My guest on this episode is Chief Judge James Holderman, who spent about 30 years on the federal bench in the Northern District of Illinois and now works as a mediator at JAMS ADR. I externed in his chambers in law school, and that experience was an inflection point that shaped my whole career, so it was a real privilege to sit back down with him. We get into growing up on a farm, how he thought about wielding authority from the bench, the hardest task he faced as a judge, and what he would change about how federal litigation is conducted.
Top Insights
- Holderman's farm upbringing gave him his working discipline: his father's rule was "we don't eat until the livestock's fed," and he carried that habit of taking care of others onto the bench.
- He was appointed to the federal bench in Chicago in 1985 at age 37, personally asked by then-President Ronald Reagan.
- He calls imposing criminal sentences the single hardest task of the job, and the cases involving defendants who harmed children the most heartbreaking he handled.
- A judge, he says, has to rule as a reasonable juror would and set aside personal beliefs, even in the times he privately disagreed but knew the outcome was correct under the law and the facts.
- His lifelong interest in intellectual property traces to his inventor father, whose unpatented farm-machinery ideas were, in Holderman's words, taken by International Harvester when the company handed him new equipment in exchange for his drawings.
- His prescription for federal litigation: build in an early, plain-language step where each side has to hear the other's position, and try mediation first, because litigation looks backward while mediation looks forward.
Listen Now
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Full Transcript
Khurram Naik: This is Khurram with Khurram's Quorum. I'm very pleased to say that my guest today is Chief Judge James Holderman, formerly of the Northern District of Illinois and a mediator at JAMS ADR. Judge Holderman is somebody who made a tremendous impact on me when I had an externship in his chambers in law school, and externing for the judge was an inflection point for me, and I feel I've been riding that wave ever since. Here he is. How are you doing today?
Judge Holderman: I'm doing great.
Khurram Naik: Chief Judge James Holderman, it's great to see you again.
Judge Holderman: I'm very pleased to see you.
Khurram Naik: Well, you know, I recall when I was your extern that you were very early to chambers. You liked to get an early start, and I know that you grew up on a farm; that's part of your roots in Illinois. I'm curious, what's the legacy of that experience? You get up early, and I'm sure that was a product of that. But the experiences of growing up on a farm, how did that influence you in your later career?
Judge Holderman: First of all, you're absolutely right. We raised livestock and crops, and that is my heritage. That's my background. For some reason, though, at age 10 I decided I wanted to be a lawyer. I told my father, who was a farmer and a successful one, that I wanted to be a lawyer, and he was adamantly against that. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing on that warm summer day at age 10 when I told him, and I never raised the subject to him again. He passed away when I was a teenager, and I continued to run the farm because at that point I was already in college, actually going to the University of Illinois on an agriculture scholarship. So I finished my undergraduate career, and I talked to my mom after my father passed away about wanting to be a lawyer, which he had never mentioned to her. And she said, that's great. I will work things out with the farm, and you pursue that career. So that's what I did. My background is in agriculture. I still love the open setting. I know you can see up my backyard across the, well, now it's a golf course, but a beautiful view. And yeah, I think it gave me a discipline that has helped me throughout my career, that you have to do things that help others. My dad had a saying: we don't eat until the livestock's fed. So we were always taking care of our livestock, and that carried over to taking care of people.
Khurram Naik: Well, so I think that had to be a pretty unusual experience to have on the bench. I imagine a number of your peers didn't have that experience. So what are the ways you think that distinguished you from other judges on the bench?
Judge Holderman: Well, I actually did have an experience once where I had a hearing with regard to farming equipment. I forget what it was; it might have been a patent case. I don't recall it, but I remember there was a person who was purported to be an expert on the witness stand, and he was explaining about certain principles and things. And I remember saying to him, hey, I've done that, that's not how it works. And he was shocked, and really had nothing more to say. But yeah, I think again, it's just the background of having to work on the farm gave me a basis for a discipline that helped me on the bench. And on occasion, my fellow judges did, when they had something involving agriculture, they did consult me. And I was happy to provide it, because I did have the experience and the knowledge in the area. And I still love it.
Khurram Naik: Well, I ask that because I'm kind of curious how that informs your view of diversity on the bench. Because there's lots of kinds of diversity. And so I wonder, what are the ways you feel that the bench is diversified, and what are the ways you think we could increase the diversification of views or backgrounds or inclinations of people on the bench?
Judge Holderman: Okay. Well, every judge that comes to the bench comes with a background of experience that they've had in their lives. And I think diversifying the bench is something that we need to do by inspiring and giving confidence to diverse people around the country that yes, you too can become a United States district judge. You too have a contribution that you can make. And I firmly believe that the more experience and diverse backgrounds we have on the bench, the better off our country is. But again, I think there are people, well, like yourself, I don't want to embarrass you, but like yourself who really have the background, experience, and understanding of the law and people that would be an excellent judge. And we just have to encourage and give confidence to those people who desire to do that from diverse backgrounds and experiences and cultures and heritage.
Khurram Naik: You know, you joined, you became a federal judge, I think you were about 35, is that right?
Judge Holderman: It was around that, mid-30s. I think I was 37 or 38, but I was 37. I had to do the math real quick. But I was young, and in 1985 I had been personally asked by then-President Ronald Reagan to take the bench in Chicago. I didn't know President Reagan very well; I had met him a few times. And yeah, I was young, but I felt I had enough experience practicing law, first as an assistant U.S. attorney and then in private practice where I handled exclusively federal court cases. I did some work over in the state court, but my clients all had federal court litigation, and that is what assisted me, I think, on the bench. I tried cases, I'd handled appeals, I knew all the judges on the court, they knew me, and yeah, that helped me. And going back to diversity again, we need to encourage people to get to know their judges, where they'd like to serve as judges, and to aspire to that if that's their desire.
Khurram Naik: So on that subject, I think what's so interesting about the judiciary is the relative lack of understanding of the average citizen of the federal judiciary. And there really can be acute attention around Supreme Court hearings, for confirmations. And so just the impressions that people have of court judges, who are the people that end up on the bench, and what are the tasks involved, what does it mean to be a federal judge, what are the things that a federal judge does. And I think importantly, what are the things that a federal judge doesn't do. I think that's something that the average citizen has pretty little information on. Any given politician, senator or congressperson, of course the president or his cabinet, these are people that are extensively profiled in the media, but judges have hardly any of that profile. So do you feel like we need to do more? We were talking about having lawyers get to know judges better and then aspire to be in those roles and just be better connected. And I think maybe we've got even an issue with just our citizenry not understanding the judiciary enough. I know that you've taken public education seriously; what do you think needs to be done, or should be done, or could be done?
Judge Holderman: Well, yeah, I agree with you that certainly at the district court level, the local federal court, the judges aren't in the news and their tasks really aren't well known. What federal judges do, at least in the federal system, is you handle every type of federal case that is filed in your district, both civil, criminal, and other types of actions. One of the things federal judges do in Chicago is we actually administer the oath to new citizens, people who have immigrated to the United States and have passed all the obligations that are necessary to become a citizen if you're not naturally a citizen having been born here. And so that's a task that people don't know about. And actually it's one of the few tasks that I have as a federal judge, or had as a federal judge, where everybody walks away happy, because in the typical judging role on the civil side, you have litigants who have differing views about whatever their dispute is, and you have to apply the law to the facts as presented and make a determination, or preside over a jury trial where you assist the jury by giving them jury instructions on the law, making rulings on the evidence as to what evidence is appropriately before them, and then entering a judgment on the verdict. And I have to say, I'm a strong advocate of the jury system as the last resort if people can't otherwise resolve their differences. Civil juries really do try hard to get it right, and I've presided over a couple hundred jury trials and interviewed a lot of jurors. So assisting jurors in coming to the conclusion that they believe is right is another task of the federal judiciary. On the criminal side, the other major task is handling a criminal docket, anyone who is charged with a federal crime. And for it to be a federal crime there has to be some federal jurisdictional link to the activity of the accused. You not only preside over jury trials, but then after a verdict, if there is a verdict of guilty, then it's your task and your task alone as a federal judge to impose an appropriate sentence. Here we don't have the jurors imposing sentences. There's only one circumstance where the jurors can recommend a sentence, and that is in those crimes where the sentence is the death penalty, and we still have the death penalty in the federal court system. If you kill a federal officer, the potential sentence is death, but for other crimes it always is up to the judge as to what sentence is to be imposed if a person is found guilty by the jury.
Khurram Naik: To run with what you're talking about, one thing that I was struck with, a perennial thing that is fascinating about the role of a judge, are the departures from normal intuitions about how to handle issues, kind of like you were talking about earlier, how you preside over these citizenship ceremonies and everybody leaves happy, and that's not usually the case. I recall when I externed for you, we had a jury trial, and I recall it was a patent case, and the jury returned a verdict that the patent was not infringed but valid, and you said, I'm not surprised by that, because it's often the case that jurors want to give everybody something. So it seems to be a very natural human intuition, and my observation is that the judge has learned not to do that. So what are some of the ways in which you had to train yourself to depart from those layperson intuitions about how to resolve disputes and do it the way you think a judge needed to, apply the law correctly to the facts and deliver that outcome?
Judge Holderman: Well, you're absolutely correct, that is another task of federal judges and all judges, but my experience is only with the federal courts. And you do need to set aside your own personal feelings and to objectively apply the facts to the law, and to make a determination as a reasonable juror, not as Jim Holderman the human being. And sometimes that's difficult, but there are times when I didn't personally believe in the particular point that was being made, but I knew it was correct. I knew it was correct under the law and the facts, and so consequently, I really can't give you an example of that right now, but I know it happened over my career. You just have to put on your judge thought process and remove your personal beliefs in performing the tasks as a judge. I mean, that's the oath that you take, to uphold the Constitution and apply the law and facts fairly, and so you have to put aside biases and prejudices that you might otherwise have in your head. First of all, you have to recognize them. Second of all, then you put them aside and make a determination that you believe is appropriate under the law from a reasonable standpoint.
Khurram Naik: I'm also thinking about the ways that you refined that over time, or other intuitions about how to make a determination. I can only imagine when you're fresh to the bench you approached decision-making in a certain way, and then by the time you left the bench you saw things a little bit differently. So what's the difference between the judge that first joined the bench and the one that left?
Judge Holderman: All right, well, it's hard to remember back to those days, but joining the bench, I always had the attitude, like everyone, I wanted to be a good judge. I wanted to be thought of as a good judge, I wanted to be conscientious, and I worked hard toward that, and actually those concepts and desires never left me. I do think that over time you develop a perspective that assists you, from the standpoint that you've been there before. You've handled this type of case before, you have the experience, and you become more comfortable in your decisions, more confident in your decisions. You're always hoping that it's right, and when there's an appeal, the court of appeals agrees with you that it's right. But I think my desire to always do the best I could do never changed over the 30 years.
Khurram Naik: Was there a class of problems, or a particular instance? And maybe this isn't any aspect of your role, because I recognize that as the chief judge you had a variety of administrative roles as well, but certainly on the bench and otherwise, what were the hardest kinds and the most difficult problems for you to solve?
Judge Holderman: Well, I've already mentioned criminal sentencing. I always felt that was, because judges have a lot of discretion, federal judges, when sentencing an individual, although the sentencing guidelines put parameters on the discretion. But I always felt the hardest task I had, to try to do the right thing, was imposing an appropriate sentence for the individual and the crime. And again, that didn't change. I always put a lot of thought into it, because you're not sentencing just somebody, you're sentencing this particular individual who has attributes and talents and potential, and sometimes a desire to do the right thing. I remember particularly difficult were the type of federal crimes where the defendant engaged in illegal conduct with children. That just breaks your heart. But to some extent the pedophiles have some mental difficulty that is not well recognized in the law. And I do remember more than once, I sentenced a lawyer who was a pedophile, I sentenced a marine veteran who was a pedophile, I sentenced a professor who was a pedophile. And they actually recognized that they were guilty of what they were charged with, and they all had a desire, every one of them, which was quite, in my opinion, unusual, one of them had a desire to try to help medical science figure out what it is that causes them to want, very adamantly, to engage in that conduct. And so I always did, when I sentenced those folks, I always did say, your job during the time you serve, because they were usually serving at a facility like the Rochester, Minnesota facility here in the central part of the country, your job is to help medical science try to figure out what it is that caused you to do this, and help medical science figure out how we can assist other people who have that same difficulty overcoming it. And every one of them, those three particular defendants that I've talked about, every one of them grasped that and said, I would really like to do that, because I don't know why I am as I am. And so those were particularly heartbreaking, because obviously they did damage, maybe not physical, but mental damage to the children, and they knew there was something wrong with them. I actually look forward to the day, hopefully I'll still be around, when our medical science can figure out that problem.
Khurram Naik: And so you do have to deal with these really painful circumstances that affect you at some level. How do you manage the emotions? What are the ways in which you are able to try to quarantine that to your chambers, not take it home with you? What are the ways you handle that?
Judge Holderman: Well, as you know, having externed in my chambers and having had the experience, I do talk things over with my law clerks and my interns. And I try to get different views of a particular decision that I have to make, and especially if it's one that touches your heartstrings, I want to get the objective input to the extent I can with the other people whom I have confidence in, who I'm entitled to work with and consult as a federal judge. Obviously you take into account the arguments of the lawyers and their positions, but every lawyer that appears in front of me is an advocate. Every intern and every law clerk that works with me is trying to assist me to make the right decision. And so that's one of the ways I did it. But as a federal judge, you have to follow the law and apply the law fairly. And so there were times when I felt, especially under the sentencing guidelines, in this particular case there ought to be some exception, either up or down from the guidelines, but unfortunately the Congress of the United States had imposed these provisions, and it was my job to apply the laws that existed at the time.
Khurram Naik: And so I think that's another reason why I got to know you better, because you've been so active in the patent bar. And so it was very clear to me you had great passion for it, putting in a lot of additional effort over and above your responsibilities as a judge. And I was always very fascinated with that, because I've been a lawyer in private practice, and we're incentivized to do certain things, and we think about those incentives quite often.
Judge Holderman: Sure.
Khurram Naik: And so I was always kind of fascinated with the energy you put into this thing that didn't seem to necessarily impact your role as judge. You weren't evaluated based on how many patent cases you handled or the way you did it. So tell me about how you came to take an interest in that sort of matter and why it really meant something to you.
Judge Holderman: Okay. Well, I don't know that I've ever publicly explained this, so you're getting this publicly for the first time, but it does go back to my childhood, and it does go back to my father. My father was a very successful farmer and he was an inventor. He would tinker, as he put it, with the farm machinery at the time. And he would come up with ideas, he'd make drawings, and I remember at a very young age, about the time I guess I thought about being a lawyer, my father had developed some beneficial mechanisms for harvesting corn, for planting corn in narrow rows and harvesting it, so that the stalks, which tangle up easily, get the corn picked out of the field without a lot of work. And there was a company, it's now no longer in existence under this name, but there was a company called International Harvester. It was a big farm implement company at the time. It changed its name to Navistar, and its national research facilities were actually in Burr Ridge, Illinois, which is only a few miles from where I live right now. And the arrangement that those folks made with my dad was that they would give him brand-new equipment every year, if he wanted it. All he had to do was show them his ideas and allow them to try to put them into practice. Well, my dad didn't particularly care for lawyers, didn't know anything about the patent laws, all he cared about was trying to do farming in a more successful way and help others. He thought this was great. And I specifically remember him telling me how wonderful it was, new equipment would be hauled in, and all he had to do was turn over his drawings. Well, you and I both know that had I known, or had he known, what we now know, they were ripping him off. And that particular experience made me think, the world needs people who understand the intellectual property laws, because there are a lot of people out there in the world that don't, and we need to assist those inspired people who come up with ideas to be able to protect them. Now, as I said, my father was successful. He didn't need to have patents and didn't need to get royalties. We had a nice life. But had I known then what I know now, we would have had an even nicer life. And so that's kind of the thing that inspired me when I became a lawyer. My father passed away, but I became a lawyer and I started learning about intellectual property. I knew it generally, like any other kid growing up, but I started to understand the nuances of it. And that literally is why I took an interest and became such an interested judge in that area and focused on those areas. So you're getting into the deep dark psychology of, I mean, you and I have known one another for a long time, and you're now getting deep into my inspirations. But again, I guess it goes back to, of course, any human being, you're inspired by your background, your experience, and your perspectives, and that is something that we all bring to the bench and bring to the rest of our lives. And so I still enjoy intellectual property. I do a lot of intellectual property mediations. I try to help people resolve their cases and resolve their disputes, almost worldwide. I recently had a mediation where the plaintiffs' counsel was in Frankfurt, Germany, the plaintiff clients and counsel were actually in the United States, and the defendant clients were in Beijing, China. And that's one of the benefits of Zoom. We were able to do that mediation all in one day, all at one time, nobody had to travel, and it worked out. But that was an intellectual property matter.
Khurram Naik: I want to pick up on hearing about your experiences as a mediator shortly, but I'm kind of curious, when I'm thinking about the experience of your father and how he would have benefited, as you say, from working with an IP attorney, I have similar stories I could talk about, but it's kind of a long story.
Judge Holderman: I'd love to hear it.
Khurram Naik: It's a podcast, though.
Judge Holderman: Yeah, exactly.
Khurram Naik: You know, I think your story might be a little more interesting. But what I think was really interesting to pick up on there is, there's always this question, particularly as an IP lawyer, I think any number of us, if we value our technical chops, say to ourselves, is this the best use for my talent, or should I be on the other side of this table helping create new inventions? So I'm curious, my understanding is the U.S. does proportionally have a high number of lawyers compared to other parts of the world. I don't know how IP lawyers compare to other parts of the world. But it sounds like you were of the view that that's okay, it's okay to have plenty of lawyers. So I'm curious about your thoughts. Maybe we can make it specific to IP: do we have too many IP lawyers, or is this a good pool? Do we need these people?
Judge Holderman: Well, the one benefit, as you and I both know, is that with a legal education you can do just about anything, and your legal education will benefit you because of the way you learned to think, the way you learned to analyze. I don't think we have too many lawyers. I frankly think that it is beneficial to have people knowledgeable in the law. And I work with a lot of executives that are lawyers but don't practice law, and they use that background and experience to assist them in whatever other endeavors they're engaged in. So yeah, my father may have thought there were too many lawyers, and I never knew what his experience was that made him feel so negative about lawyers, because literally after he told me no, don't ever be a lawyer, when I was age 10, I never talked to him again about it. But I think the world needs lawyers, and people need the benefit and assistance of understanding how the law applies to their conduct, the conduct of the people that they're with, and the people they do business with, so that everyone's rights are protected and everyone gets the benefit of their own inspirations.
Khurram Naik: You know, I can't help but wonder, another key point about being a judge, or a mediator, is this question of authority. We're in this democratic society, and you and I are broadly alike in so many ways, but some people, by virtue of this role of being a judge, are tasked with certain responsibilities, they have certain power with it. But we're not in some autocratic regime, there are limitations on these powers. And I think that's something you and some of your peers on the bench always consistently emphasized, that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and you talk about the limitations on your power. So a key part of the role seems to me to be about wielding authority and influence, and there's this extra-legal component to that, the carrots and sticks involved with that. So I'm really curious to hear more about how you approach authority. What are the ways that made you authoritative on the bench? And part of that, now I'm wondering, is how did that tie into your experiences with your father, because it sounds like your father, you remember the day you said this to your father.
Judge Holderman: Oh, yeah. It was a big moment in my life. I was crushed, because I had developed this desire. But I guess that's what makes it a very important thing. Everyone who's in a position where you can affect other people's lives needs to be circumspect about how you go about doing that. And no matter where you are, no matter what country you're in, in my opinion, that's what people in authority should do. I think that's a big question they should ask themselves, whether they're doing the right thing for the people who are affected by their decisions, and they should always keep in mind how their decisions do affect people. But you and I were talking casually before we started this, and I think the last time we chatted when we weren't recording, I left the bench having had all that power, having been the chief judge, having been the ultimate decision maker on the court, a person who was considered a leader among equals. And when I left, a lot of people said, aren't you going to miss the power? And actually, I don't. Because with the power comes the responsibility to make sure that you are imposing your decisions in a fair and just way. And I'm no longer the decision maker. I'm now retired. What I do is try to help people be decision makers. And that's what I enjoy about the mediations. I work with the lawyers, I work with their clients, to try to help them come to the best decisions for themselves and their businesses. I primarily do business mediations, although I have done some employment mediations. I don't do mediations such as family mediations or divorce, because I never handled that in the federal courts. But I've always thought that's the way authority should be imposed. It has to be done in a fair and just way, and the person with the power needs to constantly question the effect of the power that they're using.
Khurram Naik: And is there nothing you've learned as a mediator, or experienced as a mediator, that informed you on the bench, that you wish you knew on the bench that you know now?
Judge Holderman: I think that's a good question. I guess one of the things I've learned, and I suspected it on the bench, or maybe I knew it on the bench, there always are factors in the decision-making process of people that aren't necessarily on the surface. And I guess I did know that when I was on the bench, but I couldn't do anything about it. All I could do was just apply the facts and the law and make a decision and move on to the next case. Now I'm able to actually consult with those people, find out what are those underlying factors that cause you to feel the way you feel about this particular point. And to some extent that adds to the satisfaction of the job that I'm now allowed to do, which is to be a mediator. I tried to be compassionate when I was on the bench, I tried to use my authority for the benefit of everyone. I didn't know, I suspected, but I didn't know all of those little factors that go into people's conduct and cause them to engage in certain conduct. And so I do enjoy finding that out to the extent I can when I'm mediating.
Khurram Naik: Is that a product of your workflow? Because as a federal judge you've got a massive docket, and now as a mediator you're able to be much more selective about the tasks you take on. So essentially it's a product of having more time to get to know the parties and what's actually underlying the dispute?
Judge Holderman: Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. Our federal district judges across the country are by and large overworked. You can't really devote the time to a particular case that you desire to, because there's always another one coming, and a lot coming. And so I am able to focus. I'm sitting here at my desk, and I've got a number of files on my desk of mediations that are coming up, and I am able to focus on helping those particular people in those particular mediations come to the best conclusion for them. And I wasn't able to do that on the bench, because I was the one having to make the decision. And I wasn't always sure it was the best, but I was confident that I had done my best to apply the law fairly and to find the facts fairly.
Khurram Naik: With the mediation practice you have now, is there anything that says to you, do you have an opinion on the kinds of matters that are more susceptible to resolution by mediation versus litigation?
Judge Holderman: Well, of course, now I feel that everybody ought to, in the civil area, in civil cases, try mediation first, because frankly there's a lack of communication among the disputants. One of the things I do with every mediation is I have an initial conversation, be it by phone or now sometimes virtually, among the parties and the lawyers, and I ask each lawyer to briefly and concisely and as objectively as possible explain their client's position. And often I have heard that that's the first time that the other side has really heard a synopsis of why they believe they're right. In fact, several times over the last five years since I've been mediating privately, when the client hears, oh, that's why they think that way, it helps them see the nature of the dispute and understand it, and resolve it more quickly. That one moment of an objective explanation, as objective as it can be without oratory, it never happens in litigation. You file a complaint, and then there's a motion to dismiss and it's ruled on, either granted or denied, then there's an answer filed, then you just start the discovery process and you get documents, and you never really sit down and go, what's the real problem here? A lot of times clients don't understand that if they really knew what the other side's concern was, we could get this worked out. We don't want you to have that concern, because here's our concern. So I guess that's another satisfying aspect of mediation, and I think it's a service that we provide. So I guess now I am more inclined to consider litigation as the last resort and trials as the last resort.
Khurram Naik: Are there things that you think, generally speaking, commercial entities, the kind of entities that come before you in mediation, what are the ways they can short-circuit these disputes? Because it sounds like you're saying a lot of times it's the first time these parties have heard the other person's point of view. So if you were to make a prescription, generally speaking for a company, because a lot of companies are going to maybe be repeat litigants, what are the kinds of practices they can put in place that can avoid mediation or avoid litigation?
Judge Holderman: Yeah, well, that's a very good question, because I do believe there should be, in the litigation process, an early moment of mediation or settlement conference. To some extent, toward the end of my career on the bench, I tried to do this, where you kind of take the legal mumbo jumbo out of it and you get down to the real nub of the problem. I tried to help each side see the nub of the problem to the extent that they can recognize it and focus on it. So I guess if I had my druthers, being able to change the litigation process, I would say there should be an attempt, there should be a feature of litigation that requires early on a mechanism of communication that would allow each side to more objectively see the other side's position. Because the process that we have now, at least in federal court, you know, the complaint, the answer, the discovery, motion for summary judgment, there really is no built-in mechanism. Of course, we have settlement conferences and that sort of thing, but that's usually later on in the existence of the litigation.
Khurram Naik: It seems to me that in your role as mediator, you're discussing some of the ways in which you enjoy being able to get more into understanding the clients and understanding some of the nuance around the basis of their positions. So it seems there's maybe a little more creativity involved in this role. So is there some resolution or type of solution crafted that you're particularly proud of?
Judge Holderman: Well, I do believe that just generally helping people come to a resolution, and it's their resolution, it's not mine, come to a resolution that works for them, I guess is the only thing that makes me proud and gives me satisfaction. Because everybody, when you reach a settlement, everybody's a little unhappy about it, simply because you had to make a compromise. But then when you sit back and evaluate the compromise that you made, you realize that there are a lot of benefits that you're deriving from that compromise that going forward will benefit you and your life and your business. And that's what I try to emphasize to people. Litigation is a backward-looking thing. You always have to go back and, what happened then, and what happened then? Mediation is a forward-looking approach, where what can we do to resolve this so we can move on for the mutual benefit of the disputants? And so that's why I say litigation's the last resort. If you can't otherwise work it out, then that's when you have to litigate and try cases. And don't get me wrong, I love being a judge. As you know, I loved the opportunity to assist people in that way. And frankly, I feel honored to have had the opportunity, and I love having the opportunity that I have now to help people in the way that I'm helping people now.
Khurram Naik: What surprised you the most about your work as a mediator? You probably had some concept going in; what surprised you?
Judge Holderman: I guess the fact that there are so many underlying factors that didn't come to the surface. That's what I referred to earlier. I knew there were some, but I didn't realize there were so many that people have in mind. And every dispute is different, and every individual is different. Just as I said, every judge comes to the bench with a different background and experience than every other judge, every individual comes to a mediation with a background and experience that's different from every other person in the mediation process. And so I guess the number of factors that you need to take into account, and to assist people in recognizing, it's another thing that I enjoy about the mediations, where I'm able to help people understand what those underlying factors are that they may not really have in their conscious mind, but subconsciously, if they focus on them, are there, and sometimes are barriers that don't allow them to resolve the matters more quickly than they otherwise would.
Khurram Naik: I'm just very fascinated with the shift from judge, working for the public interest, to private work as a mediator. And so I'm just kind of curious about, in this phase of your career, what else you're considering, what are the things you're thinking about in life. And I know that you've been friends with Scott Turow for a long time, who's obviously a very well-known novelist. So I am curious, do you miss writing opinions enough that you think you might write some sort of literature of your own?
Judge Holderman: I don't know. Scott is a very good friend. In fact, Scott took my place at my law firm when I went on the bench. He was a former assistant U.S. attorney and had similar experiences to mine in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and was a good fit for my law firm, which needed a person with that type of background and experience. And so Scott and I have been friends for a long time. He is a very talented individual and a wonderful person. Sometimes people who are famous like him are a little more difficult on a personal level. No, I don't think I will engage in the writing of fiction. I enjoy too much working with the real lives of people and helping them. But he is a tremendous novelist, and I recommend every one of his books. I think I've read every one of his books. And he is a wonderful individual.
Khurram Naik: You know, I'm kind of curious. You've seen so many people on the bench from other parts of the country, lawyers from different parts of the country, and now as a mediator you see people from different parts of the country. I've only practiced law in Chicago and Boston, and I've got to tell you, I feel like the affinity, the association of bar cultures, is very strong in Chicago. And I took it for granted that it'd be everywhere until I got to Boston. In Chicago, there's three organizations I was a part of. The Linn Inn of Court, of course, is one of them, one of the Chicago committees, and also the South Asian Bar Association. All three of those are very important to me. And so now I have some context and appreciation for however strong the bar association culture is in Chicago. So I'm curious, do you have any views on the different cultures of attorneys across the country, and what's the difference between how Chicago operates versus other attorneys in the country?
Judge Holderman: Well, I do agree with you that frankly, in Chicago, the lawyers do enjoy socializing with one another and working on legal problems that face the country or face the bar in general, as opposed to individual cases. You mentioned the Linn Inn of Court and the South Asian Bar. I've got a lot of friends obviously in both, and you were one of the early members of the Linn Inn of Court. And of course that Inn was created because a young lawyer had come to know Richard Linn when she was in Washington, D.C., and just found him to be a very nice man, and felt that it would be appropriate for an Inn of Court to be named after him. She got his permission and convinced the rest of us in Chicago. I had met Richard Linn, but I wasn't particularly close to him at the time. He was a Federal Circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and I was a district judge, and I sat on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a couple of times at the request of the chief judge. But now that I've come to know him, and come to see all the lawyers in Chicago who have come to know him, it really has enhanced the cohesiveness of the lawyers in Chicago. And Richard Linn was so thankful and inspired by the beginning of the Richard Linn Inn in Chicago that now he's developed a whole organization within the organization of the Inns of Court, the Linn Inn Alliance of Intellectual Property Inns of Court. And frankly, I of course have an affinity for the lawyers in the intellectual property area, but I think they've come to know around the country that they have an affinity for one another. And I really think it has inspired, for the benefit of other parts of the country, a communication and an assistance of one another that has existed in Chicago for a number of years. And you had the experience, and we miss you in Chicago, I have to say.
Khurram Naik: So, sign me up, I might come back.
Judge Holderman: Oh, that's great, love to have you anytime.
Khurram Naik: You know, you said something interesting about litigation being necessarily backward-looking and mediation forward-looking, so I'm kind of curious, for yourself, what are you looking forward to? What are you looking forward to this year and in the coming years? Tell me about where you're heading.
Judge Holderman: Well, you know, I'm getting to that point in my life where I'm just continuing to enjoy the things I enjoy, and I really have no aspirations to go beyond what I'm doing now, other than to watch and assist my grandkids growing up. I've got a number of grandchildren, and they are a great inspiration for me because of the joy and the enthusiasm that they have for their lives. And I guess that's where I am in my life, where I get great pleasure in watching them grow, watching them develop, watching them become the human beings and the people that will benefit society in years to come.
Khurram Naik: Well, I've got to tell you, Chief, you've been a big inspiration for myself, and you're someone that I've admired for a long time, so I've always had a great time with you. I always learn so much, and I really appreciate you taking the time to sit down and share your experiences with me.
Judge Holderman: Well, it's my pleasure, because the feeling's mutual. One of the nice benefits of getting to know someone well is that you really do learn a lot from everybody, and you, with your experiences and your approach to life and to the profession and your tremendous skills as a lawyer, I find great inspiration from that myself. And so it really has been a pleasure. And I thank you very much for allowing me to chat with you as we otherwise would, other than on this podcast. This was kind of like how we talked to one another when we were talking.
Khurram Naik: Right. So thank you. Thanks, Chief.