Education: 1977: J.D., The University of Chicago Law School; 1974: B.A., The University of Chicago.

Career in Brief: 1992–present: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, US District Judge; 1978–1992: Baker & Botts (Houston, Texas) (1985–1992: Partner; 1978–1985: Associate); 1977–1978: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Law Clerk to the Honorable John R. Brown.

What do you enjoy most about your role? Being a federal trial court judge in the fourth largest city in the country is, quite simply, the best job in law. Federal trial judges are among the last of the generalists, which means that after two decades on the bench, each day still presents new issues. Being in a large, commercially vibrant city generates a varied caseload with a full range of subject matters and complexity. The work involves a wonderful combination of intellectually challenging legal problems and their human faces — the faces of the individuals, families and businesses whose futures may depend on what happens in court. The variety of tasks, from case management to opinion-crafting, presents opportunities for creative and practical solutions, as well as for scholarly analysis and explication. The greatest joy is that my foremost job is to be right and fair. In the legal field, it may be the best of all possible worlds.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? There are at least three challenges that deserve top billing. One is to know how to be right and fair in each of the cases I have to decide. That is a challenge of too little time, too many cases, and too many records, briefs and motions that do not efficiently or effectively tell me what I need to know.

A second related challenge involves the huge number of certain categories of claims we see, particularly those brought by unrepresented or underrepresented litigants. Some of our most important precedents have emerged from these cases, but it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The third challenge is one that most judges identify, for good reason — sentencing. Sentencing defendants in criminal cases is never easy. It is rarely clear how much prison time is the right amount for a given crime and for a given individual. But it is always clear that my decision affects families and futures in ways I cannot possibly appreciate.

What have been the most significant developments in federal litigation during your time on the bench? Technological developments have changed every part of the world that affects the courts, from business to national security and beyond. The federal courts have been working hard to keep up, but the courts are deliberately not set up to make profound changes quickly. That is a good thing in many ways, but we need to be aware of the limits it can impose and try to adjust for them.

There also have been vast changes in the way cases are litigated, from how cases are filed to how discovery is conducted, including the role of judges in the new world of e-discovery. Further, in both state and federal courts, there is a continuing decline in cases resolved by trial. This raises a host of questions about the role of judges in contributing to this trend.

Other significant developments include changes in the subject matters we see and the ways in which they are presented and litigated. In this part of the country, on the criminal side, we spend a lot of time on border-related cases and on financial and healthcare fraud. On the civil side, we have seen a tidal wave of mortgage foreclosure-related cases and FLSA claims (results of the recession) and a drought of tort claims (thanks to tort reform), to name a few.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on discovery and trial practice in general? I do not think we can hope to make accurate predictions of new technologies or how they will affect our work, but I can safely identify three key issues on the horizon. First, the technological changes, including the proliferation of social media, will elevate the problems we have already seen to a whole new level of size and complexity. Second, litigation expectations and habits will have to change. Discovery demands for "any and all" information are not workable in many cases. Discovery responses objecting to every request as overbroad are similarly unhelpful. The concepts of "proportionality" and "reasonableness" are not new, but they must be given new energy. Judges have to be involved in discovery management earlier, more often and in greater depth. Third, we all have to be willing to use the tools technology provides to manage the problems technology creates. For example, technology-assisted review, such as predictive coding, is inevitable. We must learn how to integrate technological advances into the time-tested set of tools and rules that have served us well for so long.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about federal litigation? Although it seems obvious, attorneys too often have not explained to their clients what the risks are, how the risks compare to the potential benefits, and what the costs and timetable are likely to be. A realistic and detailed cost-benefit analysis, with a litigation budget, would be helpful.

What are your biggest courtroom pet peeves? One of my biggest pet peeves is rude, ad hominem, personal attacks instead of constructive argument. Another is attorneys who are not prepared or who send substitutes to cover hearings without adequately preparing them to answer the court's questions or present arguments.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Be creative and flexible in serving your client's interests. Cooperation with opposing counsel and zealousness in representing your client are not mutually exclusive. Also, be honest in describing the record and the law. Do not ever stretch the facts and do not stretch the law, or at least tell me when you are doing so and why you think it is defensible.

What steps are you or your court taking to address the constantly evolving field of electronic discovery? The federal courts as a whole have worked hard on making the Rules of Procedure adequate to handle the long revolution of e-discovery. The Federal Judicial Center and the individual circuit and district courts have taken seriously their obligation to train judges on the current problems and the most promising ways to deal with them.

I spend a lot of time reviewing cases on e-discovery, reading about developments such as predictive coding, and becoming familiar with how iPads, social media sites, search engines, and similar devices and tools work. I have considered ways to change my own case management techniques to respond to some of the changes brought by e-discovery. For example, I hold in-person Rule 16 conferences in every civil case to go over e-discovery issues early on and set parameters and limits. I also require pre-motion conferences in discovery disputes and hold them within a day or two after I am told a conference is needed, sometimes by phone or increasingly through videoconference. I can see holding these conferences by Skype or an equivalent in the near future.

The result is that discovery disputes are presented efficiently, without the costly and slow minuet of a motion to compel or protect (accompanied by a huge stack of exhibits), a response in opposition (with another huge stack) and a reply. I rule promptly in almost all cases, or at least reduce drastically the amount of motions and briefing. I keep cases moving forward.

Those are a few steps we are taking. More are needed, but we will meet the challenge.

What advice would you give to counsel on preparing for a Rule 26(f) conference? Know your case well enough to know what discovery you need. Also, know what issues your client's information system will present in responding to the other side's discovery demands. Have a real conference, not just a drive-by or phone-in on the day before you have to present a proposed scheduling plan. If you are confident the case cannot be resolved early, think about what threshold issues have to be resolved and how you would write a summary judgment motion or craft jury instructions for a trial. In other words, think at the start about what will really be important to get to the end, and help the judge understand that as well.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? I teach a federal courts course and when we cover Marbury v. Madison, I am reminded that Justice John Marshall was an amazing judge. The problems he faced were consequential in ways that we rarely (thankfully) see today, and he rose to those challenges. Our gratitude and respect are fully deserved.