Education: 1980: J.D., University of Wyoming College of Law; 1976: B.A., University of Wyoming.

Career in Brief: 2010–present: US District Court for the District of Wyoming, US District Judge (2011–present: Chief Judge); 1995–2010: Davis & Cannon (1998–2010: Partner; 1995–1998: Associate); 1989–1995: Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Chairwoman; 1989–1991: Wyoming Tax Commission, Chairwoman; 1987–1989: Office of Governor Mike Sullivan, Attorney for Intergovernmental Affairs; 1985–1986: University of Wyoming College of Law, Adjunct Professor; 1980–1987: Office of Governor Ed Herschler, Attorney for Intergovernmental Affairs.

What do you enjoy most about your role as a federal judge and as the Chief Judge for the District of Wyoming? In addition to working with the talented and professional attorneys who appear before me, I most enjoy working with the individuals in my chambers and in the office of the Clerk of Court. Those in the clerk’s office in particular have a very strong, can-do spirit and are dedicated to helping me succeed.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about federal litigation? Attorneys should explain to their clients that a judge’s job is not to vindicate a client’s interest or to punish the client’s adversary. Instead, our charge is to decide the disputes presented to us, consistent with the law as we understand it and the relief requested by the parties. If a judge wrongly decides a case, there is a court of appeals to address that problem.

Too often, clients and their attorneys lose objectivity and are swept along with their passion and sense of justice for their position and cause. Attorneys must stay grounded and be prepared to communicate messages that their clients might not want to hear.

What are your greatest challenges as a judge in civil cases and as the Chief Judge? Before joining the bench, I imagined that I would spend my days as a judge hearing arguments, reading briefs, and writing opinions. I did not fully appreciate how important my case management role would be in fostering the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of a dispute, as stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 and underscored by the 2015 rule amendments.

As the Chief Judge, my greatest challenge was dealing with the uncertainties and stress associated with the budget sequestration. As one might expect, it caused concern among our federal workforce, including whether they would be furloughed. Fortunately, the judiciary had access to funds to postpone the worst effects of sequestration and address our employees’ concerns.

Have the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impacted your approach to civil case management? The amendments have not greatly impacted the district judges’ approach to civil case management in Wyoming, as we had already incorporated many of the best practices embedded in the rules.

For example, even before the amendments, judges took an active role in case management to prevent or mitigate any issues that might impede the progress of a case by conducting telephonic conferences or in-person meetings with attorneys when necessary, holding regular status conferences to check on any developments and settlement prospects, and generally staying connected with the attorneys to identify and discuss any problems.

How has your experience in private practice shaped your approach to civil litigation? My experience in private practice improved my writing skills. While reading about effective writing might be helpful, your writing skills do not develop or improve until you actually write.

Additionally, my experience in private practice and on the other side of the bench reinforced the value of listening, being kind and patient, engaging the attorneys who appear before me, and rendering timely rulings. I remember the uncertainty of waiting for the judge to issue a decision, and wondering if the decision would dispose of the case or if I should prepare to move the case toward trial. Accordingly, I aim to share my thoughts about the matters presented to me with the attorneys. If I know at the end of an argument or a settlement conference how I am leaning on an issue, I believe it is important to tell the parties what I am thinking, even if it might be more comfortable for me to take the case under advisement and issue a written ruling later.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Counsel should check the resources that are available on the court’s website, which include a Bench Book containing suggestions for how to prepare for pretrial conferences, as well as links to forms in my chambers. Counsel should use these forms to provide me with an overview of the case, their recommended schedules, and what discovery they expect to pursue. Additionally, if counsel’s suggested schedule deviates from the court’s guidelines, counsel should come prepared to explain why their case is unique.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? My biggest courtroom pet peeve is an attorney who does not speak clearly and is difficult to understand. Examples of this include attorneys who do not speak into the microphone, speak too quickly or in verbal bursts that are hard to decipher, or allow their voices to trail off at the end of a sentence.

Related to this, it bothers me when attorneys fail to use technology effectively in the courtroom to help educate the listener. People learn by hearing and seeing. Attorneys should not simply recite bullet points displayed on PowerPoint slides. Instead, they should try to think like a teacher when weighing how best to present the information to the court or the jury, and they should make an appointment with the courtroom deputy to understand how the technology works in the courtroom.

In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge litigation attorneys face today? Now that most cases never go to trial, it is hard to have an identity as a trial attorney. At the same time, this challenge presents opportunities because the unlikelihood of trial makes attorneys consider how to best solve their client’s problems without immediately defaulting to a litigation solution that might not be in their client’s best interest.

In cases where litigation is unavoidable, trial attorneys must become masters of pretrial case management and practices, including e-discovery and all that it entails, without losing sight of the objectives set by Rule 1.

What is the best career advice you ever received? Life is too short to work with or for people you do not enjoy, respect, and trust. This applies not only to your co-workers, but also your clients. It is easier for many people to say yes than no, and it can be very difficult as a young attorney to look at a prospective client and make the decision not to take on the matter. However, if something does not feel right about a potential client or matter at the outset, even if it is just a gut instinct, you should not proceed. Always remember that your time, money, and personal reputation are engaged with each client and dispute you take on.

What advice would you offer to female attorneys who aspire to the state or federal judiciary? Think carefully about why you want to be a judge and whether it suits your personality. Being a judge is a privilege and, for some people, can be the best job in the world. For others, however, it can be an isolated, stressful, and frustrating experience. Consider your temperament, personality, and decision-making style, and find a mentor, whether a judge or long-time practitioner, to help you explore whether the bench is a good fit.

Also, consider your potential colleagues and whether being a female jurist will be further isolating, given the disparity of female judges and male judges in the judiciary. Transitioning from a supportive environment rich with smart female attorneys to a completely different setting where your (nearly all) male colleagues are significantly older than you can be unexpectedly difficult. Consider whether your potential colleagues can still be strong role models, even though they do not look like you. I had my own misgivings when I first joined the bench and was delighted to find that my male colleagues were supportive and wonderful.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? I most admire Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who opened the door as the first woman to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court. I admire her approach to deciding disputes. She was careful about deciding cases narrowly and stopped her ego from moving in to argue for a broader sweeping precedent. I also respect that she made the difficult personal choice to leave the bench to help care for her husband. Now, in the important role as private US citizen, Justice O’Connor has turned to the challenging issue of improving our ability to make important policy decisions through civil discussion, and civic education and action.