Education: 1959: LL.B., Cornell Law School; 1956: B.A., Indiana University.

Career in Brief: 1994–present: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, US District Judge; 1961–1994: attorney in private practice (mainly with the law firm of Block Amelkin & Hamburger); 1959–1961: The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, Law Clerk.

What do you enjoy most about your role? There are two principal aspects of my role that stand out. First, I deal every day with lawyers trying to resolve their clients' civil disputes. Very few cases actually go to trial. These are not the glamorous cases that the public finds out about, but they are a major part of what a judge deals with. I enjoy interacting with the parties' lawyers to try to find common ground and expeditiously resolve the cases short of trial.

Second, I enjoy the occasional high-profile cases dealing with major issues that have a big impact on the public. I call them "obituary" cases. There are times when I have written decisions that have caught the attention of the bar and press and have furthered debate and action. An example is a decision I wrote a few years ago, United States v. Parris, pointing out the irrational sentencing guidelines in securities fraud cases. Thereafter, the sentencing commission addressed the issue with a view toward making changes to the guidelines with respect to that problem.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? The greatest challenge is sentencing. If you feel you did not get it right, it gnaws at you. You have to always be mindful that you are dealing with someone's liberty.

Particularly troubling is determining whether a defendant who has committed a relatively "small" crime that does not carry a large sentencing guideline calculation should be sent to prison or placed on probation. They are usually not bad people but still have to be punished; they are not the hardened criminals. In addition, white-collar criminals are not violent and have usually been upstanding members of their communities. However, they still must be punished and jail time is often given.

What have been the most significant developments in federal litigation during your time on the bench? I never thought eighteen years ago that I would be dealing with terrorist cases, but I recently sentenced Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali for lying to the FBI about his role in the Najibullah Zazi case, which involved a plan to blow up the New York City subways. This is a whole new world for the federal courts.

Also, white-collar crime has really taken off, especially in the securities fraud field, as have discrimination cases on the civil ledger.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on discovery and trial practice in general? The use of the internet, and e-mail in particular, has created a whole new world that was never envisioned by the original drafters of the criminal and civil rules of procedure. We now are in the throes of creating a paperless world. Electronic filing is becoming the order of the day, computers are being seized regularly in criminal investigations and procedures must be implemented to screen documents and myriad types of communications to guard against illegal searches and seizures. It is becoming a real hornets' nest.

In criminal cases, the government can satisfy its discovery obligations by simply pressing a button and turning over literally thousands of documents that defense counsel has to sift through. In the Bear Stearns trial (over which I presided), for example, the government overwhelmed defense counsel by turning over all the hedge-fund defendants' files — more than seven gigabytes. It was truly too much of a good thing. But the electronic world is here to stay, and we have to design new procedures and processes to deal with its enormous potential for discovery abuses in both the criminal and civil worlds.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about federal litigation? Generally, federal judges are more hands-on than state judges and want to move their dockets. They will be less inclined to tolerate delay tactics. However, the skillful lawyer can sometimes succeed in putting all sorts of obstacles in the path of an expeditious resolution of a case if it is in the client's best interest to drag it out. I try not to let that happen.

One of the ways I stay on top of my docket is to require lawyers to conference their cases with me before they can make a dispositive motion. I settle a lot of cases that way. The lawyers should know that when I have pre-motion conferences, it is not for show. The client should know that I will explore all sorts of alternative ways of disposing of the case and getting to the heart of the issue.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? In civil cases, be prepared to seriously discuss the case when I have a pre-motion conference. Do not pick up the file the night before and try to wing it. Do not send someone to attend the conference who does not know the case. Also, do not make your adversary a stranger. You have to speak to each other before you come to court, explore settlement possibilities and be prepared to report to me or explain why the case must go to trial. Do not throw every conceivable argument against the wall hoping that something will stick. It suggests that you do not have a good case. Know that I take these conferences seriously and come prepared to do business.

Do you think it is important for the public to have transparency on the backgrounds of federal district judges and, if so, why? Yes, I believe that judicial transparency is important for lawyers and the general public. Transparency is important because it helps shed light on the judicial decision-making process and its impact on everyone.

Most people do not know or understand much about who federal trial judges are, how we became judges and what we do. The public needs to know more about how the federal judicial system operates and how it affects them. Because judges are an integral part of the system, I wrote a book to provide much-needed transparency about the world of the federal trial judge.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? I talk a lot in my book about Sonia Sotomayor. We came on the district court bench at about the same time, and I knew she was destined for big things. I have watched and admired her judicial career and how hard she has worked. Her life story, from the tenements of the Bronx to Washington, is riveting.

When we last had lunch a few months ago, I told her, "You know you're getting long in the tooth when your friend becomes a Justice of the Supreme Court." I know personally how hard she works and agonizes over each case. She has pretty much given up on a personal life and is truly in the service of our country.