Chief Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia went to both college and law school at the University of Georgia. He was in private practice in Columbus from 1985 to 2001, serving as a city councilor in Columbus from 1993 to 1994 and as a Republican state senator from 1995 to 2000.

President George W. Bush nominated Land to the District Court on Sept.  21, 2001, and he was confirmed by the Senate on Dec. 13, 2001. He has served as chief judge of the district since 2014.

He agreed to answer the Daily Report's questions for this series.

What prompted you to become a lawyer?

Lawyers seemed to fight for things that mattered. And you could keep score, which appealed to my hypercompetitive nature. Zealous advocacy involving important and interesting issues appeared to be an ideal way to make a living. I also noticed lawyers' engagement in public service, including politics, which was an interest of mine.      

What prompted you to seek a job on the bench?

Shortly after I decided not to seek another term in the Georgia Legislature, Judge J. Robert Elliott, who had been the federal judge in Columbus for 38 years, decided to retire. Having been engaged in litigation, including cases in federal court, I had always considered the position of federal district judge to be the best job in the judiciary. You got to wrestle with important, interesting and intellectually stimulating legal issues with near complete independence. It also would allow me to continue my public service without having to worry about reelection or some of the other less appealing aspects of politics.

It took less than three months between a Republican president nominating you and a Democratic-controlled Senate confirming your selection. How did you achieve what appears to have been such a smooth process, and what do you think of the process today?

As a member of the Georgia state Senate, I found that I could represent my constituents most effectively by developing positive relationships with my colleagues, including those across the political aisle. Although I never shied away from a good policy debate on the merits, I tried to avoid personally demonizing those on the other side. This approach, which was grounded on mutual respect, helped me receive strong bipartisan support for my nomination to the bench, including the endorsement of Georgia's two Democrat United States Senators, Zell Miller and Max Cleland.

Being nominated by a Republican president with this bipartisan support paved the way for a smooth confirmation in a Democrat-majority Senate. The political environment was also different at that time. My confirmation process occurred in the fall of 2001, on the heels of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We were united as a country. Politicians in Washington were acting as statesmen. While 9/11 was a tragic episode in our country's history, the American response was inspiring; it still is. I wish we could regain that feeling without having to endure the tragedy again.

What do you like most about being a judge?

I enjoy conducting jury trials. It is the foundation of our judicial system. Watching average citizens become empowered to make important decisions and almost always get it right is inspiring.

I also enjoy the intellectual challenge of deciding contested motions and writing legal opinions. Crafting well-reasoned opinions of publishable quality consumes a lot of my time; effectively communicating a ruling is satisfying.

I have also enjoyed my involvement in judicial administration as chief judge and as a member of the Judicial Conference national budget committee. Quite frankly, there's not much I don't like about being a United States district judge.

What keeps you up at night?

Not much. After 18 years on the bench, I've learned how to compartmentalize what I do on the job. But some parts of the job are admittedly more difficult to leave at the office. Taking away someone's freedom is an awesome responsibility, particularly when it affects other innocent persons, such as family members. So I agonize more over sentencing decisions than any other part of my job. 

What are your pet peeves in briefs, arguments and trial practice?

Lack of preparation and lack of candor. I need to be able to trust what a lawyer tells me. If I sense that you are unprepared or not shooting me straight, I can't do that.

A 2016 order in which you expressed that the multidistrict litigation process had the unintended effect of new claims of "marginal merit" prompted discussion around the country. How has the conversation adjusted your views on MDLs, if at all?

Presiding over an MDL proceeding is a unique experience. With few procedural rules, the presiding judge has significant discretion in managing the litigation. Given the significant number of cases on the federal docket that have been consolidated in MDLs in recent years, the process deserves scrutiny, which it has received from many in the academic community.

While I typically confine my observations about the MDL process to my written rulings, I think it is important for those in the trenches to occasionally share our experience. Some of my observations on the MDL process are being published in a short article to appear soon in the University of Georgia Law Review.    

How has your experience as a state legislator affected your views when you are called upon to interpret statutes and constitutionality?

Having participated in the legislative process up close, I understand that the most reliable way to discern legislative intent is to focus on the actual language of the statute. Serving in another branch of government also gives you an appreciation for the different roles that each branch of government plays and the appropriate respect that should be afforded to each.

On a broader level, representing a diverse constituency as an elected official expands your horizons. You are forced outside of your own comfortable bubble; you discover how others live, what they believe, their struggles and their hopes. The experience teaches valuable lessons about human nature. And understanding human nature is essential for a judge, particularly a trial judge who is on the front lines.    

What trial judge would you like to emulate and why?

I have had no single judge role model. But obviously I've been influenced by others. When I practiced law, it always bothered me that some judges had reputations as "a plaintiff's judge" or an "establishment judge" or a "pro-prosecution judge." I've tried to play it down the middle by applying the law without regard to result to hopefully avoid such stereotypes. On a more intellectual level, I've admired the late Justice Antonin Scalia. When you strip away the labels, ignore the caricatures and study his opinions (not just narrowly selected passages), he articulates better than anyone else the proper role of a judge in a representative democracy.

Do you have any personal hobbies or other interests?

My wife and I are recent empty nesters with no grandchildren yet. After raising three children, we are enjoying the break. I play golf and hope to shave a few strokes off my handicap when my term as chief judge expires next year and my administrative duties are reduced. I also enjoy researching local history and writing. I'm presently working on a book with the working title "Where I Come From" that includes some family and local history, my life experiences up until the time of my investiture as a district judge and some of the lessons I learned along the way.  I'm saving my judicial experiences for the sequel.