Episode 96: Lorie Skjerven Gildea
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice
00:59:44
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea discusses the important role played by state courts and the surprising turns her own career has taken. She explains how the Court pivoted in order to continue to provide access to justice during the pandemic, the role of the Chief Justice and Supreme Court in administering the state's court system, and important tips on briefwriting and oral argument. Listen in as an accomplished member of the judiciary offers valuable career advice and an important civics lesson.
Relevant episode links:
Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota Judicial Council, The One Man
About Lorie Skjerven Gildea:
Lorie Skjerven Gildea is Minnesota’s 22nd Chief Justice, appointed by Governor Pawlenty in 2010. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, she served as an associate justice since 2006. Before her appointment to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gildea served as a district court judge in Hennepin County and as a prosecutor in the County Attorney’s Office.
She also served as Associate General Counsel at the University of Minnesota following private practice in Washington, D.C. As Chief Justice, she chairs the Judicial Council and is a member of the Capitol Area Security Committee, the Capitol Preservation Commission, and the Board of Pardons. She is a current member of the Conference of Chief Justices and a member of its Board of Directors (2013-2015 & 2019-2021).
In 2018, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts appointed her to serve on the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction. Prior to becoming a judge, Chief Justice Gildea was a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission; the Board of Directors of YWCA, Minneapolis; and the Advisory Board, MINNCOR Industries. Chief Justice Gildea earned her B.A. Degree with distinction from the University of Minnesota Morris, and her J.D. Degree magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center.
Transcript
I'm very pleased to have joined us on the show, Chief Justice Gildea of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Chief Justice, welcome.
Thank you for having me, MC. It's great to be with you.
Thank you so much for joining the project and sharing your story with others. I'm interested in your journey to the bench and then also discussion of the particular role that the chief justice plays in the state Supreme Court. There are a lot of other things that you're responsible for in terms of administering the courts that people might not think of. First, start at the beginning in terms of how was it that you decided to go to law school and thought that would be a great idea.
The only thing I ever wanted to do in my whole life is be a lawyer. From my earliest childhood memories, I was always focused on being a lawyer and I don't know why. There are no lawyers in my family. I grew up in a small town in Northwestern, Minnesota. I didn't know any lawyers but I have a memory of my mother saying to me, “You should be a lawyer because you sure like to argue with people.” That was true then and it's still true. I don't know if it was from watching black and white Perry Mason reruns with my parents but from the earliest memories I have, the only thing I ever wanted to do in my life is be a lawyer.
It is interesting sometimes how you can grab onto a particular idea and can't ever figure out where you got that from, especially if you don't have anyone in your family. My mother used to say I would be the first woman Jesuit so there was a lot of history within that. That turned into the decision to be a lawyer. That's so neat. Did you have a particular idea? Did you want to be a trial lawyer? Was there a particular thing you liked about it?
My focus has always been on being in the courtroom. The advocacy piece, formality of the courtroom, respect that is paid and owed in that venue and rough and tumble of the trial practice were always something that was very attractive to me and I enjoyed very much about being a lawyer.
If you like to argue, that's your dream job.
That's what being a lawyer is. At the bottom, lawyers are problem solvers. We're helping people resolve disputes through advocacy. That's what it is. I found it very rewarding.
That's a theme that has come up with judicial guests on the show, which is seeing the law as a problem-solving tool. That goes across from being the lawyer advocating for that and then being on the bench and within the court system helping solve larger problems as well. That's a perspective that a few other folks have talked about as well. If you can't solve them yourself, you have to go outside. That's what the rule of law and court system is about.
That’s what we do hundreds of times in our courtrooms all across the state. These people come with their disputes and problems and judges try to help them resolve their disputes peacefully. The lawyers play such a critical role in that process through their advocacy and representation of the particular interests and needs of their clients.
Did you go straight into some trial or litigation practice when you came out of law school?
My idea when I was in law school and probably even in college was that I was going to be a prosecutor. Interestingly, it took me eighteen years to get a job as a prosecutor. I went to law school out East at Georgetown in Washington, DC. I started my law practice at a big law firm out there doing commercial litigation for the most part and enjoyed that. After doing that for several years, I had a chance to come home to Minnesota. I was a lawyer at the university for eleven years doing lawsuits for the University of Minnesota. That was a great experience.
Working as a university lawyer was fulfilling for me. I’m not saying that private practice isn't but it's different. When you win a case when you're at a big law firm, in a way, the client expected that. That's what they were paying for and bought. There might be a little bit of a tap on the shoulder but then the business moves on to the next thing or the next crisis. When I was in-house at the university, I felt from the first moment I was there that I was part of something bigger and more important. I felt that. That was rewarding to me on a personal level to be part of an institution that was problem-solving on the largest scale.
You have to have a plan, but then you have to be willing to just go with what happens.
Maybe they were finding some new invention that was going to help move something more quickly or help advance the research on developing a cause for a cure of a disease or help some eighteen-year-old figure out how to do a calculation in calculus. Feeling part of something bigger and more important was rewarding to me. Finally, I was able to get a job in a prosecutor's office. I did that for some time as well before I became a judge. My career path didn't go exactly as I had intended but it certainly has been very rewarding.
I was going to say the order is unusual, especially the in-house and then to a prosecutor. You would think it would be the other way but life doesn't always work the way you have it in your mind.
You have to be open to that. You have to have a plan but then be willing to go with what happens. When the door opens or the window opens, you have to be prepared to walk through it and see what happens next.
It's an important distinction between being a lawyer at a firm and then being in-house but particularly in-house with a university that has such an important societal impact and reaches as well. I know of a few of the in-house counsel who's been on the show that has said they appreciate being part of the business being integrated into that and problem solving outside of the institution. There's an added layer to that when the institution that you're working with also has a higher call or meaning as well.
I appreciated that. There are tough moments in the career of a lawyer. You get in the middle of some things that can be difficult, emotional and taxing. I could always fall back on when I was at the university knowing that there was something good happening at the university that day. Maybe not in the case I was working on but somewhere in the university system, something good was happening. It was important to me to feel part of that.
That wasn't in your original plan but yet, it was so rewarding. That's a good example of being open to opportunities and things that come your way even if it wasn't originally in your plan. You speak so warmly about that experience. If you hadn't been open to it, you wouldn't have been able to have that.
When I was in law school, I don't think I even knew that there was a thing about being an in-house litigation lawyer at a university or a major research institution. It wasn't something I was looking for. I was thinking, “Maybe I can get a job as a prosecutor in Minnesota.” I started looking at that and became a member of the Minnesota bar and got the bar publication.
I saw this ad for an opening as an associate general counsel at the U of M in litigation. I called one of my mentors who was the academic dean when I was in college at one of the campuses of the university system and spoke to her about it. She had so much respect for the office, the general counsel and the people in that office. She encouraged me to look into it more deeply and apply it. I did. It was never on my radar screen or part of my plan but I spent eleven years there. It was a wonderful part of my career.
That combination is a good microcosm of how things happened. You were open to a different avenue and then reached out to someone you knew who could give you some more information about it and insight. That so frequently is how you navigate and make different career moves.
You never know what's going to come.
That is amazing, though. You got the bulletin and there was an ad. You were like, “This is very interesting.” That's one of my hopes with this show too. Each person's career is so varied. It’s to illustrate that sometimes, people go to law school or come out of law school and think, “I have this particular thing that I'm going to do. I'm going to either stay on that path or not be conscious about the fact that as I evolve, my career evolves.”
Maybe you want to continue to stretch and grow. That means you could have many different hats and roles throughout your career. It’s also that there isn't one path to any particular avenue. Particularly with the bench, there can be some perceptions about, “You can only have this career path or else, you shouldn't bother applying because that's the only thing people are looking for.” That's not true as your career was quite varied as well. I hope that people won't disqualify themselves before they put themselves forward and apply.
The thing about law school is it prepares you for anything. When you're in law school, you're learning to think like a lawyer. That skillset can serve you in so many different professions. It's not just law but certainly many different aspects of the practice of law. With a law degree, you're armed and prepared to take on any challenge. You shouldn't sell yourself short. You shouldn't think, “I can't do X because I never thought about doing X.” You should realize you're prepared to do X because you spent your time in law school and got a law degree.
Various nonprofit leaders have been up on the show. They’re leaders of different kinds of art museums, cultural museums and children's muses that all have law degrees. We’ve had entrepreneurs, legal tech, founders and all these different kinds of things. They all say, “My legal training, legal knowledge and experience have made a big difference. I'm able to cut through things and get to the problem.” They’re like, “What is the root of the problem that needs to be solved?” That is a skill that is learned in law school.
I see that in myself on boards when I serve on various boards where I'm maybe the only lawyer or 1 of 2 lawyers. The lawyers are cutting through and going, “Here's what we need to cut through everything. Here's the level of the problem.” Everybody else on the board is looking at you like, “How did you do that? What did you knot and untie it?” We have some skills that we don't realize. When all lawyers are together, we're all the same in that regard so we don't notice it. When we're in a different setting, you go, “It might be the legal training because it's only the other lawyer on this board that's with me on this.” It’s nice to see that. There are so many different ways you can use that training. How was the prosecutor's office? Was it what you envisioned? Did you enjoy it as well?
Yes, I did. When I was a prosecutor, I was in the office. This was before Senator Klobuchar was Senator Klobuchar. She was the Hennepin County attorney, which is the largest and most diverse county in Minnesota. She hired me. I was a white-collar crime prosecutor mostly. If you think about being a prosecutor, think about me as having a business or commercial litigation practice mostly. Even when I was at the university, a lot of what I was doing would be considered business or commercial litigation.
In terms of a fit in a prosecutor, the white-collar cases were probably the best fit. Those tend to be the bigger document-intensive cases so I did some of that work. I also prosecuted people who preyed on vulnerable adults. I found that work very difficult but rewarding. Trying to accomplish justice for those victims was very important to me during my time in that office as well.
That's quite the mix of cases but the white-collar work makes a lot of sense because you're very document-intensive. You're familiar with that from business litigation as well.
I ended up not being in the office for that long. I had been thinking about applying to be a judge and it turned out that there was an opening. My whole career was the idea of, “I'm going to be a prosecutor,” and then I finally get a job as a prosecutor and only do it for about a year before I'm appointed to the bench. That time was well spent.
Certainly, if you want to be a judge, it's important to have as diverse of a law practice as you can. It doesn't have to be a litigation practice. Handle a lot of different types of cases and clients. That helps you. Judges, for the most part, are generalists. The more experience you have in different case types, the better suited you are to the bench. It's not true everywhere. Some states and jurisdictions do have a specialization but in Minnesota, for the most part, we're generalists.
I don't know in Minnesota but in California, if you're appointed to the trial bench, for example, you could be in the family law court, probate court or anything. It can be some area you knew nothing about in your practice, then you get moved around within that. There’s a lot of variety. From what I've seen, that's been a common thread too. People have a wide variety of substantive law experiences before going to the bench because that does help, especially if you're a quick study on new things because you're going to have to be.
You need to be interested in multiple things because that will serve you well too. It’s that curiosity and interest in trying to figure out what is the problem here, trying to find the law that applies to that problem and understanding why that law is what it is. All that intellectual curiosity serves you well as a lawyer. It certainly is a skill that's important on the bench as well.
It helps you in presenting your pieces as a lawyer too and being an advocate. Also, you don't always know how your experience will translate in different areas. Judge Christine Byrd, who's on the LA superior court, was a white-collar prosecutor in the US attorney's office. She ended up being in the family law court. She said that it's a great fit because there are a lot of financial analyses and documents necessary for that. She's like, “I never would've imagined that would translate as well. It's very document intensive, financial literacy and all that stuff. I had that in my toolbox.” It has served her well in that position on the bench.
You never know. You’re like, “What am I working on? I'm doing this in this setting.” It’s the same category as, “Don't take yourself out of the running.” If you do get a particular assignment that you think, “This is something I know nothing about,” you have some translatable skills that will make it easier and make it a great fit in the long run too. That is very quick. Some of the judges who have been on have been clear to say that sometimes, it's a quick appointment process but other times, you have to apply a few times. Whatever the appointing body is looking for at that point in time, you don't know.
The intellectual curiosity that serves you well as a lawyer is a skill that's important on the bench as well.
The federal system is different but the states pick their judges differently. In Minnesota, judges are elected. That's in our constitution. We're elected for six-year terms. The constitution also provides for what happens if a judge leaves office during her term. We have mandatory retirement at age 70. If a judge reaches the age of 70, then she has to leave on the last day of the month of her birthday. The constitution provides that the governor appoints someone to fill that vacant spot and the person appointed then stands for election.
We have a merit selection process in Minnesota that the governor uses to fill the vacancies. There's a hiring committee. It's called the Minnesota Judicial Selection Commission. That's the committee that receives the applications, does interviews, does the vetting and then recommends finalists to the governor. That's the process I went through. I did apply multiple times before I was appointed to the district court and then later at the Supreme Court.
When an opening comes up like that and you think it might be of interest, then you have to put your hat right. It's important to know. I do ask people about judges that are on the show too. If someone's thinking, “I'd like to be on the bench in my state,” the first question is important. They’re like, “How does that happen? Is it purely elected? Are there appointments? Is it purely at the governor's discretion? Is there some committee as you're talking about in Minnesota?” It’s understanding whether I would be comfortable with that particular process.
It’s an odd thing coming into an interview with a committee that might have 12 or 15 people on it. It'll maybe be a 15 or 20-minute interview. It's like anything else. You research what's the process, prepare yourself for it and then try. You put yourself out there. If you try, somebody might say yes but if you don't try, you're never going to hear yes.
You got to be in it to win it is the phrase. I also have heard so many times the story of those who do decide to apply. Somebody nudged them or recommended it and said, “There's this opening. You might consider it.” It's nice to have that nudge. I hope this show will be that nudge if nobody gets that directly.
We all need sponsors. Sometimes, they're in your family. Sometimes, they're at your work. Sometimes, they're friends. Sometimes, you don't know that they're your sponsor until you find out later.
That was one thing that I realized in retrospect. Many decisions were made when you were not in the room. You have no idea that anyone spoke up for you or promoted you to a position. After so many years of having been in those rooms and done that advocacy for others, I'm like, “The only way this could have happened is somebody did that for you.” Thank you to whoever that was. The only way to repay that thing is to pay it forward and do that for someone else.
Particularly for women, we need to keep our eyes and ears open to help bring along others. We need to make sure that other people have opportunities that maybe we had or we didn't have because of our situation, our generation or whatever our circumstances were. It's important. We all try to do that. I have several former law clerks whom I keep my eye on and think about as openings come up, whether it's a rule committee work or various boards where the court makes appointments. It’s things that might be a way for them to advance their career or take their career differently.
Having more opportunities to meet more people in different roles and settings can be a good catalyst for whole new avenues they haven't thought of either. That's good. How did you enjoy being on the district court bench compared to the highest appellate level?
I was only in the district court for about four months. My career has been crazy. I remember every day how difficult the job of a district court judge is. The real heroes in our justice system other than the folks who show up for jury duty or in addition to the folks who show up for jury duty are our district court judges. They have the difficult decisions that they’re called on to make hundreds of times a day sometimes or certainly hundreds of times a week often in an instant. I'm in awe of them and the things that they do every day to keep advancing the cause of justice.
It's a tremendously difficult job particularly as we're emerging, hopefully, from the pandemic and there are case backlogs to address and staff shortages to try to deal with. There is some flexibility that we're working in to ensure that we can continue to use the remote technology that was so important to us during the pandemic. It's a very difficult time to be a district court judge. They do such tremendous work every day. I'm in awe of them. They are the face of justice. They meet the people right there where they are, good, bad and ugly.
One of our former district court judges spoke about it as being a conveyor belt of dysfunction. In the case types, the human trauma and the drama that you see, it’s tremendously challenging work but so important. The people need to know that we're there for them to help them in their most difficult moments. The things that are most important to them when they're in jeopardy bring them to the court system looking for help, whether it's an issue of personal liberty property or involving their family. The most important things are the things that come to our district courts for resolution.
People are putting their faith in the court system that is able to help them resolve a problem they can't resolve themselves. It’s an arena of trust and privilege. You don't want to break that.
We're all fortunate to serve in this system but it is difficult, for sure.
Often, that's the only experience that people have with the court system, whether it's serving on a jury or being a party to a case in the trial court. It's important that they continue to have faith in the system from that experience also, even if they don't win, to have a sense of fairness in the process.
The most important thing for us as judges is to be able to explain what we're doing. It’s also as important as explaining why and making sure that we're explaining it in a way that people can understand it. Think about your circumstance. If you feel like you were heard and the judge disagrees with you but you feel like the judge heard you and she understood your arguments, she just didn't agree with them. You walk away feeling a little bit better about not having prevailed. That was certainly my experience as a practicing lawyer.
One of the biggest cases I lost when I was at the university went to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It involved the university's hiring process for the president of the university, whether it complied with state statutes or not. The university lost that case and that was not good. In the court's opinion, the court dealt with every single argument that we made. You came away with this sense, “They heard us. They heard me. They heard the arguments. They didn't agree with them but they addressed all of our arguments. We understand why we got to the place we got.” That's the job of a judge. It’s to communicate your decision clearly but as importantly, communicate why that was the decision that you reached.
Especially when you're talking at the Supreme Court level, many people are reading those opinions for guidance. Some justices are conscious of that in terms of when they're drafting the opinions. They make sure the first couple of paragraphs explain it in a way that you don't have to be a lawyer to understand what's going on here and why you're ruling what you're ruling.
We work hard on trying to make sure that our opinions are accessible and that we're as transparent about our decision as we can be. We’re explaining it in plain language. Sometimes, we're good at it and sometimes, we need to be better at it. We are writing all the time. Our opinions set precedent for the state. We’re the final word on issues of state law so we need to be clear. Our reasoning needs to be clear so that people can understand it and follow it.
It’s not just for the lawyers and the judges down the line but also for people who are affected by it. I have some judges who talk about, “We want those first couple paragraphs or concluding paragraphs to be clear. A journalist is going to report on this case probably and they're going to make some summary. I'd rather have them be quoting from our language than maybe getting part of it wrong and summarizing it themselves. We make it easy for these particular sentences to be quoted. In that way, we’ll know that that's what we said instead of some interpretation of what we said.”
That's an interesting point. We have conversations. I was at the conference of chief justices, which is all the chiefs get together two times a year for education and administrative conference. One of the things we were talking about was communicating our decisions and whether should there be more of an effort by the court system to summarize. It’s not a press release but to distill the opinion down into bullet points that will make it easier for the media or somebody to describe the opinion. There's certainly value in that but then the flip side of it is can you be sure that you're getting all the nuance? Sometimes, these opinions do have a lot of nuance in them. Are you missing the nuance because you're trying to air on the side of brevity and conciseness? That's an interesting problem.
Still, even justices who work with that perspective are someone who is contacted by the press pretty often to interpret these decisions for them. They still have questions. Even if it's clear, they're still like, “We’re not sure. What are the nuances?”
It's tough to find that balance. You want to be clear and concise but you don't want to miss the point. You've then got the other side where you’re like, “I don't want to read a law review article. I just want to read the court's decision.” We struggle with that.
I have a question going back to your swift movement on the bench. You were in the district court for four months and then you went to the Supreme Court. How did that happen so quickly?
There was an opening on the Supreme Court. I was in my chambers at the trial court working on an order. My assistant came in. I had a phone call from the person who was the chair of the Judicial Selection Commission. He was calling about the Supreme Court vacancy. I assumed that he was calling because one of my friends was widely speculated to be the next Supreme Court appointment. I was thinking he was calling because he wanted me to give a reference for my friend and I was happy to do that. I was thinking about that as the call was being transferred.
He was the chair of the commission talking for a little while. After a couple of minutes, it became clear to me that he wasn't calling about that. I was stammering and stuttering because I wasn't sure what was happening. Finally, he said, “We want to know if you would be interested in applying for this opening.” That was how I reacted. I said flippantly, “How do you say no to that?” That's what I said to the guy, which probably didn't make the best impression on him. He said, “If you're interested, why don't you come over? I'd like to talk to you.”
I had been through the process. I'd only been on the trial court for four months. As I'm walking to his office, I'm thinking I didn't meet him because he wasn't at my interview for the trial court. He had never met me. We'd never spoken or had a chance to get to know each other. I walked over to his office later that day. I was there for I don't even know how long but it was an extensive conversation. I then had more interviews and met with the governor. I was appointed to be an associate justice in January. I started in January of 2006.
It's important for advocates to be authentic to who they are.
I can imagine you were preparing yourself to talk about someone else to say, “Here's what I'm going to say. They're calling about this.” That's quite a switch. You were thinking, “How can I say what I know in favor of this other person?” You then realize, “I might be one of the people they're considering.”
It was very unexpected but that's a life lesson that we were talking about before. You never know when an opportunity's going to present itself. My advice to anybody who's watching this is to have the confidence in yourself to take advantage of those opportunities when they're presented to you.
It seemed unusual. It seems like certain openings happening at certain times too.
It was very fortuitous because I had gone through the process for the trial court and a number of the people on the commission knew of me and were familiar with me.
You were top of mind for some people because you've been through it.
I suspect that's the case.
It’s about being open to opportunities that you could never imagine happening. Tell me about your time on the Supreme Court and your role as chief justice and how you've enjoyed that as well.
I've been the chief justice for years. It's a remarkable opportunity. I'm grateful every day.
Is that where you were selected by your colleagues?
That's selected by the governor. The chief justice left the office in 2010 so there was a process to go through. I went through that process and then I was appointed. I've run for election twice as chief justice. The people of Minnesota have elected me. There are some states where the chief is picked by the other members of the court but that's not the process we follow. We're laboratories of democracy. We do things differently.
The chief justice is the head of the judicial branch of state government. I have all the responsibilities that an associate justice does in terms of deciding the cases, reading the briefs and writing the opinions. I also have administrative responsibilities over the branch. The branch in Minnesota consists of 322 judges and about 2,500 employees. Our annual budget is approximately $385 million. We operate in 105 locations across the state of Minnesota. I am the Chief Executive Officer of that.
I have other responsibilities. By constitution in Minnesota, the chief justice serves on the pardon board. The governor, chief justice and attorney general are the pardon board in Minnesota. I might serve on other boards and committees as a result of my office. It’s a breathtaking opportunity and I enjoy it very much.
That’s something that Chief Justice McCormack from the Michigan Supreme Court has talked about too. She was surprised at the breadth of the other administrative aspects of the world but also the opportunities that provide. You're talking about the administration of justice across the court system. There are opportunities to increase justice. That's pretty rewarding as well.
You have to learn to appreciate the role of a judge as a convener. You can bring various parts of the justice system together to advocate for change. Maybe it's through remote hearing technology, for example. How can we better utilize remote hearing technology to enhance access to justice? Maybe it's around a subject matter. Children's justice initiative, for example, in Minnesota is something that Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz started during her time as chief. She convened all of the justice partners involved in children's justice cases to try to refocus on how we handle those cases.
We're beginning a similar conversation in Minnesota around mental health and trying to bring a whole government approach to mental health issues and folks who come into the court system who might be there because of a mental health issue. The power of a judge as a convener is important for all judges to be mindful of. They need to think about how they can use that authority to effectuate change in a positive way to enhance access to justice and the people's trust and confidence in their court system.
There are so many bird sizes or bigger views of the whole system together, whether it's working as well as it should or could and if there are other ways to resolve that or make it more effective. The power of convening is something that I've learned from other judges. You give up a little bit of something when you join the bench. There are certain things you can't do anymore in terms of advocacy and things directly but you do have the power to convene people around particular issues and problem-solve together. There's an influence in that as well.
It’s important. You think about areas where you can advance the ball and use your convening gavel in that way.
As an individual, you can only do your courtroom. You can't look at the larger system but being in the role you are, you can. You have that background for being in the trial court and have that inherent sense of where things might be improved.
In Minnesota, in our governance structure over the branch, we have a group that's called the Minnesota Judicial Council. If you were to think about a board of directors, it is like that. It’s the policy-making body. It's the body that sets the policy for the branch. It came into being by a chief justice order. The chief justice shares her administrative policy, making authority with the council. What a genius idea. Kathleen Blatz is the chief who set this up.
You don't want to make these decisions by yourself. You can but you don't want to. You want to make decisions collectively and collaboratively. That's what the council does. It's a 25-member body. Nineteen of them are trial court judges and they come from all over the state. We have administrators on it as well. We make decisions together for the branch.
One of the big things on our plate is deciding what our budget request should be for the legislature in the next legislative session. If we get that money, then we have to figure out how to allocate it. Those kinds of things are done. With all the pandemic work that we did, we’re like, “Are we going to allow physical access to this courthouse versus that one?” All those decisions were made under the rubric of the Minnesota Judicial Council.
There's another convening process right there too in having people weigh in and work through issues.
In terms of leadership, collaboration and consultation, the ability to make decisions as a group are important to get buy-in where you need it. It’s not one person sitting up there dictating how things are going to go. You consult and collaborate broadly. You do it in a collegial way. These are all things that the Minnesota Supreme Court does. You make decisions as a group. The decision made by seven people collectively is going to be better than a decision made by one person alone. That's important.
Some of the most gifted and skilled presiding judges in different courts are those who do get input from everyone and make sure that there's buy-in. That's a whole separate set of skills on top of judicial decision-making. That's important for that role. To me, one of the bigger differences that sometimes people have trouble adjusting to is that when you are on the trial court bench, the box stops with you. You also have all the responsibility but you make the decision. Once you're on a collegial court, appellate court or Supreme Court, you can't do that. No majority opinion is of one. You have to work together.
Think about your weaknesses and try to address those before being asked about them.
One of the former members of the Minnesota Supreme Court said, “The best thing about working on the Minnesota Supreme Court is I have six other smart, hardworking colleagues helping me make up my mind. The worst thing about being on the Minnesota Supreme Court is I have six smart, hardworking people helping make up my mind.”
There's the pros and cons and good or bad to that depending on the day. Generally, I agree. Some appellate lawyers are solo and do things themselves. I think, “Why and how?” To me, especially when you're looking at the broader questions, which you often are, if you're working even as an advocate in an appellate case, you want to have more perspectives and ideas around this how we frame the issues and advocate.
It gets better when you have more discussion. It makes you think about different things that you might not have considered. When you're at a policy-making court, that's important. You're deciding cases for the parties but you're studying law for the state. You’re like, “What are some unforeseen consequences of this rule that I'm not seeing? It’s not in these facts of this particular case.”
That's often part of the court's deliberations when we're conferencing. That's what we call our deliberation process that happens right after the argument. We conference the case. Often, the discussion is on the point that you're making. We’re like, “If that's the rule in this case, then let's think about how that plays out in the next case and what are maybe the unintended consequences of that. Should we do some refining here to avoid those consequences?” Seven minds in that context are better than one.
I would rather have considered all of those things than not in that situation. In that regard there, are there any top tips or things that you would make sure to share maybe about your court in particular or Supreme Court decision-making in terms of brief writing oral advocacy or even issue selection?
In brief writing, something that can be important and valuable that is maybe not as used as much or as well as it could be is the summary of the argument. It’s important in the brief for lawyers to make effective use of the opportunity they have to summarize their case on one page. For me, that might be the last thing I look at before I take the bench. I'll call the brief backup and go to the summary of the argument page. That will refresh me. I’m like, “I remember this.” We're reading a lot of briefs and getting a lot of cases ready all at the same time. If you've got it all right there on one page, that can be helpful and effective. We see many briefs where lawyers don't do that. It’s worth some time thinking about that in your brief.
For oral arguments or oral hearings, I'm amazed sometimes still at lawyers who don't answer the question. Somebody will ask a question, then you can see the lawyer thinking, “Why did she ask me that question,” instead of answering the question. If the truth is you don't know, then say, “I don't know.” If the issue is important and the court does need your perspective, we'll give you a chance to submit supplemental briefs.
Don't spin. Don’t sit there and talk to make the time go. Answer the question as clearly and directly as you can. If it's a yes or no question and then you need to explain, do that. It's frustrating when we ask a question and we don't get a clear response. On our court, what will often happen if that happens is that another member of the court is going to pick it up. You're going to keep getting the question so you might as well answer it.
They’ll pick it up in a different way. That question will keep haunting you until you answer it.
I'm sure I was guilty of it as an advocate myself but it is one thing that you see on the other side of the bench that I didn't appreciate as much. At the appellate level, the other thing that is surprising to me is how little the table pounding matters. I don't want to say I was a table-pounding advocate but my style was aggressive and pushing. If that's your style, that's your style. It's important for advocates to be authentic to who they are. If that's not your style, don't make it because it will fall flat on the audience who are the judges. Find your authentic self and be your authentic self in the argument as you would otherwise.
Your point about the summary of the argument and the brief is interesting. Most often, what I think of and what I've heard of is, “Always pay attention to your table of contents as well because people will read through the headings. Here are all your arguments. Here's what you're going to tell me and then go into the brief.”
When I'm teaching law students in the Ninth Circuit clinic, I always tell them, “This is your roadmap.” It will tell me if you start writing and it doesn't correspond to your heading, then something needs to change. Change your heading or your argument. It keeps you on the course when you're writing. That's a good point about the summary of the argument too. Don't waste that opportunity.
The other advice I would have about oral arguments is don't come to an oral argument with a new theory. If it's not in your brief, don’t bring up a new theory or argument for the first time in an oral argument. That's not going to go over well. Stick to what's in your brief, refine it if you need to and answer the court's questions.
I think of it as refining it with a different way of explaining coming from a different direction. You’re not necessarily changing what you said because that's brand new. Sometimes, being able to discuss something and even thinking about it a little bit differently can help convey the case and help them in the decision-making process.
Thinking about your weaknesses and trying to address those before being asked about them is important. That's a good tip too for effective advocacy.
I think of that in terms of if you have to say, “That's true. That’s not a good fact on the record but that's in there.” It doesn't mean we don't win or it doesn't preclude this here.
That might have been an error but it's harmless. That's a good skill to be able to acknowledge because every case has words.
Nothing is perfect. It’s not a case-killing problem or a brief-killing problem being able to explain that. I appreciate the summary of the argument. That's a good one. I started my fall semester with a new set of students. I'm going to remind them of that too when they're working on their briefs.
One thing that we started during the pandemic when we were doing Zoom hearings and then kept it is we give the lawyers three minutes uninterrupted at the beginning of their argument to summarize the case. That can be effective if the time is used well. If you can clearly and concisely, right at the front, tell us what you want us to do and why you want us to do it, that can be very effective. You have your three minutes, then questions will come. In our court, we ask a lot of questions. It's good for the lawyers to have that chance at the beginning as long as they use it effectively. Some of them haven't quite figured it out yet. To be able to summarize it right up front can be very helpful.
That's an interesting point in terms of how the pandemic and the procedures from the pandemic may carry over or have impacted how different courts have operated. The US Supreme Court did the same thing. They’re always peppering with questions right out. Having that opportunity for people to present their case before you start peppering them and then having in order, because it was telephonic, which justice gets to ask the questions, I saw that change the whole environment. It allowed certain justices to ask questions who may otherwise say, “I defer to others to ask.” It changed the whole dynamic by doing that.
We were on Zoom. I can't imagine having an oral argument by telephone. We did the whole questions and seniority on Zoom when we were holding Zoom hearings as well. We were able to get the cases decided. We were able to keep our docket moving. It was very important in that way but it interrupted the flow of the argument to have to do it that way. You want to finish, follow through and have more of a conversation with the advocates. That stilted, “It's justice so-and-so's turn.” That interrupts that. I don't know that it's as effective as the more traditional way of conducting.
We've been back in person at the Supreme Court. Much of our trial court work is still and will continue to be done remotely because that's what the people want. We did lots of surveys and feedback. Advocates and litigants were very positive about the Zoom experience, particularly for the more routine check-in hearings. If it's an evidentiary hearing, it's going to continue to be in person for the most part. If it's not, if it's a discovery squabble or something like that, those are going to, for the most part, be held remotely going forward.
In general, for status conferences or things like that, it makes sense to have that. It certainly saves the client's money going back and forth. There are benefits from that.
I wish we didn't have to go through the pandemic but we learned a lot during it.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Also, we’re enhancing the technology to be able to do that and have that option. That's good. It’s a challenging circumstance but sometimes, you need to have the urgency to make those changes.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
That's what I put in the quotes in silver linings or whatever you want to call it. I was like, “Try to find something positive from an amazing experience.” Thank you so much for joining the show. I appreciated this and hearing your insights on all the different portions of your career. Usually, I end with a few lightning-round questions. The first question is what talent do you wish you have but don't?
Physical strength. I work out with a trainer twice a week. I'm trying to get stronger. I would like to be able to lift my desk because I feel like I need to. I would like to be physically stronger.
When I was training doing hard weightlifting, boxing, mixed martial arts and things like that, the thing I enjoyed was I have to pick up a piece of furniture and move it, I could do that. That's no problem. Having a sense of that is nice. Who are your favorite writers?
David McCullough is someone whom I enjoy reading. He has written important books about important people. It's very accessible. In terms of fiction writers, one of my favorite fiction books was written by Andrew Gross. It's called The One Man. It’s a wonderful story. It has interesting characters. There are several writers and authors that I enjoy but that's an example of nonfiction and fiction.
I like a wide array of writers as well and different genres. I don't think I'm ever going to get through all of the various books that I have but one day, I’m going to finish one.
Me too. I have a one-day pile.
Who is your hero in real life?
My parents, without question. Neither of them went to college but they worked hard. They were devoted to their community. My mother was the first woman to serve on the school board in my home community. My father was a volunteer fireman forever. That sense of giving back to your community, the public service mind and commitment to family and community, I would say, my parents, without question.
What great examples from that and also to make sure that you had opportunities as well.
I'm sure that when I told them I was going to Georgetown in Washington, DC for law school, they secretly and privately talked, “What is wrong with her,” but they never let that on. They were nothing but supportive my whole life. It's a blessing.
It's so important and helpful. In my experience, having a father who's that way, especially with a daughter, is very helpful. Whatever you want to do, you can do.
That was the message to me growing up. What a blessing and gift.
You don't think about that. You still might put limits on yourself but not as much. You don't think of it that way. We're very open-minded about what's possible. For what in life do you feel most grateful?
Having the chance to serve the people in my home state as their chief justice is something I'm grateful for every day.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party?
I hope this is responsive. The USA Women's Volleyball Team. I love volleyball. I would love to hang out with the USA Women's Volleyball Team.
They're so amazing. I'm an Olympics junkie. I get emotional every time that comes around. I love to see the competitive spirit, all of that hard work that people put in and also the relationship between the teammates and the coach. It’s neat to see. They're tough. It is a tough game. That sounds great. I like that idea. The last question is what is your motto if you have one?
We do hard things. It comes from my trainer. She’ll say, “We’re going to do squats.” I'll whine and say, “They're hard.” She says, “We do hard things.”
That's in the category of training where it’s no pain, no gain. I like that.
You own it and move on. They’re like, “It’s hard. Go.”
I had a friend of mine who trained me in boxing and mixed martial arts. He would treat it as matter of fact. He wouldn't even say, “It's hard. Go. You're going to do this.” He would be so matter-of-fact about it that I go, “I'm expected to do this.” Years later, he said, “I gave you the hardest workouts.” They were even harder than some of the professional fighters that he trained. He said, “They whined ten times more than you.” You treated it like, “You're going to do these hard things but you didn't say they were hard.” It's like, “I expect you to do this,” so I did.
There is an important life lesson in there. We’re like, “This what we do so go do it.”
There is physical training but also a spiritual aspect to that mental toughness that comes from doing that. I appreciate that quote and mantra. Thank you so much, Chief Justice, for joining the show and having this discussion. I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed it very much. Thank you so much for having me and for doing this show.
Thank you. It’s been a joy. I hope to pay it forward in this way from all of you to the next generation.