Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos
Sponsored by RebuttalPR
Can you share your journey from being a civil litigator to a criminal trial lawyer and finally to a trial judge?
I became interested in the law because my father was a police officer. He would share his court experiences and that sparked my interest. I applied to law school right out of college, choosing Columbia Law. Initially, I aimed to be a corporate lawyer and joined a civil law firm immediately after graduation. For three years, I worked on insurance coverage, bad faith litigation, and some insurance defense. However, I realized I lacked trial experience, a valuable skill that I sought. Not wanting to wait years for this opportunity at a large firm, I applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles in the hope that I could get trial experience. Despite a hiring freeze, I was hired in the criminal division, trained in case trials, and eventually worked in the narcotics unit, prosecuting narcotics traffickers and money launderers. This division offered more trial opportunities due to the severe penalties involved. All my cases were federal, and I never tried a case in state court. After ten years at the U.S. Attorney's Office, I sought new challenges. Encouraged by others, I applied to the state court bench and was appointed by Governor Gray Davis in 2000. I have been a state court trial judge for 24 years, progressing from misdemeanor criminal cases to the complex division.
It seems like you became a judge early in your career. What was that like, being a relatively young female judge?
Being selected as a judge at a young age is rewarding, as it brings a sense of pride. However, there are downsides. Firstly, stringent retirement rules require judges to serve until they are 65 in California, leading to a longer tenure than many anticipate and potential burnout. Secondly, as a young female judge, I faced challenges, especially in criminal misdemeanors, where my authority was tested more frequently than my older, male counterparts. This included attempts to undermine my credibility, such as not appearing for hearings. Fortunately, my background in criminal law from the U.S. Attorney's Office equipped me to handle these challenges effectively.
A theme that we've heard from people in this series is that young female attorneys often feel like they have to fit into this mold of what an attorney “should” be like, whether that's how they dress, how they cross-examine, or some other aspect of their role. Did you experience that as a judge, trying to fit into another kind of standard role, or were you able to quickly make it your own?
I didn't feel compelled to conform to any particular stereotype. However, I did notice times when people did not assume I was the judge upon entering the courtroom. For instance, walking into my courtroom now in a turtleneck sweater and casual attire might lead to being mistaken for the court reporter, which has occurred a few times. Consequently, I had to acclimate to this. The expectation was often for a judge to be a white, tall, male with white hair, not a female minority judge. Thus, I had to make slight adjustments – not in how I judged, but in understanding that not everyone would immediately recognize me as the judge and adjust their treatment accordingly. This required a bit of understanding on my part, acknowledging that their preconceived notions of a judge did not align with my appearance.
What was the transition like from being on one side of the bench to the other?
As a litigator, you're primarily focused on advancing your client's goals and interests. However, when you become a judge, you must shift this mindset because you're no longer advocating for one side. Instead, your goal is to achieve a just outcome through a fair process. This requires a focus on ensuring that both the process and the final ruling are equitable. Adjusting to this new perspective can be challenging, as you're accustomed to advocating for a client's or, as a government lawyer, the government's interests in prosecution. Yet even prosecutors aim for a fair outcome. Transitioning from representing a private client or the government to seeking justice in a broader sense entail striving for a fair resolution. We often equate fairness with winning, but as a judge, the emphasis shifts to ensuring both the process and outcome are just, marking a significant change in approach from lawyer to judge.
Did that transition change your perspective on justice? You mentioned it changing how you view cases, but more generally, how did that transition change how you view justice?
Lawyers often believe that judges are deeply concerned with the outcomes of cases. However, the primary concern for judges is not who wins or loses; rather, it is ensuring the fairness of the process. Especially in jury trials, where the jury determines the verdict, it is crucial to ensure that the decision is made based on a fair process. This includes the admission of appropriate evidence, proper performance by the attorneys, and the judge fulfilling their role effectively.
As someone who's been involved in complex and high-profile cases, are there any that stand out to you or that were particularly meaningful for you?
Looking at my background, I've handled some very high-profile cases, but those aren't necessarily the most meaningful to me. I learned a tremendous amount from these high-profile cases—about their complexities, managing them, and maintaining my composure under national scrutiny. A prime example is the Michael Jackson case. Despite the significant learning experience it offered, it wasn't the most impactful case for me.
The cases that have had the most meaning to me include a recent one involving the Voting Rights Act. This case, which escalated to the California Supreme Court, centered on my finding that a city had breached the Voting Rights Act. Its at-large voting system discriminated against Latinos in Santa Monica, evidenced by a lengthy history of discrimination dating back almost seventy years. At-large voting tends to disadvantage Hispanic candidates due to the demographic makeup of the voting population. My solution was to introduce district-based voting, ensuring representation for historically marginalized communities. This change allowed for more equitable representation on the city council, impacting city decisions significantly.
Although the Court of Appeal initially reversed my decision, the California Supreme Court upheld it, mandating further actions consistent with their verdict. This ongoing case stands as a personal victory and a significant win for the community, marking it as more meaningful to me than even the Michael Jackson case.
You mentioned the experience of being watched on a national stage. How does it impact you when you have reporters in the courtroom every day or you know that the case is being closely watched by the media and the public at large?
Well, for me, it's always in the back of my mind, but the key is to try not to let it come to the forefront. Once it does, it can be distracting and lead to mistakes, in my view. What I did was delegate media monitoring tasks: some people watched the news, while others listened to the radio. I kept myself off both the radio and TV to avoid being influenced, even subconsciously, by the external commentary. This strategy was to ensure if something significant happened, I would be informed without being directly exposed to it. This approach helped me maintain my sanity throughout the process. I didn't watch TV or listen to the radio at all. Inadvertently, something might come up, like driving to work and hearing a brief report on the radio about the Michael Jackson case, but I made it a point not to seek out information. This discipline was crucial for maintaining a clear and unbiased mindset, preventing the case from consuming me. I believe this approach was instrumental in successfully navigating the trial.
A balance people are always trying to achieve is work-life balance. What tips can you share about how you balance your personal life with a demanding profession like yours?
I'm not going to lie to you, balancing family with work is probably the most difficult aspect of being both a woman lawyer and a judge. There's no doubt about it. I would choose a perfect balance over any high-profile case if I could achieve that. This, I believe, is the hardest challenge women face, especially for parents. It's very hard, and I won't lie to women by suggesting it can be done perfectly. We try our best, but it's extremely difficult.
How do I manage? I've relied heavily on my family for support. With two children, I lean on them for day-to-day help, especially when I'm caught up in a trial or swamped with work. For women without family support, I can tell you, it's tough. I also hired a nanny. Having both family assistance and a nanny was crucial, but I'm aware many women can't afford these options. God bless those who manage without such help.
Aside from external help, I've also made sacrifices around the edges, as I call it. This might mean missing bar events to be with my children or attend their performances and games. Such sacrifices can impact career opportunities, but they are necessary for balancing family commitments with professional aspirations. I've never regretted these sacrifices, though they do come with a cost to career progression or opportunities. Indeed, even in 2024, it seems women more often make these sacrifices than men. That's my honest perspective on the matter.
You've dealt with some cases that have very sensitive and impactful social issues at their heart. How do you ensure fairness when something might invoke strong emotions in you or something about which you feel deeply on a personal level? How do you make sure that you're viewing it objectively?
The important thing is to wait until you've heard all the evidence. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to the plaintiff's case and thought, “Wow, what will the defense say to this? It seems strong.” You have to sit back and wait. Then the defense presents their case, and you realize, “Oh, that's the explanation.” It's crucial to keep an open mind. You're going to have reactions, but you must remain open and listen to the other side. The goal is to maintain an open mind despite your feelings, because those feelings will surface.
This ties into another question about giving people space to be emotional or to share their story. I recall a case in which someone was being evicted. They had a difficult time with another judge, to the point where deputies had to be called into the courtroom. So, they sent the case to me. I spoke calmly to the person, allowed them to talk and vent, even though they might have discussed irrelevant issues. It was important to them, so I didn't shut them down. I allowed them to express their emotions, even to show a bit of tone with me, just to let them vent. In the end, I ruled against him, but he thanked me for listening. Despite the ruling, he felt that justice was served. That was crucial—that he left feeling justice was done. So, listening, even to emotional or slightly irrelevant points, or dealing with a bit of tone, helps people accept the outcome. That's how I handle emotional issues in court.
What changes do you foresee for women in the legal field, and how can women attorneys prepare for them?
The profession has changed in many different ways. First, if we talk about law school, when I was in law school, 30% of the class was women. Then it went to 50%. Now, in colleges and law schools, there are more women than men.
To some degree, this has occurred in the private sector with firms and in their governance, with government, and with some NGOs or private pro bono organizations, where we've seen an increase in women lawyers and women in leadership. I think this trend will continue. It hasn't grown to the same extent as in law schools and I haven't seen that same level of representation in leadership in firms and government, but I believe it will increase, which is a good thing. I also see more women as lead counsel in the courtroom, which is a positive development. When I first started, I mostly saw men as lead trial counsel. Now, I see women trying cases on their own and women in pairs trying cases together, which is also a nice change. I expect to see this increase.
Looking to the future, I foresee more women minorities increasing both their presence in law schools and their participation in the legal profession in general. I'm now seeing more women judges, more minority women judges, more minority women lawyers, and more minority women trial lawyers in the courtroom. What this requires of women in general is that you be open to their perspectives. They will have different perspectives from white women judges and lawyers, and you need to be open to those, even when they may be critical. They're bringing interests, needs, and experiences from their communities that aren't present for the other women judges and lawyers in the community. You need to be open to their suggestions, their participation, and give them leadership roles in your organizations.
What progress do you believe still needs to be made that hasn't been achieved yet?
It's slower to increase women's participation in the judiciary, firms, and government, which is not keeping pace with law schools. Some of this may be due to discrimination, but it also has to do with those workplaces not being women-friendly, or more precisely, family-friendly. Because if you're a woman and you want to have a family, it's difficult to be a partner, a judge, or a government attorney who's always in trial. It's hard. And so, if it's not family-friendly, you're going to see a slower rate of growth in those organizations. I think for the future, to increase women's participation, whether you're a minority woman or not, it needs to be more family friendly. This too requires that women in leadership make it more family friendly. In other words, women should take the leading role in making it more family-friendly for other women.
What do those ideas look like in practice? Does it involve expanding parental leave, increasing flexibility, or something else? Where do you see existing gaps?
I think flexibility is important – not so much the parental leave since we already have that – but allowing, and this applies to men too, when they need to attend to their families, to ensure they are not only given permission to do those things but also not penalized upon their return. For example, being told, "Oh, you took off today, so you can't lead this trial” or “you can't be the lead counsel in this case because you're too busy with your family." As a woman supervisor, do not do that to your female employees or subordinates. Allow them to do what they need to do, but do not penalize them for it. Too often, I've seen this in private practice and in the judiciary. They can still be leaders, they can still conduct trials, and they can still do their work; they just need that flexibility. And as women, we should be able to provide that for other women.
How do you remain informed about legal updates and what resources do you recommend to other trial lawyers for continuous learning?
Mainly, what I do is read legal journals and newspapers. I attend seminars on areas of law that interest me or are topical. I belong to organizations that keep their members informed about what's going on in law. The courts have their own education programs internally, but externally, those are the activities I engage in.
Is there anything else you believe is important to mention that we haven't discussed yet?
Only that I would encourage women to continue to support each other. Like I mentioned, women who need leave or special accommodations—not because they're special, but because, as women, they have children and need to do things—should receive support from other women in the profession. Instead of tearing each other down, let's support each other in our careers because we need that support. We don't get it elsewhere. If we can't rely on each other, we're not going to increase our participation in the profession at the rate we should be, which is why I think there's been some slowdown in the number of women leaders in firms, government, and politics.
Another thing I would say is that women should also consider the vast development and opportunities in technology, science, and math. Often, for various reasons, women have been either excluded from these fields or have self-selected out of them. To progress as women lawyers and be successful, we need to challenge ourselves and get involved in these fields. I'm seeing some degree of this, but more and more, it's going to become important. So, we should remain open to those areas of law because that's the future. We're already kind of there, but it's going to become increasingly important.
--
Check back for more Spotlights in the coming months as we feature additional members!