2026 - Volume 2 - Summer - Flipbook - Page 5
-Q&A: Continued from page 4-
the remedy is or what you want. Do you want the evidence suppressed? Do you want a certain sentence, if
so, what is it? Be clear in what you’re asking for, what
the solution, remedy, or ruling you’re seeking. Also,
answer the questions that the court asks. I don’t know
how many times I have watched when I was on our appellate division where we ask very specific questions
and lawyers dance all around them and want to get back
to their prepared script. That’s not where our mind is
focused, but if my mind is in the wrong area, answer the
question and then tell me why I’m wrong. I may have
gotten bogged down in something that is not important
but still answer my question as to why I’m bogged down
and redirect me to where you think I need to be.
to me at first blush may be simple. The attorney has the
right to be heard and give their prepared argument and
speech so that they feel like they were heard, even if I
may ultimately rule against them. They may convince
me of something that wasn’t in the briefs. I don’t love
when people repeat themselves but at the same time our
profession only gets better when we let people practice.
Even if that is a newer lawyer presenting an argument
for the first time, then I am there to listen so that I can
fairly decide it.
I also think if you rule against somebody, if they feel
like they got a fair shake, it’s easier for them to take, not
in all cases. I just think that is the only way our system
works by having confidence in the system, and confidence is: I went before Judge Flynn-Peister and she listened to me. I take a lot of notes on the bench, but I also
tell the parties beforehand, so they don’t think I’m being
rude. Particularly in victim impact statements or if a
defendant is speaking to me, I want to know what
they’re saying so that I remember it in the future. So
that is my guiding principle, to make sure everyone gets
a chance to be heard whether it’s a traffic ticket or a
murder case, everybody has the right.
What I see a lot is that lawyers sometimes are not listening to either the judge or if it’s testimony, listening to
the witness and responding based on the witness’s answer. There are so many times that I see really good
pieces of evidence for one lawyer come flying out of a
witness’ mouth and neither side does anything with it
because they are so focused on checking their boxes of
what they need to get that they missed this gem. The
best lawyers are the ones that are pausing and listening
and then responding. It’s okay to have silence in the
court room while you collect your thoughts. This allows
the listener to collect their thoughts as well. If there’s a
jury or a judge that may have heard the zinger that came
by, they will take note. So don’t rush right into another
point because then points get buried.
Q: Are there any common lawyer practices you find
ineffective or counterproductive?
A: Well, one of the things, no matter what case type I
have presided over, is that I like to give tentatives. I
want the parties to know where my head is at. I don’t
love when a side is winning, that they then repeat the
argument that they’ve written in their brief when I’m
already going in their favor. That said, I will let them
speak and sometimes remind them that I’m going in
your favor, maybe let the other side go and then respond
to that. I think that is much more efficient if a judge is
ruling in your favor, don’t mess it up by talking more.
They may wind up talking themselves into something
that I didn’t even consider and could now change my
analysis. I let the parties know of everything that I read,
so if I read it you don’t need to go through it again. If
you want to a highlight a couple points, that’s fine. But,
don’t regurgitate the 15-page brief to me. I read it, I
promise you, if I say I read it, I read it. Also, if I don’t
say I read something, tell me there’s something missing.
I will take a few minutes to get off the bench and look at
it, especially if there is a filing that came in last minute.
Q: You regularly give presentations on a variety of
legal topics including ethics, we have seen AI becoming more integrated into all aspects of our society and
specifically in the legal field. How have you seen AI
being integrated into the judiciary and what are the
big ethical concerns you see with the integration of
AI into the judiciary?
A: I think we have to embrace AI as the next tool and
we can’t be afraid of it. It’s coming whether all of us
want it or not. We just need to responsibly use it, and I
think we’re all muddling with the technology and it’s
not being responsibly used in some cases. We as the
court, the Chief Justice, directed all of the courts to
come up with an AI usage policy. We have one in our
courts that we’ve adopted that essentially says you can
use AI but if you’re going to use it you have to check to
make sure it’s verifiable. You are responsible for whatever you’re putting out there. When I use
