Education: 1978: J.D., Yale Law School; 1975: A.B. (English Literature), Georgetown University.

Career in Brief: 2015–present: US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge; 1978–2015: Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (2015: Of Counsel; 1987–2014: Partner; 1978–1987: Associate).

What do you enjoy most about your role? In private practice, an attorney must try to get the best result for a client. As a judge, I enjoy having the freedom to think about interesting issues, while also doing what I think is right, rather than what a client’s interests require.

Additionally, I like the fact that hearings in Chapter 11 cases are not just about what happened in the past (and who is liable to whom), but also how a debtor’s business should be organized and financed going forward. Those hearings provide an interesting look into how industries operate and how businesses work.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? We have to deal with questions under many areas of law (not just bankruptcy) and so there are always new things to learn. Some matters, particularly in larger cases, require us to review long and complicated agreements in a short period of time, so the preparations for hearings can be taxing.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? There are two that I would rank equally:

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? I try very hard to read the papers in advance so attorneys should assume that I am prepared. If for some reason that is not the case, I will say so. I usually ask questions at oral argument, and I appreciate it when attorneys have tried to anticipate the questions that I will have and are prepared to answer them. Also, attorneys should be ready to address difficult or unsettled issues directly. Sometimes attorneys try to evade hard questions, but that just suggests there are real weaknesses to their positions.

How has your practice as a bankruptcy attorney influenced your approach as a bankruptcy judge? One of the things that frustrated me in private practice was that cases took too long and cost too much. I have tried to move cases along, to shorten pretrial periods, and to eliminate unnecessary motions.

What do you find most challenging as a judge compared to private practice? I always worked at a large law firm, where I had a lot of resources at my disposal. As a judge I have only two law clerks. I have tried to make decisions promptly in order to keep cases moving, but some larger matters require so much research and writing that we cannot resolve them as quickly as I would like.

What has been the most interesting or challenging case or decision that has come before you? In all honesty, I would not single out any one case or decision. I have found many of the cases before us to be equally interesting and challenging.

What key differences between civil litigation and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court should litigators keep in mind? It is difficult to generalize because every judge has a different way of handling things, but when I was in private practice I found that the scope and amount of discovery often was more reasonable in adversary proceedings than in traditional civil litigation. That difference cannot be explained by the rules, because the discovery rules are the same in both settings. There are many examples of excesses in all areas of litigation, of course — bankruptcy is no exception — but as a general matter the bankruptcy bar tends to approach cases with a greater sense of economy.

What is one mistake you made early on in your career and what did you learn from that experience? Always check the rules (including a judge’s own rules) before filing a motion, and never rely on your memory or your understanding of the prevailing customs.

Many years ago I was handling a few large cases in front of judges who refused to address discovery disputes unless the parties stated their positions in short letters. We had many of these disputes and submitted many letters. One day an emergency discovery dispute arose in front of a different judge in a different case, and I rushed to submit a letter explaining our position. When I later appeared before that judge, I learned that the judge did not accept these letters and instead required the parties to appear at an informal conference before filing papers of any kind. It was not a pleasant experience but it taught me a lesson I would not forget.

What are your thoughts on the ABI Commission recommendations and whether they will eventually be implemented in whole or in part? That is a very broad question. There are many issues that arise often and that could and should be clarified through changes to the Bankruptcy Code. However, I am not sure that there is enough momentum behind particular ideas, or enough of a political consensus, to bring about large-scale revisions to the Bankruptcy Code.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on discovery and bankruptcy trial practice in general? Parties have legitimate needs for discovery, but in practice attorneys often push the boundaries too far, mostly to assure themselves that nothing could possibly be missed. That often leads to large and expensive productions of useless material.

Email, social media, and other electronic forms of communication have increased the amount of material that is subject to discovery and, therefore, have made the problem worse. The recent revisions to the discovery rules should be helpful in bringing things back into balance.

What advice would you give to counsel on preparing for a discovery conference? Think about what the parties need to prove at trial and be prepared to explain how the discovery is (or is not) necessary for that purpose. And be reasonable and professional.