Education: 1978: J.D., University of Georgia School of Law; 1975: B.A., LaGrange College.

Career in Brief: 1998–present: US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, US District Judge; 1986–1998: Georgia Superior Courts, Northeastern Judicial Circuit, Superior Court Judge (1993-1998: Chief Judge); 1985–1986: Hall County Juvenile Court Judge; 1978–1986: Hulsey, Oliver & Mahar, LLP, Partner.

What do you enjoy most about your role? I feel so fortunate to serve as a district court judge and value many aspects of my job. While I enjoyed advocating for my clients during my time in private practice, I find greater satisfaction in resolving disputes as a judge. There is a real range of cases that come before me and I am constantly faced with new, engaging subjects.

I particularly enjoy being in a trial court where I am close to the people. That contact gives me an understanding of the personal impact of a case, more than a merely intellectual sense of the issues an individual is facing. It is my responsibility not only to find the correct answer under the law, but also to fashion a remedy that provides appropriate relief and offers an opportunity for the litigants to move on with their lives once the case is concluded.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? Sentencing is always difficult for me. Taking a person's liberty is a serious prospect, and it should weigh heavily on a judge. Finding a balance between the gravity of that deprivation and satisfying the multiple purposes of sentencing poses a unique challenge.

Additionally, managing my docket has become a significant and demanding task in recent years. Since 2009, the Northern District of Georgia has had at least one vacancy at all times, and as many as four at some times. Although the senior judges in the district have pitched in to help, staying current on cases and moving them along expeditiously have been difficult.

What is the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, and what are your primary responsibilities as chair of the Committee? The Committee is an advisory body to the Judicial Conference, which decides whether the courts will take a position on any issue or pending legislation that may affect the administration of the federal courts. The Committee's two primary areas of responsibility involve monitoring legislation affecting the jurisdiction of the federal courts and serving as a liaison with the state courts on issues of common interest. The Committee also works to foster cooperation between state and federal courts by serving as a clearinghouse for information sharing between the state and federal judiciaries. For example, we recently oversaw the development of an online tool to assist judges managing multi-jurisdiction cases. The project was prompted by a resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices, an organization comprised of the highest judges of each state and focused on improving the administration of justice and procedure.

In addition to federal judges, the Committee's membership includes the chief justices of four state supreme courts. As chair of the Committee, I work with staff attorneys at the Office of Legislative Affairs in the Administrative Office of the Courts to monitor bills introduced in Congress that may impact the jurisdiction of the courts and identify those that the Committee should review.

What have been the most significant developments in federal litigation during your time on the bench? On the criminal side, the transition of sentencing guidelines from mandatory to advisory following the US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker has had a significant and positive impact on sentencing. Adjusting to advisory guidelines was not particularly difficult for me because I had served as a judge in a state court that did not have a determinate sentencing scheme.

In civil litigation, the proliferation of electronically stored information (ESI) has had a profound impact on both discovery and case management. The issues raised by this increase in ESI are not limited to traditional fact discovery, but include seeking additional information such as metadata. These issues further complicate the discovery process and demand more and more of my time.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on civil practice? Overall, the introduction of technology in the trial setting has been beneficial. For example, counsel's ability to display evidence to the jury in more meaningful forms has enhanced trials. Also, the use of video conferencing offers cost savings to litigants.

In the discovery setting, technological developments have had more mixed results. As I discussed above, vastly increasing volumes of ESI are causing significant changes. Resolving disputes in this arena is more time-consuming for the court and litigants than the days of traditional paper discovery.

The extensive use of social media raises other issues. To help shield the jury from being tainted by improper information, I address social media usage and practices with jurors at the start of a trial and regularly throughout the trial. Attorneys' use of social media to research jurors and witnesses also has the potential to create problems.

What advice would you give to counsel on preparing for a Rule 26(f) conference? Counsel should have meaningful, good faith communications with opposing counsel before the conference and endeavor to resolve all issues that they can. Taking care of these matters in advance allows their time with the judge to be spent on matters that are truly important and can significantly impact the progress of the case.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about federal litigation? I wish attorneys were more candid with their clients about the merits of their cases. Too often, litigants come to court without an appreciation of the complexity and uncertainty of the issues at hand. When rulings do not go their way, parties often assume that there was some miscarriage of justice. A litigant's perception of justice can be as important as justice itself. A system that is not perceived as just cannot be expected to survive. As officers of the court, attorneys should help promote realistic expectations by fully discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a party's claims and evidence.

Given your history with high-profile litigations, what advice would you offer to counsel litigating cases attracting significant media attention? My first inclination is to advise attorneys not to try their cases in the media, though I realize that advice might be somewhat naive. Counsel should decide on a case-by-case basis if the specific circumstances warrant engaging the media.

However, attorneys litigating high-profile cases should use caution when speaking with the press. They must ensure that their decisions and comments are clearly in their client's best interests. Counsel should not get caught up in the media attention or fool themselves into believing they can control how their client's story is presented in the press.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? Without question, the conduct that most disturbs me is when an attorney is disrespectful to anyone in the courtroom, whether they are an opposing party or counsel, a witness, court staff or someone else who happens to be there. Aside from the judge and attorneys, most people who are in court do not want to be there. These non-attorneys are often afraid and feel out of place. Yet, these are the people we are there to serve and their perception of justice will be greatly affected by how they are treated within the halls of justice. A little compassion and respect can go a long way in putting them at ease so that they can participate in the proceedings in a more meaningful way.