college without any problem when the time came.
There is the silver lining or the upside to those things. That also gets to the point that if you want to do it too, you have to be persistent because there are all of these other factors that don't have anything directly to do with you that factor into it. Trying again ten years later, when all the stars seemed more aligned, sometimes that has to happen.
That's why I decided to get here. The other reason was that during the years that I was traveling around parts of the state and elsewhere trying cases, I had the great, good fortune of appearing before some wonderful judges and seeing how much of a difference a wonderful judge made. I had the experience of being before some awful judges. It was awful in different ways, but seeing how much of a difference made was a bizarre confidence booster. If they could do it, I can do it too.
Sometimes the challenge in thinking, “I need to refine my skills a little bit more or I'm not sure I'm the right one to do this at this point.” Sometimes seeing others, you're like, “I could certainly do that and hopefully something more as well.” You've been on the district court for how long?
Almost 30 years.
How have you enjoyed it and what is your favorite part of being on the bench?
There are three things I like most, maybe more. It's hard to pick a favorite. I still love my job. I know how unusual it is for some to say that. For some after 5 years, some in 20 years, and many after 30 years. I love it in part because of three things. One and perhaps the most are my law clerks. I am very close to my law clerks. I stay close to them. Whenever I travel to a city in which alums are, we connect. I've been honored to preside over the weddings of many. I keep a closet full of baby presents because it seems like I'm sending one out every week.
We are close. The relationships I've developed with them and the transition from a law clerk/judge to colleague and friend are wonderful. I’ve loved the generalist nature of my job. Every day is a new subject area. It is frustrating in many ways, but marvelous that after so many years of evolution and application, there are still so many gray areas in individual cases and in categories of cases. I love that. I love the combination of upfront, in-your-face, personal human interactions on the district bench. Many of them trivial or consequential. Sentencings, the best example.
You have to tell others you care, so they understand what it is you want.
It's a combination of that with exactly the same intellectual issues that come before an appellate court, in a row or four. I have the added challenge of figuring out what the issues are and packaging the record and deciding the outcome and explaining the outcome that the appellate courts get to do further down the chain.
I love writing opinions. I spend a whole lot of time on them. District Court opinions look a lot like more record and fact-bound appellate court decisions that are good or bad. It certainly takes longer. I also like the appellate process of working with a panel. I sit by designation with circuits pretty regularly and I love that. I love working with the other judges, getting to know them, and enjoying the back and forth of the exchanges.
You said beyond the Fifth Circuit then to other federal circuits also.
Many of the vacancies that were persistent have been filled, so there is less need. The Fifth Circuit is a continued borrower circuit from their own district judges and others because they're so busy.
I thought it would slow down the district designations on the Ninth Circuit, but it hasn't. I was trying to understand why that is even when many of the vacancies were filled. No one knows, but it's a busy court.
It will be interesting to see how that continues because sentencing appeals are down because of COVID. It will be interesting to see how the caseload impacts unfold. The immigration backlog alone will keep you fully occupied.
I know in the state courts, many of the state courts appellate justices have said that with COVID, obviously, the criminal docket is almost nothing. Their docket is quite reduced, but then here comes the avalanche after that. They have to be ready for that.
We'll see how big an avalanche it is or when they see that a jury is imminent, they will either plead or settle. We'll see how that plays out. I've had a number of trials, which I thought would probably settle and did not. We've been very busy even with COVID restrictions and constraints.
I want to talk about the law clerks a little bit too because that is a special relationship. Sometimes that's something that maybe some law students or newer lawyers may not consider or have the opportunity to think about. Maybe you can talk about the role of the law clerks in your chambers and how you create the family with all of them over time.
Every judge does it differently, but my clerks work on cases depending on a blind assignment determined by the last digit of every case so that everybody gets some of everything. For cases that are primarily assigned to one law clerk, that law clerk will track all the motions and let me know what's coming up. We'll sit in and all the hearings and sometimes I'll do a rough draft. Usually, they'll do a rough draft and we'll exchange them and go back and forth. I'll review the transcripts, the case law and edits. They will respond to my questions.
We'll have an open online email and in-person set of conversations. Sometimes they'll read each other in addition to me reading them and them reading me. We’ll answer disputed questions. They'll sit in on Zoom hearings on discovery disputes. Often prepare me in advance with the basic case law summary of the issues. We are in each of the cases together. Depending on when we sit by designation, they come with me by Zoom or in-person. We divide up the cases and work on them on that basis.
We usually have lunch together almost every day unless I have a meeting or have some lawyers, other judges or clerk of court matters. Every day that I don't have something that I need to do with others, we'll have lunch together here in the courthouse, in Zoom, and bring stuff in. I'll bake or we'll order in as a group. We'll go through lists of motions pending and critique the lawyers, gossip about other judges and figure out what movies are the best ones to Zoom or stream. Exchange information about the restaurants or coffee shops that we've liked and different vacations we want to go on. We cover the waterfront.
It's such a special time to have that closeness with your own colleagues among the clerks and maybe extra is also to build a mentoring relationship while you're there as you indicated for often the rest of your life with the judge you worked with for as well. You have a common experience with all the other clerks. Even if you weren't there at the same time, you have that alumni aspect as well. There is so much to clerking in that relationship that's special. I know I enjoyed it and appreciate it.
Who did you work for?
I clerked for Judge Alicemarie Stotler.
She was the first woman chair of the standing committee. I followed her. She was the single person most responsible for the courthouse that the Central District of California judges have enjoyed. Thanks to her. She got that done. Huge fact for her.
I learned so much from her. That was amazing. I externed on the Ninth Circuit for Judge Dorothy Nelson and then I clerked for Judge Ferdinand Fernandez. A gentleman and scholar. He always uses some unusual word or more than one challenging word in his opinions just for the law clerks, not for him, because he knows and uses those words and always chooses the appropriate word for the circumstance. We had a massive dictionary and chambers that we could go look up and go, “What is this?” We would learn that it was always the right word for that. He wasn’t showing off. He wasn't, “I'm going to choose the largest word to do this.”
Now you have Google to do that.
That dates me, but we had the big dictionary. We had to check that out. Those are wonderful experiences, just like your clerks have. As a law clerk, I was feeling Judge Stotler and Judge Fernandez made me into the lawyer that I am not necessarily law school because you're applying things in the real world and quite rigorous training continuing from the relationship. I think about all the things I learned, and “It was Alicemarie Stotler who taught me all those foundational things.”
The courtroom was full for an injunction hearing and we got it worked out. As my law clerk said, “That's not what they teach us in law school.” Things like that happen. The role of chocolate and the judge's timing of the offering of chocolates to facilitate that arena, it's an art and they don’t teach that in law school.
Even the most basic level of saying, you've seen the submissions and how they're perceived from the bench, which impacts how you would draft your own emotions later. All the things you see by being there that people see, take in and learn for their own careers, even probably things that you don't know you're doing. It’s great. It sounds like you do continue to renew yourself through your law clerks and the next generation of law clerks.
The other wonderful thing about being a judge is that it gives you a platform. It gave me a platform for doing the rules work that made me a better judge for doing ALI work that doesn't require you to be a judge, but that was my avenue into it. It's made me a better judge. The leaves drop and become the fertilizer.
It was Judge Stotler and Judge Nelson who got me into ALI, who said, “You need to be involved in this because it's interesting. It's up to your alley.” Having them continue to think about me and what I might be interested in doing next to my career well after I had worked with them is nice. It's nice to have that feeling because there are not many opportunities in law practice where you feel like that, “Somebody's got my back the whole time through my career and wants me to succeed and has been important in training me to succeed.” That's great. I don't know if you have any general tips for those who haven't had the privilege of being able to clerk for you in terms of what's most helpful from lawyers in your courtroom or in your cases for you to make your job and law clerks job easier.
If you fear you can’t do what you want because you haven’t done it, watch others who did.
I don't think they're unique to me or any great insight, but I'm happy to offer them. The most important thing you do first as a lawyer is write. Clearly, short declarative sentences, no passive voice, no $15 words where a nickel word will do. Read Bryan Garner's top tips for good writing and put them under your pillow at night. Do that. Don't say, “Shall.” It's unclear. Be above all clear. Get to the point for judges with busy dockets who are triaging every day. Remember, their law clerks are going to be reading it. Start with your biggest points first and hit hardest and short, make it so that the judge understands what it is you want and why it matters. Many lawyers write briefs that have so many points in them that you don't know what matters.
“Why do I care?” You have to tell me you care. I understand why this is important and precisely what it is you want. That's not helped by a general order that's in there in stilted language with a bunch of wherebys and whereas it says granted. I need to understand what it is you want me to do and why. That's the first thing. Second thing, written well. The third thing is that, like many judges, I have two things. One is a system for pre-motion dispute resolution, particularly on discovery issues. We’ve been doing those by Zoom most efficiently and we'll continue doing a lot of that.
Don't be nasty when you are setting up an exchange, whether in the courtroom or by Zoom. Lawyers often attach their emails to each other that led up to the intractable dispute. It's not our favorite reading and it often doesn't present either side in a very favorable light. If you can present the issue without that, it's probably better for both sides and resist being drawn into any ad hominem exchange. If you're on Zoom, terrific. Make sure you know how to share your screen and name yourself with your real name and, preferably, who you are representing. You’ll be amazed at the number of attorneys who named themselves Charlie’s cell phone, Mama’s iPhone.
You have to go in and change that before you appear.
You will get major points for the court reporter, particularly in a multi-party, multi-counsel hearing. There are many judges myself included who put in their general orders, “Please consider giving your younger, less experienced lawyers and opportunity to appear.” I have that. It is used. For those of you who are a younger and more diverse member of the profession, point that out to the people on your team making the decisions on who's going to argue the motion. If you have it, as is often the case has been on the lawyer who has been the lawyer on the motion, you've done the drafting and research. You know the law. Ask for the right to be the one who is presenting it to the judge and take advantage of those opportunities.
I'm glad you mentioned that because I was going to ask you about that. I knew you had those orders and they're becoming popular with more Federal district judges around the country. In terms of, if you, counsel, have given the argument opportunity to a newer lawyer, a particularly diverse lawyer on your team, then we will have an argument, in which case we might not have an argument, but we will. We'll guarantee you an argument on your motion if you do that. That's getting opportunities for people to get experience. You hope that lawyers are doing that anyway with their teams.
Sometimes a lawyer needs cover.
The client says, “Fine, but this is going to be the person's first argument on my case.” Most people aren't interested in being the first case. This gives that opportunity to say, “If you don't, then we're not guaranteed even an argument, so it is favorable to you to do this.”
I should revise it because I tend more particularly with Zoom, but I have become convinced over the years that in dispositive motions, oral arguments should be the rule, not the exception in the district court. The advantage of the district court is that I'm not limiting you to ten minutes. I get to ask a bunch of questions and we can keep going until I say we’re done. I do give more argument than many judges do on motions. I do credit and recognize the willingness of lawyers and the clients they represent to give voice and an opportunity for experience to the team's newer members, particularly since those are the members of the team who know what they're talking about.
In many circumstances, that's the most efficient person for you to talk to with regard to specific questions because they've been in the trenches and preparing the motion. That's good as well, but it's contributing to the growth and opportunities of newer lawyers, which can be challenging opportunities to get. I teach in law school clinics and the clinics are a huge benefit and a boon to new lawyers. They can have graduated law school and say that they've already argued a case in court or they've argued an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, which many admitted lawyers can't even say for many years out in practice.
It allows us as supervising attorneys to say, “They already have an argument. They came in with an argument.” This isn't the first argument they would be doing in your case. It helps in that regard. I also love seeing people come into their own and also discover something that they enjoyed doing. By doing it, “This is what I might want to do or I would want to do more of this.” Until you do it, you can't know that until you're in a trial. You don't know if you enjoy doing trials or all its great parts.
Some people love it and some people find it intolerable pressure. I recommend new lawyers go and watch trials or motion hearings. Watch lawyers do it because you will quickly learn that a bunch of people not as smart or well-educated as you are, are doing it and if they can do it, you can do it. It's a confidence booster and a vaccination, if you will, against fear. Fear that you haven't done it, so you can't do it.
I would encourage young lawyers to go watch. Take some of your professional development time. I don't know if you can get CLE credit for it, but walk over. Look at the calendar for your state or federal courthouse, pick a judge who you like in terms of liking the reputation, the work, what you understand about their dockets approaches and go watch. Open courts are your opportunity. It’s a cheap way to get good training.
I know that some people will go when they know people are going to trial in their office or whatever, but that's another way to do that. Same thing with appellate arguments. I'm going to watch those and see the whole calendar to see how it comes together as well. I also think about things like the basic things you're worried about, like, “What is the procedure? Do I turn in a card with my name?” All of these little things make you think, “I'll look like a fish out of water.” At least you'll see how that court does that and it won't be as scary. We talked about mentoring and sponsoring in this way. Were there any mentors or sponsors in your career that came in at certain points to help you and what did that look like?
Lots of people. Every lawyer who took me to trial or who I second chaired for. The law firm was a mentor in some fashion. Some are happier about it than others, but many very much so. Some of my law partners were very supportive of my effort to get on the bench. I'm every day grateful to them. Many of my colleagues who were more senior and now more junior to me have been mentors here in the courts. My work as a Chief Judge during COVID, Hurricane Harvey and freezes has been incredibly supportive and sources of great ideas, information, insights and patience. One of the first women in the Federal system and in the Fifth Circuit, Judge Carolyn King has been one of my kitchen goddesses.
Don’t be afraid to make suggestions for the overall improvement of the system.
Her late husband, Tom Reavley, one of the great judges as well, was a wonderful and informative figure for me. He is amazing. David Levi, who is the Director of the Bolch Institute for Judicial Studies out of Duke, was Dean of Duke Law School was a District Judge for seventeen years in California and proceeded me as Chair of the Civil Rules Committee has been a friend and mentor. Tony Scirica on the Third Circuit. The former chief judge of that court has been a friend and mentor. Ed Cooper, who was the reporter for the Civil Rules Committee. The list is incredibly long and deep, which, again, I consider myself very fortunate in being able to say that.
Being open to those relationships and opportunities and then providing that same level of mentorship and support for your law clerks and paying it forward. That's the way to, in large part, thank those who have helped us is to help others in the same way.
It sounds like a cliché, but it's not.
Some of my friends and I have very clear agreements with each other that way, we say, “There is nothing you can do in return for me for this help.” Whether it's helping someone interview for a judicial interview or something that appointments interview. We always say, “The only thing that we ask is that you do this for someone else.” It creates a nice circle from all of that as well.
The world can use that positive support maybe now more than other times, but it's a good thing at all times. I want to ask you a little bit about the Rules Committee work and what that looks like? Maybe you can explain what that is. The Chief Justice appoints you and that particular role, and you are responsible with your committee or team to work on and adjust the entirety of the Federal rules.
There are five advisory committees and one oversight committee, the standing committee. It's a multi-level multi-filtered, slow, very careful and deliberative process that starts at the ground up with recommendations or suggestions that can come from any source, a bench bar or even members of the public to make a rule change or to add a rule. It goes to the committee to advise on whether to consider it and if the oversight committee accepts that, then it comes back and a proposal is published for comment.
That goes up through the chain in turn after three public hearings and a robust period of online comment and then the revisions go back to the committee. If they're approved, they go to the standing committee, go to the Supreme Court and go to Congress. If Congress does nothing for seven months, they become a rule. It is a very exhaustive process. It can be exhausting. It moves incrementally, which is good because it prevents seismic upheavals and reduces the chance of inadvertent consequences and inadvertently putting the thumb on one side of the V or the other.
Lots of the rule changes are fairly limited in consequential impact, but where money and power lie and any rule change that deals with something like class actions or can affect basic motions practice. It should attract significant comment and scrutiny. Being a part of that process, it's like the ALI in the sense that there is a genuine shared commitment to parts of your attenders and clients at the door and look at the larger picture and make suggestions that are for the overall improvement of the system, not gaming it, not putting a thumb on the scale. It's one of the few places in which a legislative process works with incredible civility, passion, commitment, specific viewpoint, clear argument, but it is not fractured by faction. It is an incredibly healthy legislative process that always leaves me with optimism for the possibilities of governments.
It's positive to be contributing to that in a system that’s working.
At the end of the day, what we all like best about our work is the opportunity to work with people who genuinely like and respect us. People are smarter than we are on issues that matter.
We want to have meaning in our lives professionally and otherwise and have some fulfillment from that. What you described as sounds pretty fulfilling. It seems like a good opportunity.
I made some of the best friends I've made in my adult life on the Rules Committees.
Is that because of the hammering out that you're doing? Are you getting to know each other more?
We do get to know each other pretty well. Even as distance, time and COVID have interrupted being able to visit with each other or see each other as we've moved beyond the Rules Committees, I still keep in touch and email. Great ways to do that.
I remember Judge Stotler enjoyed it. It's very intense. It's a lot of work and a significant responsibility that you're entrusted with. That's on top of your job as a district judge. It's good to hear that it's so gratifying and in the process, you also make good friends from that and have other fulfilling aspects to your life because you're giving a lot to do that on top of your judicial work. It's also a great honor to be able to do that because it does have such an important impact. There was extra work. I remember Judge Stotler had some extra clerks allocated for doing the Rules Committee work.
She worked hard.
She was on that after my time, so we didn't have that going on when I was clerking. It's the same thing. It's so much commitment, but I'm so honored to do it. I'm so glad to be able to do it. I want to end with a few lightning-round short questions and see what your reaction is to them. One of them is what talent would you most like to have that you don't?
It's a hard choice between being able to sing beautifully and being a great ballet dancer.
I was wondering if we were going to come around to the ballet thing at this point.
Since I am one of the world's most uncoordinated people, I would change that. I like reading and I'm a great admirer of imaginative fiction, and the ability to imagine and describe and make people live a series of events. It's something to me that seems magical or even to write a compelling history. If I had that imagination, that's what I would wish for and the creativity.
Imagining and creating whole worlds. That's a whole other level. Who are some of your favorite writers?
Dan Austin. I finished reading Cloud Cuckoo Land. It's amazing. I do like a lot of contemporary fiction. I'm a big fan of Ann Patchett and I love Geraldine Brooks. I like mysteries, the Louise Penny series. There is a whole range. I can't limit it. I have a robust means of exchanging information on books that I should be reading in addition to the most notable books of whatever. I belong to no book club except for a very small group of people who email each other what they're reading that they like. It's a great book club. There's no chicken salad.
You say, “I have some recommendations.” If they have a similar sensibility, then I might like that too and I'll give that a try.
I like to listen to some books. Listening to books as I walk is a wonderful way to clear the mind.
I like the actual page, not even a Kindle. I like an actual page to turn, but often you have to have a trade-off and if you're walking and listening to it, at least that's more than you could be doing because you can't walk and read. That's great.
At night, I can't read and stay awake. It's a real trade-off.
For what in your life do you feel most grateful?
I'm sure I would start with everyone else in the world with family. The love and supportive family of both generations. My father is still living. I have celebrated 40 years of marriage and I have four daughters. Who could ask for anything more?
That's quite a depth of family in different generations.
I'm lucky. The second thing I'm most grateful for is the combination of luck and support that got me to this work. There is a good poet whose work I like who talks about good work ongoing. Grateful for the good work ongoing.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite for a dinner guest?
The future keeps arriving.
I finished reading the first few chapters of an interesting book on why the founding fathers were disappointed in what they had created. It would be a toss-up between George Washington, who I have come increasingly to admire, and Benjamin Franklin. I would like to have either or both of those two at my party. I would love to have Winston Churchill, who seems to me to be the most incredible and resilient of people.
He was someone who was the right person at the right time.
I'm sure there are many more who I will kick myself for not having thought of as we talked, but as you say, it's a lightning-round.
I like the combination of the guests too. Interesting conversations between them, not just on their own as well.
Marie Curie, I would want to talk to her, the combination of analytical and disciplined thinking with courage. She had incredible resistance to her as a scientist, scholar, woman and discover how she dealt with that and her perseverance and overcoming it in the face of great illness. She must have been a remarkable person.
That's a very eclectic collection, but interesting choices for sure. What is your motto if you have one?
I don't think I have a motto. I have a saying that keeps occurring to me, but it's not a motto. I guess my motto is you're talking too much talking to myself. Who is that woman and why is she still talking? Sometimes in the middle of hearings, I will think that to myself. There is a book that I've read. It's a book about artificial intelligence, but it's fiction. In it, the phrase appears, “The future keeps arriving.”
Every time I feel as if I am about to be overwhelmed, the future keeps arriving. I repeat one other phrase to myself, not because I find it lacking in my life, but it's a phrase of comfort. It comes again from a book I've read. The motto is probably, “Solvitur ambulando,” which I'm not showing off. I didn't make it up. It's a poem. It means everything can be solved by walking.
I work out a lot of things when I go for a walk because of a lot of processing that goes on and clearing of the head. I so appreciate you taking the time to talk, join the show, and share your insights and experiences. You're a remarkable person and a well-regarded judge. I appreciate your joining us.
It's a pleasure to do it. How often do we get an unfettered opportunity to talk about nothing but ourselves? Since it's all about me, thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Judge Rosenthal. I appreciate it.
It was a pleasure getting to talk to you. I will drinka toast to Alicemarie in your honor.
I'm going to do the same. Thank you so much.