John Gleeson, partner with Debevoise & Plimpton.

John Gleeson spent 22 years on the bench as a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, only to resign in 2016 to become a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton.

His move fascinated me, as did the recent decision by Katherine Forrest to step down from the Southern District of New York to re-join Cravath. Swaine & Moore as a partner.

And it made me wonder: Why does anyone give up what is often thought of as the ultimate job in the profession?

I had the pleasure of interviewing Gleeson for ALM's podcast, Legal Speak, to discuss some of the best (and worst) things about being a judge, and what his transition to private practice has been like.

A few things he said surprised me. For example, he said he was tapped for the bench because he favorably impressed two judges that he appeared before as a prosecutor, and they put his name forward to the merit selection committee set up by (then) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I always figured getting the nod for a judgeship required relentless networking and glad-handing—with a big boost if you happen to travel in the same social circles as U.S. senators. That it could also be as simple and merit-based as two sitting judges identifying someone they thought would make a good colleague is heartening.

What I didn't find surprising is that money can be a reason to leave the bench, especially when, like Gleeson, you live in an expensive part of the country and have kids to put through college.

Here are some excerpts from the podcast—or better yet, listen to the whole piece here.

On judicial pay

We could have gotten by fine. I have no complaints about the level of a federal judicial salary. My parents made due on a lot less and they had a lot more kids than I have. But the opportunity costs are enormous, especially in a big city. … I can have an opportunity here at Debevoise to do much better by my family than I could have done had I remained on the bench. 

On judicial term limits

I'm one of those who's come to the view given the polarization of our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process, I do believe that term limits either ought to be enacted or seriously considered. I think that process, which when I was a young lawyer looked and worked and operated fundamentally differently and produced much more moderation when it came to the Supreme Court nominees, it's just changed in such a negative way and produced the debacles we've seen in recent years … The notion of an 18-year or similar-length term limit is pretty attractive. All presidents get to nominate a couple of Supreme Court justices and we're not—for lack of a better way of putting it—we're not stuck with every justice for as long as he or she should live. I think that's probably a good thing.

On what he's learned in private practice

I have more respect now, more understanding of how difficult it is to practice law than when I was on the bench. There's an overlay of legal and regulatory requirements, and individuals and companies sometimes get into trouble because they deserve it, but they sometimes get into trouble because it's a very complicated world, and I didn't fully appreciate that when I just had the end result of a piece of litigation in front of me. 

The other thing I didn't appreciate is how really expensive it is for firms to engage firms generally, including Debevoise, to engage in civil discovery. So, when I was on the bench and I had a motion to dismiss in front of me and it was kind of a toss-up, I thought well, let's just let them engage in discovery and I'll see it again on a motion for summary judgment. If I had a better appreciation then for what it means for companies and individuals to engage in the discovery process, I might have, on those really close calls, I might have spent more time trying to figure out whether I ought to grant the motion to dismiss. 

 

Lateral Watch

In another big departure from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, litigator Susan Estrich has moved to Boies Schiller Flexner.

It's a coup for Boies Schiller, which is looking to elevate its presence in California, my colleague Scott Flaherty reports.

“California is a very important legal market, but it is a market where we have not had as complete a presence as we have on the East Coast,” David Boies said. “Susan will be an important addition to that practice.”

Estrich of late has represented former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes and now-retired Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski.

“Timing, I guess, is everything,” she said of the move to Boies Schiller. “I think I have one more good chapter left before I take to my lounge chair.”

For more, see Boies Schiller Nabs Star Litigator Susan Estrich From Quinn Emanuel

 

What I'm Reading

Litigation Funder Burford Sets Aside $50 Million for Women-Led Matters

The effort, which Burford Capital has dubbed The Equity Project, will use the funds exclusively to back commercial litigation and arbitration matters led by women.

Labaton Agrees to Pay $4.8M to Settle Special Master's Public Corruption Inquiry

Labaton acknowledged it should have disclosed a $4.1 million payment to Texas attorney Damon Chargois, who had ties to the lead plaintiff in a $300 million securities class action settlement against financial services provider State Street Corp.

Judge Tentatively Strikes $250M in Punitives From Roundup Verdict

There was no evidence of malice to warrant punitive damages.

Kavanaugh and Alito Question ACLU's Challenge to Immigration Policy

The duo appeared sympathetic to the government's arguments that federal immigration law does not impose a time limit on when immigration enforcement officials can pick up and detain immigrants released from criminal custody.

Circuit Court Nominee Chad Readler Quizzed on DOJ's Defense of Trump Policies

The former Jones Day partner, now a top DOJ lawyer, was called a “partisan nominee” by his home state senator, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who did not sign off on his nomination.

Veteran NY Lawyer Suspended for Disrespecting Judiciary, Again and Again

Pro tip: Judges don't like it when you call their factual findings “La la land.” Or “pathetic,” “a joke,” “disgusting,” “bizarro” or “outrageous!!!!!!!”

In case you missed it…

Daily Dicta: From Williams & Connolly Partner to Stay-at-Home Dad and Back: Malachi Jones Rejoins Firm as Chief Diversity Partner

When a woman gives up an equity partnership at an ultra-prestigious law firm to care for her family, it's a bit unusual. But when a man does it? (Wait. Has a man ever done it?) In case you're wondering, that's where Malachi Jones Jr. has been for the last three years.