The View from the Bench
Recently Appointed Arizona Jurists Issue the Verdict on Their New Jobs

by Deborah Paddison

Down on the courtroom floor, locked in heated battle with a strong adversary, trying to eke support out of a hostile witness word by stubborn word, what trial attorney hasn’t lifted his gaze up to the judge sitting serenely on the bench and said, "I wish that were me?"

And what trial judge, trying to maintain order in a court simmering with emotion and conflict one minute and burdened with boredom the next, hasn’t thought longingly of fellow judges quietly working on appeals in the peace and privacy of their offices, with law clerks and researchers at the ready?

Well, recently appointed Arizona judges Brian Ishikawa, Charles Jones and Michael Ryan can tell us whether the grass is, in fact, greener. Now that they’ve all had some time to settle into their robes, we thought we’d check in and find out what they think of their assignments.

Arizona Attorney: Why did you want to become a judge?

Brian Ishikawa: In 1989 I was given the opportunity to serve as a judge pro tem on the criminal bench. I found that I enjoyed being a judge, and enjoyed the contact with the attorneys and various parties in court. I felt good about what I was doing. That whet my appetite, so I applied for the superior court position.

Charles Jones: I have to look back to my experience as a law clerk on the Ninth Circuit. Ever since then it’s been in the back of my mind — Would I enjoy this? Would it be something worthwhile? More important, could I make a contribution? When Justice Corcoran of the Arizona Supreme Court announced he was planning to retire, I received words of encouragement from friends and colleagues. However, I was quite happy; and frankly I was 60 then, and I thought maybe what I ought to do is practice a few more years and then hang it up and retire. But I decided at the last minute to apply, and as good fortune would have it I was appointed.

Arizona Attorney: What is it like being the "new man on the court"?

Charles Jones: The other members of this [Arizona Supreme] court have been most gracious and extremely congenial. I have been warmly welcomed to the court by people I consider to be top quality, and I will always be appreciative.

Michael Ryan: Being a judge before, I had had a lot of prior contact with my fellow judges through meetings and judicial conferences, so the transition wasn’t as dramatic. Earlier I served on the Court of Appeals as a volunteer judge pro tem, so it wasn’t an entirely new experience for me. The administrative staff and the other judges were extremely helpful. I didn’t find it to be a stressful change. There is a learning curve; the time it takes depends on the individual, and also how good your staff is. I think if you have a good staff, things tend to work better a little more quickly.

Arizona Attorney: Is there anything about your new position that is not what you expected?

Michael Ryan: I didn’t realize that the workload would be as heavy as it is. There’s a lot of reading and writing to be done here. I thought that as an appeals judge you had a lot of time and weren’t worried about deadlines, but it’s just the opposite.

The other thing that’s different — and it’s something you don’t realize until you get up here — is the lack of contact with attorneys, jurors, witnesses and the many people I was used to dealing with in the courtroom. You’re a lot more isolated. I have a secretary and two law clerks who do a lot of my research and some of the writing. But I don’t interact with attorneys on a regular basis. You don’t have that close contact you do at a trial when you’re facing the attorneys. The only time I see attorneys is at oral argument, when they argue the merits of their case in front of us. But that’s a very formal atmosphere; there are no informal chats among lawyers in the judge’s chambers, for example.

Brian Ishikawa: I thought in this position I would have more contact with other trial court judges than I actually do. Occasionally I may happen to see a judge in the hallway, or call one of the more experienced judges to get their insight on a certain issue.

Charles Jones: The case review process is pretty much as I expected, but I have never been busier in my life. The case filings at the Arizona Supreme Court last year exceeded 1,700. Thankfully we have 12 Supreme Court staff lawyers who do a great deal of screening.

Brian Ishikawa: Let me say that I always respected judges and I knew they worked hard, but since joining the bench I have an even greater appreciation of judges and the responsibilities they have. I work longer hours now than I did in private practice; part of the reason is that we have a tremendous criminal caseload in the southeast Valley — just in the past year our caseload has increased 60 percent. It can be frustrating, because there are more police officers, the prosecutor’s office has grown and the public defender’s office has grown, but we still have the same number of judges and court administrative staff. Plus, with criminal cases, we’re in court all morning — and now, sometimes into the lunch hour as well — handling sentencing matters, changes of pleas and other issues. Then we have trial in the afternoon. When I was on the civil bench we were able to begin trials at 9 or 10 a.m. and go all day. So there is less time to try a heavier burden of [criminal] cases.

On the good side, there’s nothing boring in criminal law. There’s something new every day; nothing surprises me anymore. Each case has unique facts and circumstances, and I find every one of them interesting.

Arizona Attorney: How is judicial practice different from being an attorney?

Michael Ryan: It’s a big step from attorney to judge because you’re no longer an advocate, you’re trying to be an impartial arbitrator. Lawyers want a result for their client, while judges have to interpret the law and make sure the case is presented fairly within the limits of the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. Being a judge you don’t have the "thrill of victory and the agony of defeat," but you do have the satisfaction of knowing that all parties feel they at least got a fair shot to present their case.

Charles Jones: Lawyers tend to focus on narrow specialties, and judges can’t do that. We are hopefully prepared on a wide range of issues because we’re part of general jurisdiction. Half or a little more of our caseload is criminal; I did virtually no work in criminal law as a practicing lawyer, so I’ve had to rekindle what knowledge I had. Plus, with some areas of criminal law, such as sentencing, I’ve had to learn things from the very beginning, because we were never exposed to them when I went to law school.

Arizona Attorney: Judge Ryan, how do the roles of the trial court judge and court of appeals judge differ?

Michael Ryan: I think the trial judge’s role is to see that there’s a fair hearing and the law is applied as it’s supposed to be applied. Those components together with the facts should ensure that justice is achieved.

At the Court of Appeals it’s a lot different. All you have is a written record to review, so you take those facts that are in the record and try to decide exactly what the law means, and how it applies to this set of facts that’s in front of us. We can’t develop more facts, like a trial judge can. We have to judge based on what’s there.

As a trial judge you make your own decisions; you may talk to other judges and get their opinions when they’ve had a similar case, but you’re still independent. Here we sit on a panel of three, so you’re working with two other people. Either you all agree, or one or two disagree with the other(s). That’s a big difference. After having spent so many years being rather autonomous as a trial judge, it’s a change to have to reach agreement with other people. But the other judges up here are great to work with and we have a good collegial atmosphere.

Arizona Attorney: How easy is it to get things done?

Michael Ryan: As a trial judge, a lot of your activity is simply driven by the calendar. You’re a case manager, you’re trying to get cases to move, and you didn’t have as much control as perhaps you’d like. You’re at the mercy of a lot of people, such as attorneys with schedule conflicts. Or sometimes you’d be ready to start a trial and a key witness or litigant would be ill or unable to attend, so you’d get postponed. To get anything done down there you’re dealing with a lot of different people, and if there’s one small glitch it can throw the whole thing off track. It was frustrating, but if you thrive on challenges it can be very rewarding when you finally do get something accomplished.

Brian Ishikawa: Sometimes it’s frustrating because I do want to move cases along; on the other hand, I want to be flexible. I was an attorney at one point in time, so I understand that sometimes delay is necessary to make sure that the job is well done.

Michael Ryan: Here at the Court of Appeals I think you have to be a lot more self-motivated in order to get things done quickly and completely, writing the decision in a clear manner addressing all the issues. You need self-discipline; there’s nobody cracking the whip or standing in front of you saying "We’re ready to go to trial, judge, let’s go today," like you have a trial court. We do have some self-imposed time limits that we try to live by, but the cases are all a little more complex and you have to fight that human urge to put the more difficult problems on the back burner. Developing that discipline and self-motivation is part of the learning curve.

Arizona Attorney: What advice would you give attorneys who come before you to present their appeals?

Charles Jones: There you are in the "pit," being bombarded with questions by several judges. Their questions are usually carefully prepared, thoughtful and relevant — and not easy. From a judge’s standpoint, I view the oral presentations by lawyers as extremely important in the overall judicial process because judges don’t have all the answers — at least I know I don’t. We rely heavily on lawyers, who know far more about the cases than we do in every instance, to provide us with answers to some tough questions. I see judges as playing a role in combination with lawyers, finding solutions to problems together.

Michael Ryan: The message I’d give to attorneys and trial judges would be "Record, record, record!" Make a record of it so there’s something that explains why, for example, a certain ruling was made, and outlines the facts that ruling was based on. A lot of our problems are caused by the slimness of the record that’s in front of us. Also, I would recommend that attorneys who are writing briefs pick out the most important issues and really focus on them. It’s quality, not quantity. Write, rewrite, cite the most relevant cases, make a nice concise argument. What we like to see in briefs is clear, plain language that really specifies the point they’re trying to argue, with facts supporting their case and case references that support their point as closely as possible.

Arizona Attorney: What can you accomplish as a judge that you couldn’t as a lawyer?

Brian Ishikawa: You’re in a better position to make a positive impact on people’s opinion of the judicial system. For example, when we’re selecting a jury on the first day of court it’s very obvious that many of them are not happy to be there. For most people, getting the notice in the mail for jury service is like getting a notice to go to the dentist. But once they get here and see how we run things in the court system, I do feel that they get a positive impression. I normally speak with the jurors after every case to personally thank them for their service, and every single one I’ve asked has said that he or she had a positive experience. You can see that their attitude about the whole judicial system has changed for the better.

Arizona Attorney: On the whole, how do you view the court system here in Arizona?

Charles Jones: I think Arizona is known around the country for having judges who believe in getting along and who do get along. A spirit of collegiality and professionalism seems to exist in the Arizona courts up and down the line — not just at the Arizona Supreme Court, but also at the Court of Appeals and the trial courts.

Michael Ryan: I frequently travel and hear a lot of very complimentary statements made about Maricopa County and the state of Arizona. We’re definitely nationally recognized, especially on the topic of jury reform and the other programs we’ve instituted, such as the self-service center at the Maricopa County Court. When CBS News wanted to videotape jury deliberations for one of their primetime news shows, they came to Maricopa County, Arizona.

Brian Ishikawa: I’m really proud to be a member of this bench. The Maricopa County Superior Court is viewed as a progressive court, on the cutting edge. That’s good, because it puts additional pressure on all of us to make sure we continue to set the standard.

Michael Ryan: The Arizona judiciary is not only innovative, but effective in trying to reach the right result and in finding new ways of doing things that make our decisions credible. This has given the Arizona judiciary an excellent nationwide reputation, and it’s very satisfying to be part of that.

Deborah Paddison is a freelance writer and editor in Phoenix.

Brian K. Ishikawa
In 1978 Brian Ishikawa graduated from Arizona State University with a degree in business. He earned his law degree from the ASU College of Law in 1981.

After serving for five years as a deputy county prosecuting attorney, he joined Gallagher and Kennedy, P.A., where his practice focused on civil litigation, particularly insurance company defense work. He served as a judge pro tem for Maricopa County for five years and joined the Maricopa County Superior Court in early 1995. His current assignment is the criminal calendar at the Superior Court’s Southeast Complex in Mesa.

Charles E. "Bud" Jones
Prior to his appointment by former Arizona Governor Symington to the Arizona Supreme Court, Charles Jones had built a 30-year private practice as a partner at the Phoenix firm Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. His law practice centered primarily on employment and labor matters for corporate clients, including Salt River Project and Shamrock Foods.

He pursued his undergraduate studies at Brigham Young University and graduated from Stanford Law School in 1962. After law school he served as a law clerk for the late Honorable Richard H. Chambers, then Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

Michael D. Ryan
Before being appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Michael Ryan served as a trial judge on the Arizona Superior Court, having been appointed by the governor to that position in 1986. During his tenure he handled civil and criminal calendars, including such high-profile criminal cases as the Phoenix Suns drug case, the case against former Arizona governor Evan Mecham and the AzScam legislative corruption cases.

Before becoming a judge Ryan worked as a deputy county attorney with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix.

Ryan graduated from St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota in 1967, served in the Marine Corps for two years after that and then attended the ASU College of Law, graduating in 1977.