Education: 1974: J.D., University of Minnesota Law School; 1971: B.S., University of Kansas.

Career in Brief: 1994–present: US District Court for the District of Minnesota (1996–present: US District Judge; 1994–1996: US Magistrate Judge); 1983–1994: Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota (1985–1994: District Court Judge; 1983–1985: Municipal Court Judge); 1976–1983: US Attorney’s Office (District of Minnesota), Assistant US Attorney; 1974–1976: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Law Clerk to the Honorable Gerard D. Reilly and the Honorable Hubert B. Pair.

What do you enjoy most about your role? I really enjoy the tremendous variety of cases on my docket. In an era when most lawyers find it necessary to specialize in a particular and increasingly narrow area of the law, my role as a US district judge allows me to remain a generalist and learn about widely diverse and interesting subject matters, which keeps my job fresh and invigorating. A typical day may begin with a hearing on a motion in my multidistrict litigation groceries antitrust case, followed by a claim construction hearing in a dispute over treadmill patents, and end with a criminal sentencing in a drug conspiracy case. No two work days are ever close to the same, so even after 30 years as a trial judge, I have no set routine.

I also like the interesting people I meet across all levels of society. My diverse caseload brings a variety of civil and criminal litigants to my courtroom. My role has also provided me with many opportunities to meet and share ideas with judicial and government officials in the US and abroad.

Additionally, one aspect of my career I have especially enjoyed has been my service on two committees for the Judicial Conference. My appointment to these committees has given me the opportunity to have a voice in shaping national judicial policies, engage in collegial decision-making (a welcome change from my usual role as the sole decision-maker) and view the judiciary from a national perspective. The Judicial Branch Committee has been particularly fascinating since the focus of the work is on the judiciary’s relationship to the executive and legislative branches, which involves many sensitive, timely and important issues.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? My greatest challenge, and the most difficult part of my job, is balancing the many competing factors involved in arriving at a fair and just sentence in criminal cases. Sentencing another human being is emotionally draining and has a dramatic impact on the defendant, the defendant’s family and loved ones, and the defendant’s victims.

It also takes considerable effort to stay ahead of the massive amounts of reading my role requires. My daily reading often includes numerous briefs and exhibits, case law updates, legal circulations, committee reports, court management policies and procedures, and a healthy supply of e-mails.

An additional challenge is the increased complexity of the cases being litigated today. For example, patent cases involving cutting-edge technology can be remarkably complex and require me to learn principles of engineering — a real stretch for my skill set!

What have been the most significant developments in federal litigation during your time on the bench? The advancement of technology in general, and the implementation of Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) in particular, unquestionably have been the most significant practical developments during my time on the federal bench. When I became a federal magistrate judge, all court files were paper files that were stored on shelves in the clerk’s office. To review a document, one had to physically locate the file among the many shelves and then shuffle through stacks of paper to find the specific document.

With the CM/ECF system, files are accessed instantaneously from any location, multiple users can view the files at once and documents in even the most massive cases can be quickly retrieved. Beyond the CM/ECF system, the advancements in how information is stored, accessed and shared has dramatically changed the way cases are litigated at every stage, from discovery through trial.

Another significant and much needed development has been the increased diversity of the people filling the roles of judges, lawyers, probation officers, court reporters, law clerks and others in the federal court system. When I began my career as a federal prosecutor, all of the federal judges in my district were white males. On the day of the first trial in federal court in Minnesota where both trial lawyers for the parties were represented by women, I recall the presiding judge announcing to the jury that it was “Ladies’ Day in Court.” Fortunately, times have changed. During my tenure as a judge, I have had the privilege of working with many colleagues of different backgrounds and races and have gained tremendous insight from them. Our judicial system has greatly benefited from the increased diversity of individuals who play important roles within the courts.

What do you wish lawyers explained to their clients about federal litigation? Counsel must fully discuss the risks of litigation, including the possibility that a jury or judge may see things differently than the client. All too often I see that both the client and lawyer are so caught up in the case and have lived with the file so long that they have lost their focus and ability to view the case objectively.

Lawyers should also be very clear about the actual costs of going to trial, both in terms of attorneys’ fees and the client’s exposure to liability if the jury were to return an unfavorable verdict.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? My biggest courtroom pet peeve is trial lawyers who abuse the time of the jury. Counsel should identify matters that need to be addressed outside the presence of the jury and bring these matters to the court’s attention in advance so that they can be handled either before the jury arrives, during the lunch hour or after the jury has left for the day. I strongly dislike and resist making 12 jurors sit idly in a jury room while the lawyers and I attend to legal and evidentiary issues that can be resolved without them.

It is also frustrating when the lawyer who argues a motion is not the lawyer in the courtroom with the most knowledge of the case. Frequently, when a senior lawyer and an associate appear together on a motion, the senior lawyer will argue the case while the junior lawyer, who likely wrote the brief and is far more familiar with the case, watches from the counsel table.

While I recognize that clients sometimes insist that a senior lawyer argue a motion, I also think it is important to give our next generation of lawyers more opportunities for oral argument. I am often tempted to toss the senior lawyer out of the proverbial ring and direct the newer lawyer to argue the motion. In an effort to achieve the best of both worlds, I have used my online “Practice Pointers” to encourage parties to present a bifurcated oral argument in which a senior lawyer presents one portion of the argument and an associate who has worked on the case presents the other portion.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Be prepared. That motto served me well as a Girl Scout, and it applies equally to the courtroom as it does to all other aspects of life. Also, be courteous to your adversary and treat the court staff and others with respect. Lastly, use your time efficiently. Present an organized argument, focus on the strengths of your case, be honest about the weaknesses of your case and avoid detours on insignificant details or satellite issues.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? I admire several Justices for their brave and courageous decisions on important issues. However, on a personal level, the only honest answer for me is Justice Sonia Sotomayor. We were both part of a very small group of US judges invited to a 2001 conference in the Netherlands to discuss the application of the Hague Abduction Convention. She is incredibly down-to-earth and compassionate, and she has an extraordinary intellect and work ethic. Justice Sotomayor has made substantial contributions to the law during her illustrious career, and I am proud to call her my friend.