Episode 168: Judith Haller
California Court of Appeal Justice (ret.)
01:00:50
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Former California Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller shares some of her impactful work on statewide commissions on access to justice and judicial ethics. She also talks about her career journey from prosecutor to law firm litigation partner, trial, and court of appeal judge. Justice Haller explains how being a good writer is important in her profession. Her presence radiates so much inspiration in today’s episode. Join Justice Haller today and be inspired by her journey.
Relevant episode links:
Judith Haller , Christine Byrd – Past episode , California Judges Association
About Judith Haller:
Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, August 9, 1994 – October 31, 2022
Justice Judith Haller was nominated to the Fourth District California Court of Appeal in 1994,
found to be "exceptionally well qualified" for the position, and unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on August 9, 1994. Justice Haller previously served as a San Diego Superior Court Judge for five years.
Justice Haller was born and raised in Los Angeles and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from UCLA. After graduation, she moved to San Diego, where she earned a Master of Arts degree, with honors, from San Diego State University. She also worked for the university as an administrator in the Dean of Student Activities Office. Following a lifelong dream, she attended law school and, in 1975, graduated with honors from California Western School of Law.
After admission to the Bar, Justice Haller worked as a deputy district attorney for the San Diego District Attorney's Office for three years prosecuting criminal cases and litigating dependency matters. Over the next 10 years she worked at Higgs Fletcher and Mack, where she represented clients involved in civil litigation disputes. She was a partner at the firm when she was appointed to the superior court.
During her tenure at the appellate court, Justice Haller has been actively involved in a leadership role in organizations and committees devoted to improving the judicial system; maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct; and educating members of the legal community. Among her work in this area, she was appointed by the Chief Justice to the Executive Committee of the Commission on the Future of California's Court System, where she served as chair of the Civil Working subgroup, and in 2017 made several recommendations to increase and improve assistance for self-represented litigants and streamline and reduce the cost of litigation in all civil cases.
Justice Haller is currently a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions; a former chair of the California Judges Association Ethics Committee; and has served as a Special Master to preside over disciplinary hearings brought by the Commission on Judicial Performance. She is also a Master and member of the Executive Committee of the American Inns of Court, Enright Chapter; a Master of the San Diego Appellate Inn of Court; and a longtime member of Lawyers Club of San Diego and the Board of Trustees of California Western School of Law. For the past 10 years, she has served as the chair of the Appellate Court Legacy Project and has been a frequent lecturer at continuing education programs.
Justice Haller has been honored to be recognized by the legal community as a recipient of the Bernard E. Witkin, Esq. Award (presented annually for civic leadership and excellence in the teaching, practice, enactment or adjudication of the law); the Joan Dempsey Klein Distinguished Jurist Award (presented by California Women Lawyers for excellence as a jurist and commitment to gender equity); and a 2012 Professionalism Award (presented by the American Inns of Court Foundation).
Transcript
California Court of Appeal Justice (ret.)
In this episode, I'm very pleased to have join me on the show and have a great discussion with Associate Justice, retired from the California Court of Appeals the Fourth Appellate District Judith Haller. Welcome.
MC, thank you. I've been looking forward to this. Thank you for creating this show, thinking about it, and sharing it with all of us. Especially young women and men who are interested in the law and journeys to the bench, for example.
Thanks so much for saying that. I do hope that it opens up people's eyes and thinking about the many different ways you can use the law to serve and maybe even think about the bench if you haven't thought about it before as one of those ways. I was always struck by so many stories I heard from people who said, “I've never considered applying to the bench until someone tapped me on the shoulder or suggested that it might be something that my skills would mix well with.”
I thought, “What if somebody doesn't tap you on the shoulder, but you still have that ability.” That's what I thought the show could be. It could be a little nudge. Maybe something would resonate with someone and they might give consideration to doing different things than what they originally thought they would do with the law or even go to law school to begin with. It’s because they're inspired to do something that they didn't know they could do in the law. Thank you. That's one of the overall goals.
I think you're going to have that. We'll know in a few years.
I wanted to start with your journey. How did you decide to go to law school? What interested you about the law, to begin with?
I have to tell you. I don't know why but from the time I was a little girl, I wanted to go to law school. The reason I say, I don't know why is there was nobody in our family who was an attorney. I didn't have an attorney. I'm talking back in the early mid-'50s. At that time, no one in our family had ever graduated from college. What inspired this, I have no idea but I did.
Early on in junior high school and high school, I was always involved in the student government. I liked it. It was fun. It was interesting. I was completely oblivious to the fact. When I was running for student body president in my high school, my father came to me and said, “You do know that a lot of people are not going to vote for you because you're a girl.” I said, “What are you talking about, Dad?” It turns out he was right on that one.
Isn’t it great to be like, “What,” and just to not see that? It's very cool.
Again, I graduated and went to UCLA in 1963. I would love to have gone to law school after I graduated but at that time, all of us girls were either teachers, social workers, or nurses. That's the path I took and I was going to be an elementary school teacher until I realized when I started student teaching, “I don't like this.” I thought, “I don't think I'd be good at this.”
I married straight out of college my high school boyfriend. We were both very young and I started working on a Master's degree in History. I'm still not going to law school because you didn't do that at the time. I thought, “Maybe if I have a Master’s in History, I can teach it community college level.” That's what I did and then I had one of those breakthrough moments when I had the chance to work at San Diego State. It was a college at that time.
I started working for this woman and this is in 1968 she was the first woman I ever met who was in a very responsible position. She was one of the top 5 or 6 administrators of San Diego State. It was also the time of the Vietnam War and the student protest. I worked for this woman who was basically like a dean of students and I was one of her 5 or 6 associates. Several of our students were arrested at a protest. All of a sudden, who is sent down to San Diego State? It was someone who was in the Chancellor's Office, Norm Epstein, who later became an appellate court judge in LA.
I'm sure he has no idea of that and I'm not sure Norman, I have ever talked about that. I thought, “This is what I'm going to do. Nobody at the administrative level knew what happens in the legal world once about 150 of our students were arrested. I thought, “I'm going to go to law school. I always wanted to go to law school.” What I'm going to do is I'm going to come back and be a college administrator because a law degree would be I thought equivalent to a PhD in History.
I go to law school and thank goodness to my husband, he was going to law school because he was an engineer-type and decided he wasn't thrilled about being that. He went to law school at night. I started going to law school. I was pregnant with our first child. I was an oddball when I walked into class. I think there were 5 or 6 women out of 150. I took the bar and I passed. I thought, “I am not going to go back to the college campus. I love the law. I'm going to become an attorney.”
I had our second baby in 1975. I was very pregnant when I took the bar. That was pretty funny. It was in '75 or '76 and the DA's office in San Diego had entered into a consent decree to start hiring some women. I went to that interview. I think I was qualified. I had good grades and all that kind of stuff. I got a job at the DA's office. It was another small world. Who hires me, but Dick Huffman who was at the appellate courts for many years? That's how I ended up going to law school and that's how I ended up getting my first job.
I'm enough older than you, MC that it was an unusual scenario to walk into court. Many times you were you were considered that you were the court reporter or something to that effect. I'll share one story. When I went to the DA's office, there was no training that you got. “Here's a file. Go down to presiding. They're going to send you out for a prelim.” I do this. I've had twenty minutes or something to read this file.
I sit down outside the courtroom. I didn't even know you were supposed to go into the courtroom. A bailiff comes out and says he's going to arrest me because I have been disrespectful to the court. I then go into the court. I put on this prelim. It was to defendants on a search and seizure issue. Let's just say the day I left, I thought it could only get better from here because it was pretty horrendous and then it got a lot better.
Sometimes the only way out is through. You have to go through that to get there. That is one of the challenges of getting experience early is you get experience early. You have to figure it out. You have to find your own way.
I did get better. I was there for three years. I had a chance to a chance to join Higgs Fletcher & Mack which is one of the original “large” law firms along with [00:09:26]. They were looking for somebody who had actual trial experience. As a DA, you get some habits or at least room experience as well. I was there and I became a partner. I did primarily insurance defense work, but it was interesting because my supervising partner did maritime work which was very different.
It was the time of the MGM fires and the asbestos litigation. I was involved in defense of a lot of those kinds of cases and then it was also a time when the insurance companies oftentimes were looking at certain types of cases. Again, in the back of my mind, I thought, “I’d like to be a judge one day.” I don't know why. It was just an aspiration.
That’s funny because you're story came to me and I thought, “Yes, that's what I would like to do,” without knowing what's involved with it or having anyone near you that you could have said, “I saw that and I thought that looked interesting.” However, sometimes that's like following your intuition. There's something in you that it's not conscious but it recognizes, “There's something I could do there.” I think that's the case with your story both times in going to law school and otherwise. It seems like the protest on the campus was a nudge to get you back on that track.
Yes, it did because it was eye-opening. These are very smart people who are the top administrators, the president, the vice president, the dean of students, etc. They had no sense of how the legal process worked. That's why I thought, “That'd be a good thing for me to have,” and the rest is history.
The story to you about the having the courtroom skills being important and something that people are looking for. Even Christine Byrd who was on the LA Superior Court who is retired was one of my colleagues at Irell. She was on the show and she talked about being very intentional about that. She was at a law firm, but she knew unless she had that courtroom experience, it would be harder for her to develop a business and become a real significant partner at a law firm. She went off to the US Attorney's Office to get that experience and then came to Irell. She hit the ground running because of that experience. That point about the skills and having those can position you to take on different roles for the rest of your career.
Yes. There's nothing like being in litigation and you develop many skills you didn't realize you had.
Also, the whole mistaking you for the court reporter, that still happened in my time period. It's different eras, but definitely, in my era, it was more like when you would show up at a law firm and you’d be sitting there waiting in the lobby because they’re like, “No, the attorney isn't here yet.” You are like, “No. I'm the attorney. Thank you so much,” but hopefully, that part doesn't happen 0:13:31.
If you go to law schools now, many of the law schools are more women than men or it is not at all uncommon to be in a trial and there are women attorneys on both sides. The judges and women are so happy those are common.
Yes. So much changed in a relatively short period of time if you think about it. I think that's encouraging to see that. If you're discouraged at all by challenges or things that you're experiencing now as you're entering the profession, it helps to look back and say, “Not that long ago, these circumstances were happening. It's not happening in the same way now. Whatever is going on now, hopefully, we’ll continue to push forward with any barriers and things like that.” Tell me about the judge. You had this idea. You said, “I'd like to be a judge.” How did that work? Once you have that idea, what did you do?
I think some of the best advice I got about that was to not let people know that was something that you found intriguing and would like to do. I also knew instinctively that if you are a litigator or a trial attorney, you are in conflict with people all the time. The opposing counsel, there's a lot of conflicts that's built-in. I had this sense that if you treat people reasonably and you take a reasonable view either with the court, with the jury, or with people on the other side that it was a good approach.
If you treat people reasonably and you take a reasonable view, that is a good approach.
I think I understood that it would be important to have both criminal experience and civil experience. Again, the timing was right. George Deukmejian was the Governor of California and it was very clear he was looking for people with both criminal experience and civil experience. Also, it was a time when he was looking to appoint women. The time was right. Somebody said, “Why don't you apply?” I filled out the application and went through the process.
I was appointed to the bench in 1989. I will say, when I look back at that and how daunting that task seemed at the time, now the application process and the process to get there seems so much more complicated and people decide, “I do want to become a judge.” They form what they do, how they do it, community activities, and bar activities. It was not nearly that complicated in 1989.
People pointed to the bench are interested in serving the public. If you are an attorney wanting to serve your legal community, join the bar, do various events, and get involved in programs.
I was going to ask. Whether that was the case, it seems like there are more and more layers as the years go by both in the process. At so many levels in California, the vetting whether it's the local committees, the governor's committees, JNE, and all of the different vetting aspects, the application itself, and just the whole process is quite thorough.
It should be. I am so grateful to California. I like our process of being that we don't run for office and then we have an accountability issue with respect to retention elections, etc. However, when I see what goes on in some of these hearings, particularly on the Federal side where you lose control. Things are happening that you have absolutely no control over because of the political process that is part and parcel of that. I'm very grateful California has the system it has. I think it's a nice good balance.
However, it is involved. That's something to be prepared for if you're applying in California and it's a long process too.
Yes, for sure. Sometimes you can impact it and sometimes you can't.
You're just surfing the wave as it were and just see what happens. You made the comment that sometimes people are intentional about doing activities being involved with the bar and doing things like that. It’s either because they're thinking about applying to the bench or in many other cases just because if you have an interest in serving on the bench, you generally have an interest in serving in other ways in the community and with the bar.
You are absolutely right about that. The people who are pointed to the bench are interested in serving the public. It's part and parts of it. At a much different level, if you are an attorney and you want to serve your legal community, join the bar do various events, and get involved in programs. I'm not sure I've ever made that connection, but I think you're right.
Again, I was very fortunate because Judy McConnell was within the judicial leadership in San Diego. When I was there, I had great assignments. I was in the law and motion department for a year. That's the old-fashioned one where you'd have 15 to 20 motions every single day. Judy gave me that assignment and then I was in a criminal jury trial assignment. Also, San Diego developed independent calendar departments. I was assigned to one of those and I loved that assignment because now they have 800 or 900 cases. I only had a caseload of about 500 cases but being able to be with it. You started your morning with an ex-party and then and then you'd have juries and that whole process.
I loved the trial court level. I loved the spirit and everything that went on. Also, your ability to interact with the jurors, attorneys, and litigants. The human drama that plays during a trial, there's nothing like it. I did that for about two years and then Pete Wilson was the governor. I was again very lucky because he too was looking to appoint women to the Appellate Court. I think I had a diverse background and I had some good experiences when I was on the trial court.
I'll never forget this one case. It was a case brought against SDG&E. The claim was that this little girl who was about four years old, the family lived below some of the huge electrical lines in the Mission Valley area. The claim was that she had contracted a very rare form of cancer as a result of the electromagnetic fields. The case I had was one of the first ones in the country. I was so surprised that I looked out.
All of a sudden, I thought, “Who are all these people?” I knew it was a case of great interest. I got that but also I thought, “Who are all these people?” During a break or something I would say, “Who are you people?” I didn't say it that way and nobody wanted to talk but they were all attorneys from all over the country who were there to get a sense of what was going on in one of the very first of those cases.
The defense in the case had a genetic disposition with respect to this very rare form of cancer. Fortunately, by the time the case was tried 2 or 3 years later, she was fine and dandy. That was the good news. There were a number of genetic experts and physicians. I came home one night and I said to my husband, “If you don't have an MD, a PhD, or a post-graduate degree, you're nothing in this case as it relates to the experts. I will never forget that particular case. I applied to the Court of Appeals and was lucky enough to be selected. I started there in 1994. I was thinking I'll be there and etc. I retired 22 years later. Melanie Gold, who I know you know, we worked together for 21 years.
I hadn't realized it was almost the whole tenure there.
I'm so glad because she is getting the public exposure she deserves and recognition because she is very talented.
She's a great colleague. That's one of the great things I think of serving on the Appellate Court is having your team in Chambers with the research attorneys and all of that. It can be long-standing teams and relationships. That's always great.
I have to say. I remember when I went on to the trial court. I was so surprised at how different it was to be a decision-maker as opposed to an advocate. It struck me. As you well know, as an attorney or as a trial judge, you read a lot of appellate court cases. What struck me when I went to the appellate court were two things. It’s how quiet it is. I would say to 0:24:40, “What do you do?” I said, “It’s like writing term papers. We have to do a lot of research and come to a theory and then write down and explain why you're doing what you're doing.”
I missed the buzz of the trial court for a long time because you don't see attorneys except at professional meetings or during oral arguments, which was my favorite part, but that's a very different thing than talking individually to people, etc. I was always surprised when I got to the appellate court. There are two things. One, how different it was to be a decision-maker when you had to convince at least one other member of the panel that this is the way you should go.
It’s so different than when you're in the trial court where you make some little decisions and you make some big decisions, but it's you who makes the decision. You don't have to get approval from anybody. I don't mean to mean that you just jump into these decisions but the point is you don't have to have somebody agreeing with you that it's the right decision to make. That was a surprise and then also when I realized the standards of review especially abuse of discretion, I thought, “I'm glad I realized how broadened my discretion was,” because I think that kept me more circumspect in thinking.
When you see the standard overview, you are like, “I had a lot more leeway with these decisions, right?”
Right, then I chose to exercise.
Exactly, but I also think there's something when you are in the buck stops here kind of situation. There's a different sense of responsibility that would make you very conscious of those decisions. You are like, “I make the decisions and I make the decisions. I want to make sure that I'm doing the very best that I can because the buck stops here.” I think there's something about that even if you would know and you probably would have had that sense of responsibility anyway.
Absolutely but still, I was looking through a different lens when you get to the appellate court. I'll say one thing. As you well know, virtually the appellate courts in California are for almost everyone the last stop in the process. I also became so aware of how much time, effort, and care goes into reviewing the record and having a sense of responsibility. We do want to get this right with what the appeal spectrum is at the time.
The one thing that I'm sorry about is that I never sat in a family law department when I was on the trial court because a lot of the probate cases were the divorce cases that come to you on appeal. If you've been a trial judge and you've presided over lots of trials, you have a sense and when the transcripts come to you, read between the lines of what's going on. It’s the same thing in family but I never had that experience. I wished I had had at least 6 months to 1 year, but there were 2 or 3 people on our court who had who had been family law judges. Those are always fraught with emotion and big decisions.
I was going to ask you how your experience on the trial court impacted how you saw things or your role as an appellate court justice because there are some people who go straight not many but mostly in California, people are at the trial court before the court of appeal but sometimes not.
I agree with you. I thought my experience on the trial bench and as a litigator was invaluable because you do you. You're ingrained with this sense of, “This is what's going on but what's below that layer? What are we hearing when judges are making decisions?” Maybe their wording wasn't as precise as it should have been you had a sense of, “Fundamentally, was there a legal error here?” Having that background was extremely helpful.
The other one that I found helpful, again, back to the small world when I was in the DA's office and Dick Huffman was there, he signed me into the juvenile division. Juvenile court is either kids who had done bad things or the worst part was kids had bad things done to them. I was very aware of the Dependency Law and how that program worked. As you well know at the appellate court level, in our district, 20% of our caseload were dependency cases. I was very grateful for that experience because talks about tough decisions to make. Those judges are making remarkably hard decisions. When you terminate parental rights, it is a big deal. I was grateful for that.
It helps substantively too to have experience in those different areas. It is such a wide array at the appellate level, but it's good to have that. In looking at the transcripts, you're like, “I have a sense of what's unsaid in what's going on.” I think that happens from different kinds of experience. Whether you're making the record of the trial judge or is a litigator or as an appellate lawyer having seen a lot of records. Things will just jump out at you.
I see it with my law students. I teach in the Ninth Circuit Clinic at Loyola. I'll read a transcript and I'll go, “This is odd. There's one that is unusual. We need to investigate this and see if there's an argument here.” Whereas the students, this may be their first or second transcript. They're like, “What?” It doesn't jump out at them because they don’t have thousands of records beforehand to say, “Something's going on here. We need to investigate it.” It's always interesting when you don't think about that experience as it's happening, but afterwards you're like, “It's helpful because I can at least help pinpoint some issues,” or say, “I wonder what was going on here,” or try to figure out even if it isn't clearly articulated on the record itself.
I think back at another thing that surprised me on the appellate court. I was on the appellate court for a lot of years. The law changes. The legislature makes changes. Big things come in. You have to adjust a lot of changes in the criminal law. The law changes in civil, employment, and all that. The thing that surprised me was the fact that we’d get an appeal and I'd never seen that statutory scheme in my whole life before.
Yes, isn’t that amazing? You're like, “That was vast?”
It’s a brand new issue with an entirely new statutory scheme. I think to myself, “How can this possibly happen I've never seen anything in this area before,” but it does. You figure it out. I don't know that the attorneys appreciate what an important role they play especially in the new areas. There are a lot of areas where the law is very firm and set especially in search and seizure as an example.
In those areas that are new or different, the attorneys can make such a huge difference when they educate the judges as to what's going on and why this change is necessary especially when they're asking to make a big leap. Why do we need to make that leap? There's nothing better than picking up two appellate briefs. Each on one side and thinking, “These people are good. They know what they're doing. I get it. This is what we need to decide. This is how they are going to help us get there.”
Yes, especially for new areas. Also, to the practical implications and the implications beyond the case for a certain rule.
There's nothing worse than having a case that you know has enormous practical implications. I'll never forget one day. It was an unemployment issue. Jim McIntyre was always the one on our court who got right to whatever the issue was. He said, “Counsel, if we do X what are going to be the implications out there in your universe?” His answer was, “I have no clue.”
We need to think about that.
Oftentimes, the answers from the attorneys are so great. They've thought at it at a level that is very helpful in decision-making.
Those are some questions I had which nicely segues to you, which is what are some helpful things in judicial decision-making that advocates can do? Whether it's at oral argument or in brief writing that helps you make those decisions whether it's kind of information or methods of presenting, or anything like that that might make the job easier?
Clear writing is key to an oral argument.
I'll go way back and say being a good writer is so important. When I was a trial attorney, I thought, “You do everything from your oral skills,” and that's how you [00:36:02]. I was assigned a law in motion and I realized, No. It's the paperwork that is critical.” However, on the appellate court, I am a big advocate of good introductions. What is this case about? If I open up a civil brief that says MC versus Haller. I have no idea. Are we talking about personal injury? Are we talking about regulatory and an environmental impact report?
I need you to get me into what this case is about right away. What is the issue and this is why we should prevail? Being accurate both in the record and in the legal arguments is critical. Getting to the point is critical. Talking about practical implications, if that is what is part of it. Also, clear writing is key to oral argument.
Answering the question is key and knowing your case well enough that you are not afraid to answer the tough questions that you as an appellate attorney know are coming. You know well also that oftentimes the bench is talking to itself with one justice who might have a different view talking to the other two justices.
Asking a question like, “That's directed.” You can see that sometimes. You are like, “I see. Somebody else needs to be persuaded or somebody else has a question along these lines. That's why we're talking about this.” That's the art of advocacy from the advocate's perspective is recognizing what's going on when that's happening.
It amazes me where some attorneys either in their writing or oral argument will think we're going to ignore something in the record as if we're not going to find it. You have to have trust that we are doing what we're supposed to be doing and that we are going through the record. There are things there that you have to answer and you can't ignore it because we're going to find it. Also, some attorneys were so confrontational thinking that was going to be a good way to be persuasive and it isn't, as you will know. Your job is to listen, understand, and answer the questions. In my view, if that helps the court, get it right or at least, as right as we think it should be.
I think to some degree having a conversation about the case and about the legal principles is a conversation with the purpose from the advocates’ perspective. We'd like a certain result but working through that is part of what we should be doing helping the court work through that. Also, that's our last chance to be able to do that before the decision is made or the sausage is made. You want to be helpful and provide some insights that will help in the decision-making process. That's your last chance to be able to do that.
As you know, appellate court judges sometimes sit on assignment in the Supreme Court and that is such a wonderful experience but it is so interesting to me because we know the arguments at the trial court. We know the arguments at the appellate court. We see how they change at the Supreme Court and their process of working through cases is far more involved than typically what will happen. We'll write a draft opinion, circulate it, talk about it, etc. Whereas, they go through a whole process of memorandum, talking to each other, and writing. Those were very interesting cases.
I was going to ask about that impact after you had those experiences at the court. Did that impact when you went back to the court of appeals how you thought about cases or where the case was going next potentially?
I think, yes. I was much better informed and respectful of how tough the cases they take are. They are taking on the most important issues facing the courts. It did. It was a good background and experience to have.
I remember Justice Thompson, the first time he sat there, he talked to me about it. He said, “It was eye-opening. I had a different perspective when I came back to the court of appeals. I enjoyed being in that.” It was some of the same things you said like, “There's some serious vetting of those cases.” It's a whole different level that you're thinking about when you're at the Supreme Court level.
There was a case I was on as an appellate judge having to do with the right to search cell phones without a warrant. That went all the way from the trial court to the court of appeals and to the California Supreme Court. Our California Supreme Court agreed with a decision from our court that the search of a cell phone is a search incident to a lawful arrest. That's the one where the Supreme Court says, “Not so fast.” You are carrying around a little house. We're going to apply those principles to this little house because so much is on there grounded in privacy.
As you said, as a case moves between the different parts of the court system and then to the US Supreme Court, things get framed a little differently and the issues adjust a little bit. It's fascinating which is what I like about appellate. It's always changing. There's always something different and there are so many different areas that you turn to which is an important reason for the introduction that you mentioned.
Having the introduction that sets the stage is recognizing how many different types of cases you're dealing with on the court of appeals. “What kind of case do I have here? What's involved? What stages of that? What's the subject matter,” even because you could be reading a totally different kind of case just before this brief.
The other huge change in the court of appeal when I've been there is the number of pro pers we have. When I started, you'd have a pro per case once in a blue moon. By the time I left, I cannot remember. Every single one of us would have at least one case per month that was a pro per. That's why I've become such a big advocate in part of using technology because of the number of people who come to us from the trial courts who can't afford to get a transcript. As you well know, trying to do an appeal without a transcript is very unrewarding. That's why I've been a big advocate of making it possible for us to record what’s going on in the trial courts and we can produce transcripts for $20 that way.
Maybe we can talk about some of your work on Access to Justice, the future of the profession, and all of that as well. I think that's interesting. There are different ways I think to serve. As a judge, deciding cases which we've talked about but also, serving the court system more generally in different committee roles or commission roles in the state. That's another way to impact some changes. Would you like to talk about some of the work that you’ve done?
I would. I was very lucky because I'd been on the appellate court for about 2 or 3 years and the APJ was a fellow by the name of Dan Kramer and Judy McConnell came in shortly after that as the APJ. He suggested that I join the California Judges Association on this “Ethics Hotline” that they have. That was wonderful work. It was an opportunity for judges who needed a quick answer. They were on the bench. They needed a quick turnaround. Can I do this? Can I do that?
I served on that committee and we met probably 4 or 5 times per year. Sometimes judges needed a 24-hour turnaround. Sometimes they could ask a question and you could do it in 3, 4, or 5 days. I ultimately became the vice chair and then the chair of the California Judges Association Ethics Committee, which led to me being very involved in judicial ethics. That then led to me being appointed as a Special Master for Mission on Judicial Performance matters, but ultimately to the committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, which has been in existence for years.
I think the work that I did on judicial ethics is some of the most important work that I did do especially for within the community. It’s because our only way of having power with the public is for them to trust what we're doing. If you lose that trust, that is devastating and it has impacts well beyond the judge who has done something inappropriate.
The only thing we can have power over the public is for them to trust what we're doing. If you lose that trust, that is devastating and has impacts.
I've served on 4 or 5 special master cases. All of them were very difficult cases but again, I think that's some of the most important work that I did. The Judicial Ethics committee I'm on now looks at issues that are perhaps systemic to everybody and not just one person's question. For example, during COVID and during the George Floyd time, there were a lot of questions about, “Can I go to a rally? What are the implications?”
This committee works very hard to put together most of the time there their opinions. Sometimes it is, “No. You cannot do X,” but most of the time it’s, “If you do X, these are the kinds of considerations you need to take in mind.” I think that’s a very important service to the judiciary. One of the things that's bothering me most right now is how the criticisms of judges. Judges sometimes do things wrong. Yes, they do and that needs to be taken care of right away. The way we go after people now undermines a great deal of faith and creates levels of disrespect that undermine our institutions and that is a big problem.
It’s everyone's fair game which wouldn't have been the case previously.
Again, Judy McConnell has been so important in my judicial career because, in 2004, Chief Justice George wanted to put together a committee to plan the 100th-anniversary celebration of the courts of appeal because the first court of appeal was in 2005. Judy says, “Haller should be on this.”
That sounds like her. She's like, “Okay.”
I end up being the chair of the 100th Anniversary Celebration. I love history. I was going to get a Master's degree. That was fun and wonderful. We had this big celebratory event at the Biltmore in Los Angeles. The day after, several people were invited from the community to come speak about the courts of appeal. The APJs all spoke. The Chief Justice spoke. It’s all sorts of matters. At the very last meeting of putting this celebration together, one of the people said, “We should do an oral history of the judges on the court of appeal.”
Everybody said, “That's a good idea.” That became the Appellate Legacy Project. Again, McConnell thought I would be a good one to be on that committee. I was appointed as the chair of that and we started in 2006. We've now conducted about 100 interviews. That's been absolutely fascinating. A part of it is because I'm a history geek.
I'm so glad you mentioned that and I realized your role in that because the Oral History Project of the courts was something that I had in mind when I started doing the show. I wanted to make something that was more accessible to people who were lawyers or involved directly with the courts to get that kind of background in a different context. This is perfect. Talk about coming full circle as you said about other things.
We started with the retired judges who are the most elderly, for obvious reasons. Now, we still focus on retired judges, but also try and get judges who are over 70 to interview while they're still on the bench. Initially, we were going to keep these things under lock and key. You had to come to the court library to see it. No one was seeing this. A few years into the project, our committee said, “We need to get with it. We're going to put them on YouTube.” They are accessible on YouTube. Of all of the 132 judges, only a handful have said, “I don't care to do that.” Their records are still available, but there are some wonderful stories.
I love that also that it's one of those things where it was like on the last meeting somebody says, “What do you think about this,” and from their spawns this whole very many interviews and history of the court. It's neat. Sometimes that's how things happen.
Yes. I was thinking about some of the things you're doing right now.
The spark happens and there you go. I wanted to ask you about mentors and sponsors. We've heard about some of them during our conversation, but the role that they've played in your career at various points and also, how you've paid that forward and mentored others.
I mentioned this woman [00:53:26]. She opened a whole new world that I didn't even know existed. She was very supportive of those of us and made sure that we were introduced and that we had the opportunity to grow in what we were doing. I'm very grateful to her and McConnell. She is the ultimate, “I'm going to do this. I am in a position to have some creative women. I'm going to trust them.” She's constantly saying, “How about so and so on? It's so and so.” She's been wonderful.
Yes. She's really good at like 100th anniversary of the history project. She matches people to what she thinks where their natural skills are too. She's very good at that and she's very good at seeing those connections.
Up until COVID, we had 2 or 3 externs per year. Some are more gifted than others and some absolutely extraordinary. I love that part of it because if you are going to be an attorney you have the chance to sit and talk and work alongside judges and get a sense of their thinking process with respect to making decisions. What works, what doesn't work, what to do, what to avoid, and to see the bigger picture. I think that's absolutely the best experience.
Also, a very dear friend of mine who is a law professor said, “Judy, I'd like you to meet this young woman who's graduating. By the way, she wants to be an appellate attorney. She has worked at Higgs Fletcher.” I said, “I'm in.” I said to her that she is so fortunate because she is clerked with a Federal judge. She's now going to clerk with someone on our court and it's a gift. I think that's part of paying back.
Also, I will say that my staff was very good about that because when you have young attorneys working with you, it adds to your responsibility of making sure they're getting good experiences and that the work they're doing is something that will contribute and that we don't have to start from page one again. Most of the time, lots of good ones, and some of them have now become judges. That's fun.
My judicial clerkships were the most amazing experiences for the reasons you mentioned but also, just to see some very principled and good judges and their decision-making process. All of that is such great training and inspiration. Your point about externships, sometimes people think, “I can't afford to do a clerkship or I can't do a clerkship for whatever reason,” but to consider externships because some of them can have pretty significant experience over that quarter or semester. If you can't do a clerkship to at least have that experience of the externship is an important one to consider.
If you can't do a courtship, having that experience of the externship is an important one to consider.
The law schools now have helped with that because they're giving credits for that. This law professor I mentioned is in charge of the extern program and he works with those students. He wants them to understand how valuable what it is they're doing and to have them interact with each other so that they share their experiences.
I remember thinking as an associate after my district court clerkship that I was probably the only one of the junior attorneys who had seen motions. I knew what a summary judgment looked like when an attorney came to me and said, “We're going to do a summary judgment,” which I'm like, “Okay. I know what's involved with that. I've seen those. I've seen what is more effective and less effective.” It's so valuable to have that experience. You never get that perspective again.
That experience is one that you cannot grasp how important it is to know what's effective and what isn’t effective. I was telling you about how important I thought introductions were. Also, it is important for judges when they're writing opinions to remember their advice in their first few paragraphs to say, “Here's the problem. This is what we've decided. This is the reason why.” That’s what we've done. You read and we'll explain why we're doing it.
For the litigants but also for the public, in general, who may not read the rest of the 30-page opinion and also frankly, to help the reporters who are reporting on the cases. “This is what's going on. You can read the rest, but here's the basics.”
During COVID, we had a number of cases that were so sensitive to the public about what are we doing. Why are these churches closed? We can't go do this. We can't do that.” That entry paragraph or that first page or two was critical in terms of how we communicated what it was we were doing and why. That is a gift in terms of writing. I'll tell you somebody who's good at that is our Chief Justice. She was on our court. She is a very accomplished researcher and writer. She understands all of what we've been talking about. She's very gifted, to say the least.
It was too bad for your court, but good for the State of California.
Yes, for sure.
Generally, I end with a few lightning-round questions. I thought I'd run a few by you. The first one would be which talent would you most like to have but don't.
This is so easy for me and I know a lot of other people have said this. I wish I played the piano. I took lessons as a child. I got to the point where I was somewhat confident and then I just let it go. When I was in college, my sorority sisters would sit down at the piano and start playing. I wish I had that skill. I'm sorry that I don't. I could do something about it now, but I don't know if I will.
There are so many different things to do. Maybe not that but it's nice. I always think it's nice to appreciate somebody who has that talent and has worked at that. That's good.
Our mom always wanted to have one be an accomplished musician and that never came true.
The instrument I always wanted to play was the harp and I was told it was hard to get on the bus. Do something else that will be a little easier. I played the violin but my heart was never in the violin. My heart was always with the harp. I didn't get very far in the violin either.
I played the bass in the sixth grade in the orchestra. If you could see this picture of me with this gigantic instrument. It's one of the funniest pictures. Melanie has seen it.
“There's a person there.” Who are some of your favorite writers?
I will say I'm more of a genre-type. It’s anybody who writes history like da Vinci, Einstein, and many the presidents. Right now, I’m reading first about Sandra Day O'Connor.
That's a great book.
Also, The New York Times tribute to her, they captured this great life, but it was four pages. Anything that is historically oriented, that's the more intellectual part. My husband and I drive frequently to either Carmel or to our son’s home in Utah so we'll get a book on tape and it's always Clancy. It's nothing intellectually stimulating but it makes the time go by.
There's actually an Illinois appellate court justice who writes books with James Patterson. They have some books together.
That is an accomplishment.
It's pretty amazing. He and I were on a panel at the Appellate Judges Institute about storytelling. I was like, “You have a whole different level and genre that you're operating at. It’s so interesting. That's how I learned of him. What a cool thing.
When I was on the court of appeal and I was trying to think through and I needed to clear my mind, I know a lot of people would read. For me, I would take my transistor radio and go out into the yard and pick weeds because that cleared my mind. I sometimes listen to sports programs simply because they were so mindless that I just could go away someplace and then somehow things cleared up in my mind.
There's something about that. For me, going outside is helpful. Whether it’s just taking a walk in nature for ten minutes or whatever. It clears the cobwebs and sometimes you come back and you're like, “I know what I'm going to do. I know how I'm going to write that.” It's somehow processed and cleared out.
It does. It becomes clear.
Who is your hero in real life?
Again, I'm going to go back to historical things because I think of heroes as being people who've made an impact on our country, for example. Take Washington and Lincoln. Lincoln was who I wrote my Master's thesis on a very small part of [0 1:05:47] or Susan B. Anthony. They are people who made a tremendous impact and I even think about people who go into the military. Some of those people are heroes. Again, I'll say to myself. I hope I would be that brave to do that.
Heroes make an impact on our country.
I'll go back to mentors I told you because that's my personal hero or my mom. My mom was so amazing. She was this very unassuming woman. I used to say, “Mom could have come over on the Mayflower and she would have done very well because she was very disciplined.” It was because of mom that all of us went to college and all my brothers and sister both have advanced degrees. She was very involved with Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and PTA.
That's a good cross-section of heroes in different ways, as you said personal and others. For what in life do you feel most grateful?
It's got to be the family and health. That's easy.
Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party? It could be someone who's with us or not with us. It could be a group of people, too.
Now that you know that you're saying someone who wasn't, I wish I had the chance to meet Sandra Day O'Connor. I know this is controversial to say but I’d be interested in a combination of people who've changed us like the executives from Facebook or the executives from Amazon. Also, Musk in terms of some of the things that he's trying to do personally. I'm not going to go into the politics part of it.
No, but in terms of the accomplishments for humanity.
The ability to control satellites that control the internet all over the world is a big deal. I think I'd have a whole potpourri. I like to invite Harmeet Dhillon just because I thought she was so fascinating. I'd love to go to lunch with any number of people.
I think I love the idea of all of those different folks being together too. I think sometimes the sum of the guests is even more interesting than the individuals having them all together and having discussions. The last question is what is your motto if you have one?
I had a motto when I was practicing and when I was on the bench. This is going to sound funny. I used to say, “Choose your fights carefully,” because, during litigation, there was so much conflict that I would try to concentrate on the things that made a difference. The same thing with being especially on the appellate court. By fights, I don't mean physical fights. I mean the intellectual ones. To be careful in terms of what I understood I needed to stand my ground or someone was trying to persuade me. My motto now needs to be, “Please be more patient.” I need patience. I like to get things done quickly and I need some patience in this life.
Choose your fights carefully.
That can be a challenge when you're a doer and you're moving things. You want to move something to action and conclusion and sometimes it doesn't move as quickly as you'd like, but you get more done, I hope as a result of that.
I laugh in retirement. I used to be on such a schedule that if I was off by five minutes, I needed to get on to the next era or the next thing personally. Now, you don't get nearly as much done because you have the time and the gift to just relax. I think I feel better when I'm getting something done.
I can see that in you and I think there are certain dispositions. We like that. We like the accomplishment of that and moving things forward.
I'd like to have lunch with you because you have had such an interesting background just talking to me and learning some things about you. One of these days, we'll get together for lunch and I want to find out more about space law from you.
That sounds excellent. Thank you so much, Justice, for being part of this project and for being part of the show. Also, for chatting with me. I appreciate it.
Thank you for inviting me and I hope to see you and meet you in person one of these days. Thank you, MC, very much. Bye.