Litigation

Interview with United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie Christensen

1. You had a distinguished career in public service before joining the bench.  What made you decide to become a magistrate judge?   

Loud encouragement. People that I trusted made me believe that it was a good fit, and their encouragement was louder than doubting questions in my mind.  Was I ready to give up advocacy?  Was it financially irresponsible to commit to the salary when the opportunity cost was so high? Would I enjoy the job?  Those persistent mentors got it right.  They usually do. 

2. When you first became a judge, how did you find the transition from advocate to neutral?

My transition was eased by years spent at counsel table on both sides of the courtroom.  I have advocated for plaintiffs and defendants in both the private and public sectors.  I have advocated for companies and individuals, for the penniless and the well-heeled.  That advocative dexterity kept opposing counsel’s strategy front of mind, and made becoming a neutral easier. 

Also helpful to the transition was the fact that I had spent my last years as a lawyer helping to run the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district.  As the Acting United States Attorney, I oversaw most federal-government litigation in the district both offensive and defensive.  I managed nearly 600 people and a multi-million-dollar budget.  I also spent much time telling smart lawyers “no” in a respectful but decisive manner, a skill I use often in my current job.

3. What experiences have most influenced your approach as a jurist?

I will note three.  First, my years of advocacy for diverse clientele.  Whatever situation you find yourself in as an advocate, chances are that I have been there myself or have seen it happen.  This experience helps me to cut to the heart of a matter.  It makes me a practical and decisive jurist.  And it gives me empathy.

Second, the judges for whom I clerked.  They were always prepared, always in control of the courtroom, and always nuanced in their analysis.  I strive for the same.

Third, my love of jurors, those impartial peers who pause their busy lives to fill the jury box, weigh the evidence, and find truth in the conflicting stories.  It is an inspiring system.  Jurors are a precious resource.  It is my job to protect them and the process.  You will see this principle reflected in my standing Civil Trial Order available at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-stephanie-s-christensen.When you try a case in my courtroom, you and I will put in the hours required to make a trial go efficiently before a venire ever enters the courthouse. 

4. What advice, if any, do you have for practitioners appearing before you in court?  Any specific advice for written submissions?  For argument?

Read my procedures when your case is assigned to me.  It is available at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-stephanie-s-christensen

Your written advocacy should be succinct.  Do not be afraid to conclude before the page limit nor to cross reference items already in the record to prevent repetition. 

When you appear for oral argument, know your record.  It is not enough to come to oral argument having memorized the headings of a brief written by an associate.  You must be able to provide me with record cites and the best cases supporting your positions.  Motions hearings in my courtroom are more about knowledge than theater, even if your client is present.  If you are physically able, you should stand and make your arguments from the lectern not counsel table.

5. Over the course of your career, you have worked with and observed many lawyers, both as a practitioner and as a judge.  What are your thoughts on what makes a good or successful advocate?

Being “right” is different than persuading.  Persuading considers the audience whether judge or jury.

Respect the forum.  Here are some witnessed behaviors that breach decorum: scrolling on a phone at counsel table during a hearing; speaking with a raised voice to court staff; appearing by video while in a car, public place, or while eating; and including my CRD on bickering emails.  

Your reputation matters.  Despite serving nearly 20 million people, the federal bar in this district is small.  Judges talk.  Strive to be a zealous advocate while also being a respected one.  Your reward is the benefit of the doubt from opposing counsel and the court when things go wrong.   

6. The Central District maintains Civility and Professionalism Guidelines for all attorneys appearing before the Court, as well as for judges.  Can you speak a little about the importance of civility and professionalism in our courts?

The fact that we have them speaks volumes. 

I’ll also add that civility makes cases go faster and more efficiently.  As delay usually benefits one side over the other, if you are uncivil, I will presume that you are trying to capture the benefit of delay.  And if you are withholding something that is clearly both relevant and discoverable, likely I will grant your opponent’s request for sanctions.

We are privileged in this country to have a system for civil disputes.  Our civility guidelines ensure that this system does not decay from within. 

7. Is there anything that we haven’t covered here that you would like to share with our members/readers?

As an advocate, I thoroughly enjoyed the federal bar and I appreciate it even more so as a judge.  I have high expectations and I find that they are more often met than not.  I feel privileged to have such smart, capable advocates in my courtroom.

Finally, know that I will always make time for trials.  When you seek to transfer a case or trial to my courtroom, I will do my best to get you an early trial date.  As magistrate judges do not try felony criminal cases, when you come to my courtroom your trial date does not compete with a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial.  Learn more at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges-requirements/court-programs/voluntary-consent-magistrate-judges

Judge Christensen was interviewed by Eddie Jauregui and Mariam Kaloustian on September 6, 2024.  Mr. Jauregui is a partner at Holland & Knight in Los Angeles and the past chair of the Committee on Federal Courts, a standing committee of the CLA’s Litigation Section.  Ms. Kaloustian is an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California and a member of the Committee on Federal Courts.  Any views expressed herein do not reflect the position of Holland & Knight, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or the U.S. Department of Justice.


Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment