Education: 1979: J.D., University of Colorado Law School, Honorary Order of the Coif; 1975: B.A., summa cum laude, Lewis & Clark College.

Career in Brief: 2002–present: US District Court for the District of Colorado (2013–present: Chief Judge; 2002–2013: US District Judge); 2001–2002: US Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit, Member; 1994–2002: US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado (2000–2002: Chief Judge; 1994–2000: US Bankruptcy Judge); 1999–2001: University of Colorado School of Law, Lecturer; 1990–1994: Law Offices of Marcia S. Krieger, Solo Practitioner; 1988–1990: Wood, Ris & Hames, P.C., Of Counsel; 1985–1988: Brooks & Krieger, P.C., Partner; 1979–1985: Mason, Reuler & Peek P.C., Associate.

What do you enjoy most about your role as a federal judge? Serving the public has always been the most important aspect of my role as a judge. A major part of that is legal puzzle-solving, that is, looking at the variety of legal issues that we encounter, determining what the relevant law is, and figuring out how it all fits together. This analysis might entail applying state law in a diversity case or federal law in a criminal case, or evaluating the constitutionality of a law itself. Each of those situations is a puzzle, and I enjoy solving them.

How has your experience as a bankruptcy court judge, and as a chief judge, shaped your approach to civil cases? One thing bankruptcy court taught me is to remember the human element of the legal process and focus on the people involved, rather than, for example, how high-profile a case is or how famous the attorneys are. The court’s decisions affect real people in significant and meaningful ways. Debtors in bankruptcy are generally embarrassed to find themselves in bankruptcy court, much like many criminal defendants are ashamed to have their families and friends see them being sentenced after they are convicted. I often tell defendants in sentencing proceedings that we all make mistakes and that just because they are being held accountable, that does not mean they are fundamentally bad people.

As a chief judge, I learned that you cannot force other judges to take actions or positions that they are not comfortable with. You can present good arguments or suggestions, and do your best to serve the public, but you are not the commander-in-chief. We work as a team with a shared commitment to the importance of a fair and an impartial judiciary. That collegiality is critical.

What do you wish attorneys and their clients better understood about federal litigation? A lot of commercial litigation plays out like a business divorce and emotions can run high. When crafting and executing a litigation strategy, it is important for attorneys and their clients to discuss and understand the difference between those drivers that are primarily emotional and those that are legal or economic. Parties and their counsel must separate themselves from any personal factors that are pushing them to continue an irrational course of action, such as strongly held beliefs about an adversary or personality quirks of opposing counsel that make communication difficult.

How have social media and emerging technologies impacted discovery and trial practice in your court? Because of technology, the role of an attorney continues to change and evolve. In the past, attorneys were primarily information gatherers, and that is what the discovery rules were set up to facilitate. Now, far from not having enough information, we have too much. An attorney’s primary role is to sift, categorize, and evaluate that information. Accordingly, strong legal skills in modern litigation are based less on how much information attorneys can find and more on their ability to identify and contextualize the information that supports the key arguments in a case.

How have the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impacted your approach to civil case management? The amendment to Rule 1, which obligates both attorneys and judges to make litigation more efficient, has encouraged me to change my process for handling certain issues. For example, now when I deny a dispositive motion in part and know that the case will proceed to trial, I try to rule on the motion from the bench instead of in writing, and candidly discuss with the parties what the real controversy, claims, and defenses are. By breaking the case down to the core issues, I have had remarkable results in facilitating settlements and resolutions.

From an advocacy perspective, the new language in Rule 1 is significant as well. It clarifies that an attorney’s job is not to turn over every stone, but rather to figure out which stones matter and turn over only those. If I were in practice, I might use Rule 1 as a shield against my own client if they were committed to a wasteful or abusive strategy.

How should counsel prepare for Rule 16 and Rule 26(f) conferences? At pre-trial conferences, counsel should remember to focus on the most important claims and defenses, and the best evidence to support those claims and defenses, rather than presenting every possible argument.

When counsel presses too many legal arguments with equal force, they all start to sound the same to the court and the jury, and it becomes difficult to identify a winning argument. In fact, the biggest complaint I hear from juries is that they feel that counsel has insulted their intelligence and wasted their time by presenting a lot of unimportant or unnecessary information. More is not better, and it often is worse.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? I become frustrated when counsel is not fully truthful and forthright with the court, or is intellectually dishonest. This covers a wide range of conduct, such as incorrectly citing a case, reading only the headnotes of a decision without knowing the reasoning, asking for a continuance without disclosing the real motive for the request, or, when counsel is not fully prepared, trying to wing an argument or a hearing rather than admitting they need more time to properly prepare.

What is the best career advice you ever received? When I was a young associate, a mentor told me, “you don’t make the facts, and you don’t make the law.” As simple as it sounds, that humility has served me well for over 30 years. As a litigator, it reminded me that my job was to present the best legal arguments and the strongest facts in support of those arguments, but that the ultimate outcome was outside of my control. As a judge, it reminds me that my job is to resolve disputes based on the facts and the law, not to make the law. And, in both roles, it serves as a reminder that we cannot take ourselves too seriously.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor saw the law as being fundamentally fair and practical, and her interpretation of the law was consistent with those values.

Additionally, since Justice O’Connor has stepped down from the bench, she has worked to teach children and adults about basic civics by founding iCivics, a non-profit dedicated to restoring civic education in US schools. In my view, this effort is as important as anything she did while on the Supreme Court. Many states, including Colorado, have not had a mandatory civics course in the public schools. As Justice O’Connor has said, the authority of the courts depends on the public’s confidence that the legal system follows a fair and an impartial process. To have that confidence, citizens must learn about how the courts and the other government branches are meant to operate.