Books, Federal Judges

Lead Yourself First: An Interview With Judge Raymond M. Kethledge

Enjoy these insights and career advice from a prominent judge (and possible Supreme Court justice).

By  
on

Federal judges write for a living, so it should come as no surprise that many of them have written books. “Write what you know,” they say — so the typical offering from a judge turned author is either a law-related book (see, e.g., most of the oeuvre of Judge Richard Posner) or a memoir (see, e.g., the (wonderful) memoirs of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor).[1]

So I was intrigued when I learned about Lead Yourself First, a book that Amazon classifies under “Business” and “Psychology,” written by Raymond M. Kethledge and Michael S. Erwin. Yes, that Judge Kethledge — the highly regarded Sixth Circuit judge who is a top contender for a Supreme Court appointment under President Donald Trump. (Above the Law readers might also remember Judge Kethledge for a stylishly written opinion that tried to teach lawyers a lesson in civility.)

Lead Yourself First is not a law book per se (although, as shown below, its lessons have great relevance for lawyers and law students). Instead, it’s a book about leadership — and how successful leaders must make time for solitude in today’s over-connected age if they want to exercise wise, creative, and effective leadership.

Earlier this month, I had the honor — and great pleasure — of interviewing Judge Kethledge about his excellent and invaluable new book (which taught me some lessons I’ve already applied with success in my own life). Here’s a (condensed and lightly edited) write-up of our wide-ranging chat, in which the judge offered great advice for law students and lawyers, young and old.

DL: Congratulations on the publication of Lead Yourself First. It’s an important book with an important message, conveyed through fascinating historical and biographical stories – so it’s a pleasure to read as well.

RMK: We tried to make the book inspiring, as opposed to 200 pages of reciting a bunch of social-science studies. We make our points through stories about leaders, stories that are interesting themselves – like Eisenhower planning D-Day, or Jane Goodall trying to approach chimps in the jungle.

DL: You’re a judge, and even though judges are leaders of the legal profession, people might not automatically think “judge” when asked to give an example of a leader. Why did you select leadership as a topic?

Sponsored

RMK: We actually selected solitude as a topic first, and then saw implications for leadership. We also have a very broad conception of leadership; it’s not just CEOs or industry titans. It can include, for example, leading a family member through a crisis – that’s leadership as well.

DL: Your co-author, Michael Erwin, comes from the military, where leadership is crucial. Can you tell us more about him, and how you came to work together?

RMK: Mike is a West Pointer with three combat tours in the Middle East. In 2009 he got sent to Ann Arbor to get a master’s degree in leadership psychology, while still on active duty. His brother-in-law, Jonathan Algor, who’s also a West Pointer, was clerking for me at the time. Jonny introduced me to Mike.

Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.

Mike talked about his first deployment to Iraq. Every day he walked to the chow hall both ways – a mile each way, in 100-degree heat – because he wanted to think things through or settle himself emotionally. He did that even though he’s a real extrovert.

Sponsored

After that conversation, we decided to try to write a book about the importance of solitude.

DL: Your book reflects a huge amount of research into how great leaders throughout history have used solitude to make better decisions. Can you tell us about your research and writing process?

RMK: We had a division of labor. Together we thought about the structure of the book and worked out the concepts, over endless lunches and phone calls. Then I focused on the historical research and writing – I was a history major at Michigan, so I was drawn to this aspect of the project – while Mike, who’s extraordinarily well-networked, focused more on the contemporary interview subjects.

The historical work took about five years. I won’t write about a subject unless I’ve mastered it. So for each of the historical chapters, I’d read as many biographies as I could for the featured person, as well as primary materials.

Judge Raymond M. Kethledge (by Abdul El-Tayef/WPPI)

DL: You mention in the book that it isn’t really based on your own personal experiences – but I’m sure our readers will be interested in your experiences. As a federal judge, how do you draw on solitude?

RMK: I use solitude as a judge and as a person – a lot. There are two different versions: an interstitial version, and a bigger “white space” version.

The interstitial version I’d describe as focused reflection. I do a lot of that, pretty much every time I realize I’m alone. While driving to work, I’ll choose to think about a particular subject, rather than just have random thought streams landing on one subject or another. For example, I might think about the structure of an opinion. Or I might think about the first sentence of an opinion, refining it.

As for the bigger version, on longer drives I’ll think through complex problems or do more panoramic reflection. And at work it’s easy for me to close my door and focus. I’m very fortunate in that regard. I know that’s harder for other people, but lawyers need to find that space for analytical clarity.

DL: So how can lawyers achieve that analytical clarity?

RMK: Through solitude. Analytical clarity is the result of hard, syllogistic thinking, and that thinking has to be done alone. It’s not just being physically alone, but also alone with your thoughts – not looking at your phone, not hearing the buzz of an incoming text message or email.

One of the themes of this book is that we’re losing this sort of solitude, because of handheld devices and this habit of constant interconnectedness.

DL: Very true. But today, lawyers and clients communicate using many forms of media – phone, email, Slack, or similar platforms – and clients expect rapid response. I’ve heard in-house lawyers say, as a form of praise for outside counsel, “I can email her anytime – day or night, weekday or weekend – and she responds within the hour.” In light of client demands and expectations, how can lawyers find solitude?

RMK: Finding solitude is a challenge for lawyers. I practiced law for 15 years, and I know it’s a service business. You can’t just unplug from your clients for days at a time.

That said, neither do you need to respond to every single email within the hour. And it’s just foolish to cultivate a reputation as somebody who responds to emails within minutes. What that tells your clients is that you’re an unreflective person who doesn’t do sustained, analytical thinking.

Respond to things quickly if they require it, but otherwise make a priority of setting aside those bigger blocks of time to think. Most clients will respect that.

DL: You stress the importance of emotional balance as another benefit of solitude. It’s a major issue for law students and lawyers, who experience high levels of stress and depression. How can people maintain emotional balance in this sometimes grueling profession?

RMK: There’s a substantive point and a procedural point. The substantive one is that you shouldn’t get too focused on outcomes. Focus on doing your best – writing the best brief you can, preparing as best you can for argument or an exam– and then step back emotionally from the outcomes. Don’t let your highs about the wins get too high, and don’t let the lows about the losses get too low. After doing your best, you can’t control what the court does.

On my last day as a practicing attorney, at almost five o’clock, I got an opinion from a state supreme court in a class action that I thought we, as appellants, clearly should have won. The opinion had a bunch of typos, and it didn’t respond to a single argument we had made in our brief. Then there was a concurrence that said, in a nutshell, “The only reason I’m joining is because the majority doesn’t answer the arguments in Chrysler’s brief, and therefore doesn’t do any damage to the law.”

This was one of the better briefs I had written as a lawyer, and that was the result. It just underscores how, as a lawyer, you can’t control what the court does. Just focus on what you can do.

The procedural point, which ties into the book more, is that you can find a lot of solace in identifying your first principles as a person, and then asking yourself if you’ve done a good job complying with them. If you do that on a regular basis and think you’re doing a pretty good job, then it makes you less needy for praise and victories, less vulnerable to criticism, and more fulfilled as a person.

DL: You describe yourself as a strong introvert in the book, but so much career advice for law students and lawyers focuses on the importance of networking. What counsel would you offer to fellow introverts in the law?

All that career-services advice about networking is just depressing. This is something I’ve thought about a lot as an introvert, especially when I was a lawyer trying to bring in business when I had my own firm with three partners.

My advice: don’t schmooze or try to BS people. They can sense that a mile away. I don’t think I ever got a piece of business from someone I just met at a mixer.

Instead, always act with integrity, do A-plus work, and cultivate genuine relationships based on mutual respect. And if the people you build relationships with come from the other side of some divide, all the better. It shows that you don’t judge people by their politics or their position.

Those relationships are the ones that will be valuable throughout your career – not the ones that were the product of “networking” for its own sake.

DL: Your job, as a federal appellate judge, is one of the best in the entire legal profession. What advice would you give to law students or young lawyers who aspire to judicial office?

RMK: Obviously it’s hard to become a judge because there’s no clear path. What you can do is act personally and professionally in a manner that will maximize your chances when you’re the right age.

On the professional side, if you’re interested in litigation, get into a courtroom. Try some cases, argue some appeals. On the personal side, you reap what you sow. If you treat people with respect, no matter what their station in life, then those people will help you later. The kind of person you are will affect your ability to reach your goals.

DL: You were identified by then-candidate Donald Trump last year as one of his possible Supreme Court nominees. Any comment on your inclusion on that august list?

RMK: I didn’t know anything about it until it happened. I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”

That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.

DL: Speaking of writing up in your barn, you mentioned earlier that you work on opinions there too. Do you actually write your own opinions? Few judges do (and now one fewer, with Judge Posner off the bench).

RMK: I write my own published opinions, and I try to edit clerk drafts for unpublished opinions, because there are so many of them. That’s why I work intensively with my clerks on their writing.

In chambers, we call it “sandblasting”: a clerk will give me a draft, and I’ll cover it in ink, especially early in the clerkship. I don’t just mark up the draft, but I annotate them and try to explain the reasons for each change. It’s gratifying to see how the clerks improve their writing over the course of the year.

DL: Why write your own published opinions, instead of just editing clerk drafts heavily?

First, I think judges should do their own work.

Second, as with Eisenhower writing memos to himself, the process of writing makes me think so much harder about the subject than just editing does. I have more insights about the case or doctrine when I go through the agony of writing the opinion myself.

Third, I love to write. Parts of it are agony – the floundering, the feeling inadequate – and other parts, like detailed outlining, are hard. But the writing is easy after you’ve done the hard analytical work – in solitude.

DL: Any final thoughts?

RMK: I just want to underscore the basic theme of our book: solitude has been extremely important to all kinds of leaders, and we are losing solitude today — without realizing it, and without making a conscious choice.

What we’re trying to say in Lead Yourself First is this: not only do you have permission to seek solitude, but you have a duty. If you lead people, you have a duty to seek solitude, so that you can lead them effectively and ethically.

DL: Thank you for underscoring this important message, which couldn’t come at a better time, and thank you for taking the time to talk. Best of luck with the book – and whatever other adventures the future might have in store for you!

[1] A few federal judges have branched out beyond law books and memoirs into the realm of fiction. See, e.g., Judge Michael Ponsor (D. Mass.), author of The Hanging Judge and The One-Eyed Judge; Judge James Zagel (N.D. Ill.), author of Money to Burn; and Judge Frederic Block (E.D.N.Y.), author of the forthcoming Race to Judgment, coming out this fall (and blurbed by yours truly: “a gripping page-turner with the added virtue of realism”).

(All links to books in this post are affiliate links — i.e., Above the Law makes (a small amount of) money if you click on one of those links to buy the book in question.)

Lead Yourself First [Amazon (affiliate link)]

DBL square headshotDavid Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law and the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. He previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at [email protected].

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,