My First Day on the Bench
The lawyer who approached the lectern appeared young to me. Perhaps this was his first argument before the Washington State Supreme Court. I am sure I detected nervousness in the way he cleared his throat and shuffled his papers. He began by telling us he represented “victims of a great tragedy who had suffered an injustice.” “He is not seeing the point,” I thought to myself. He then launched into a detailed discussion of the facts. “Why waste your time,” I thought. “Don’t you know we have all read at least four versions of the facts; a screening memo, a memo prepared by the reporting justice, and two sets of briefs?”

Two and a half months earlier, while still a candidate for the Washington State Supreme Court, I stood at the same lectern as a lawyer and argued Godfrey v. Hartford dealing with the appealability of arbitration awards. Before that, I had argued many cases before the State Supreme Court. Now, I was sitting above and looking down at the young lawyer.

The time between these two court dates had been a very introspective one for me. I believe that before one begins to judge others, one first must judge oneself. I had asked myself some difficult questions. What were my motives? Where they pure? Did I have an agenda? Could I really set aside my biases and be fair? Was I worthy and up to the task? Would I find the work satisfying? Could I continue to help people solve problems and prosper in an evermore complex society?

This was my first oral argument as a judge. The court had taken this case to resolve a perceived conflict between a court rule and a statute. The young lawyer was arguing as if we were a jury. He was arguing the facts. “Maybe” I thought, “I should ask a question to point him in the right direction, to get him on the right track. I could pitch him a soft question and maybe even suggest the direction he should go.” Then it hit me like a clap of thunder; I wanted to argue his case for him. How could I be so arrogant? The lawyer had represented his clients for at least five years. He had tried their case at the trial court level, argued before the Court of Appeals, and now was before the Supreme Court. Who was I to think that I knew better than he how to argue his case? I asked no questions.

That night as I drove home, I reviewed the day’s events in my mind. The nightly recap, I call it. How was an old war horse like me with 30 years experience as a trial lawyer making the transition to judge? It was obvious I had a steep learning curve. The biggest challenge I had faced that day was the urge to interfere with the lawyer’s advocacy. I promised myself that night to let the lawyers do the lawyering and I would be content to judge--a promise I have kept.

The Pros and Cons of Being a Judge
Since that first day on the bench I have continued to reflect on the wisdom of my decision to run for a seat on our state’s highest court. It is, after all, a six year commitment for me and the people. Like any career, I suppose, there are some advantages and disadvantages about the job.

First, I feel a great relief from no longer being a trial lawyer in private

practice. It is as if someone has reached out and lifted the burden of overhead and office management from my shoulders. As if someone has untangled the fingers of the clients from my elbow and no one is saying, “Please save my case and my life, Mr. Chambers.” As a judge, the hours can be long but the incredible stress of month-long jury trials and 18 hour days are mercifully gone.

For the first time in my legal career, I actually have time to think and reflect. I can even change my mind. No trial lawyer or trial judge has that luxury. Still, the issues before my court are incredibly important and we must use the time to get it right. Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of pressure to get the work out, but I have never enjoyed greater intellectual stimulation.

Also of great importance to me, I have almost complete anonymity in my private life. Oh sure, I’m treated with great respect and even ceremony among lawyers, but the average Joe and Jane on the street hasn’t a clue who their judges are. On the street I can pass for a guy named Tom, which suits me just fine.

But there are some drawbacks to being a judge. Judges make lawyers nervous. Some lawyers seem to almost break out in hives around me. “How should I address Chambers, your honor, judge, justice, or dare I call him Tom?” They are unsure what they can and cannot talk about. “Can I talk about some issue with Chambers if I’m on a trial lawyer committee dealing with that issue?” Let me answer those questions.

Unless your case is before my court, it is not an ex parte contact to discuss a case with me and I will probably not recuse if in the future your case does come before my court. I will not recuse just because we have a casual conversation. I probably won’t remember the discussion and such an informal conversation would certainly have no bearing on my consideration of the discrete issues before the court. But, if you do know that a case is likely to come before me, you should avoid discussing the specifics of the case as I need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And God help us if judges cannot discuss legal concepts and issues with the most knowledgeable lawyers in our community.

If I am not wearing a black robe, please, please call me Tom. If you know a judge, ask her how she would like you to address her outside of the courtroom. It may surprise you, but she will probably prefer Barbara or Mary over judge, your honor, your ladyship, or some other title. You will also be doing the judge and the justice system a favor. We are, after all, human. If people keep bowing and scraping before us outside the courtroom by calling us your honor, or even judge or justice, after awhile we may begin to believe that we are special, extra smart, gifted, etc. My point is that, by kowtowing to a judge who is not exercising a judicial function, you help create the things we all hate--arrogant judges. Help keep your judge human by treating him or her human.

Another drawback to being a judge is that judges don’t have nearly as much fun as lawyers. Sorry, my judicial colleagues, but you are not a barrel of monkeys to be around. I find the judges generally are very serious about the importance of the judicial branch of government, and that each judge should avoid bringing disrespect to the judiciary by his or her conduct.

What does that mean? Well, a couple of months ago, I was working on an airplane at a small airport. I had to go to the bathroom. I was 100 yards away from the nearest human being and I thought about just going around the corner like other pilots do. But wait. What if someone sees me? I could be arrested for urinating in public. My picture would be on the front page of the Seattle Times. The upshot is that I did something quite unnatural for me. I got in my car, drove a quarter mile to a convenience store, bought a soda I didn’t need, and used the store’s comfort room.