00:00:01.210 - 00:00:18.409

Good morning Dennis. I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk with you today about your long and illustrious career. Good morning, Elaine. Nice to be here. Thank you for asking. My pleasure. So let's just jump right in and probably go the earliest we'll go

00:00:18.409 - 00:00:32.549

in terms of where did you grow up? Right here in Oakland, born in San Francisco, raised in the East Bay. You went far, didn't you didn't go anywhere. What about college? Where did you stay local? No, I went to Notre Dame. That's the only I

00:00:32.549 - 00:00:48.159

went to, went away to college and then, and then on the Navy after that, but back here at home the rest of my entire life. All right, so where did you attend law school? I went to Berkeley, UC Berkeley, formerly known as Boalt Hall. Yes,

00:00:48.240 - 00:01:07.239

you did indeed stay very close. How about jumping a little bit ahead in terms of, can you tell me about your law practice? Did you start in bankruptcy? I had a weird experience. I was actually interviewing for a job and a small bankruptcy firm was

00:01:07.239 - 00:01:20.839

conducting the interviews at Berkeley and a classmate of mine went into the interview first ahead of me and he came out and he said, Tell him you always wanted to do bankruptcy. So I walked in and I met two people. One was, ultimately my

00:01:20.839 - 00:01:35.709

mentor August Rothschild. And the other was my ultimately my partner and my predecessor Judge Lloyd King and the first thing I said was I always wanted to practice bankruptcy law and I hadn't thought about it more than about 2 hours before that but but I

00:01:35.709 - 00:01:47.540

was, married at the time and I had to get a job and I needed, I wanted to be in some sort of a specialty firm so it was just luck of the draws a bankruptcy firm and I probably got the gig. Because I agreed to

00:01:47.540 - 00:02:04.480

start during my 3rd year in a part-time basis and oddly enough started on the day Martin Luther King was killed. Well that's a memorable day yes very much so. I really haven't heard of anyone kind of going to straight from halfway finishing law school

00:02:04.480 - 00:02:21.830

to a firm. How did that come to be? Well, as I say, I got the job and they they wanted somebody to do routine stuff. In fact, you know, I did. Menial tasks or or learn to be lawyer tasks and and because I

00:02:21.830 - 00:02:41.190

started even before I graduated then by the time I graduated and took the bar and brought in as a full-time associate and I stayed there for many years and went from bottom associate to name partner in the firm. And so I know you were

00:02:41.190 - 00:02:56.179

at Pillsbury later in your career were you, did you go from Pillsbury to the bench? No it was actually an unusual thing that happened also again by that time, Lloyd King had left my firm and was a judge here in San Francisco, the bankruptcy judge,

00:02:56.550 - 00:03:12.960

and I was a equal partner in a small firm. at that time, about 6 lawyers, a couple of bankruptcy practitioners, including Craig Stupy was in the firm with me and Linda Sorenson, who's now retired. Craig has passed away, and I got, I

00:03:12.960 - 00:03:30.669

got recruited by a firm that was just starting out and to build a practice and with some regrets I accepted their offer and I left so what was then Rothschild Phelan Montali and went to . The predecessor of what became Dinkelspiel, Donovan and Reder. Judge Donovan

00:03:30.669 - 00:03:44.869

later bankruptcy Judge Donovan was in that firm, as was a former bankruptcy judge Leslie Tchaikovsky, who was a, a younger associate at the time, but I, I got to the firm and then it proceeded to break up within a few months and through no

00:03:44.869 - 00:04:03.360

fault of my own, but I was the only partner level person who didn't stick with one or the other of the two. Broke up firm broken up firms and at that time I was recruited actually and invited to go to Pillsbury when I

00:04:03.360 - 00:04:20.420

did accept their offer was their first lateral partner in the firm's history. 19, 1980. OK, and how long were you with him? Well, I was with them until my former partner, good friend Judge Lloyd King announced that he was going to move to Hawaii and try

00:04:20.420 - 00:04:37.070

to be the bankruptcy judge there and that gave me the clue that there was a vacancy for the judgeship and and so I applied for it and was I left Pillsbury in the early part of 1993 and. Took the bench in San Francisco

00:04:37.070 - 00:05:00.100

on the end of April of 1993, so I'm in my 32nd year now. All right, so, so I you just mentioned that you worked with, Judge Leslie Tchaikovsky, prior to taking the bench, obviously. And I understand that you also worked with

00:05:00.100 - 00:05:18.429

another one of the colleagues on the bench with the law firm. Well, I worked with a number of my colleagues as a as a judge, well, who did you have in mind? Alan Jaroslovsky. Oh well, Alan Jaroslavsky was a 3rd year law student in in

00:05:18.429 - 00:05:30.269

law school when I was a partner in the firm and we hired him as a, as a gopher just to do menial tasks and he was he was a, he was not a member of the bar at the time and he, he was a

00:05:30.269 - 00:05:44.709

clerk at the firm for, well, a few guys out there and then he left to, when he passed the bar and practiced in Santa Rosa and later became the bankruptcy judge there. All right, so I had, so I had Judge Tchaikovsky, Judge Jaroslovsky, both

00:05:44.709 - 00:06:01.390

those connections, very close to home, right, and I think you also have other colleagues, not that you have been in firms with before, but I know you and Judge Carlson spent a lot of time together through the through your time and his time

00:06:01.390 - 00:06:20.390

on the bench, so we did and even before then, Judge Carlson. Was a staff attorney working for former well now deceased Chief Judge Browning of the Ninth Circuit in 1992 when the Supreme Court decided the marathon case and, Mr. Carlson was was

00:06:20.390 - 00:06:40.230

assigned by the chief judge to come up with a proposal to cope with the confusion locally in the circuit and nationally, about that and Judge Mr. Carlson contacted Judge King, and Judge King, introduced him to me and a couple of other people and,

00:06:40.549 - 00:07:02.940

in the fall of 1982, the, the, the group of us, those King, me, former Judge Seymour Abrahams, couple of other lawyers, we hammered out what ultimately became the emergency rule that was adopted nationally to help manage the. Day to day routines

00:07:02.940 - 00:07:21.350

of the bankruptcy court until the Supreme Court solved the jurisdictional issues in 1984. And how long did that take? I mean how long? Did that emergency rule really be necessary? Well, I think as I recall it was in the middle of 1984 when the law became

00:07:21.350 - 00:07:40.720

effective. Judge Judge Carlson was continued to work actively. I was in practice being a lawyer, but, Carlson was still affiliated as a staff member of the Ninth Circuit. And he worked with a number of committees in Washington, executive, I mean, legislative committees, and

00:07:40.720 - 00:08:00.880

I believe the law was passed and signed in, I'm gonna guess July or June of 1984, so I don't remember the exact effective effective date. But that is the law that created the format for the 14 year appointments by the Court of Appeals which

00:08:00.880 - 00:08:19.450

is the we practiced today. You were appointed every other judge, Judge Carlson, I believe, was the first person in the 9th Circuit to be appointed under that new regime. Well, that makes sense since he'd already been very involved in having it set up, but that

00:08:19.450 - 00:08:31.970

sounds wonderful. He called me one day and said he was going to apply for the judgeship. Would I be a reference for him? And I, I just laughed and said, you work for the chief judge, you're probably gonna get the gig and I was correct, and

00:08:31.970 - 00:08:47.789

he took the bench, in, in 1985, right? And so, and then when did you take the bench? It was? I said 1993. Judge Judge King left and was became the judge in. 1992 in the middle of 1992 in Hawaii, you might recall in the

00:08:47.789 - 00:09:06.948

fall of 1992 we got a new president named Bill Clinton and I had been selected by the Ninth Circuit at the same time, but the the Clinton appointment and the demands on the FBI and other agencies to clear new appointees slowed down my process so

00:09:06.948 - 00:09:23.559

there was a delay, not because I gave the FBI fits but because they weren't ready to. Deal with me until until April. So I left Pillsbury in April early April of '93 and went to the court. And by the way, I might add that

00:09:23.559 - 00:09:39.280

I, one of the most the reasons that I felt motivated to try this appointment, seek this appointment was I looked around at the other judges on the court and thought. There probably won't be another vacancy for quite some time, and I was right. I was the

00:09:39.280 - 00:09:59.979

baby judge of the Northern District for 13 years before Judge Efremsky became the next judge in line. Right. Yes, I recall attending programs where you would, identify yourself as the oldest and the newest bankruptcy judge and the tallest and the tallest, of course.

00:10:00.820 - 00:10:21.239

And look at me now. By far still the oldest. And still pretty tall, so it sounds like the appointment process went fairly well for you. Well, I mean, well, there's another funny sidelight. Chief Judge Henderson was the chief district judge at the time, and

00:10:21.239 - 00:10:35.719

I knew Judge Henderson, and Judge Henderson called me one day. And said he was, would like to appoint me to be chair of the committee to appoint to select a new bankruptcy judge and I, I, I passed up the invitation to just tell him he could

00:10:35.719 - 00:10:54.409

skip it and and appoint me. And and obviously I did not accept that and actually John Hansen who another longtime practitioner who we lost recently also he chaired the committee that selected me and there was there was a quite a robust competition in

00:10:54.409 - 00:11:14.090

fact of the 5, people who became the finalists at the 9th Circuit, 4 of us became bankruptcy judges. Judge Donovan who went to Los Angeles. Judge Robles, who again has recently retired. Los Angeles and Judge Holman also recently retired, went to the Eastern District in

00:11:14.090 - 00:11:33.280

Sacramento or Modesto so there were that was a good class. We had a a strong class I'd say. Well, I guess, well, so I also want to talk with you about your experience in the BAP because obviously you was it 10 years that you were

00:11:33.280 - 00:11:46.200

leading the BAP? Yes, one of the that was in the early years of the BAP there was some confusion and some. Uncertainty as to the terms are and actually at some point the chief judge of the BAP appointed I mean sorry, the chief judge of the

00:11:46.200 - 00:12:03.200

circuit appointed Judge Lloyd King to come up with a proposal, and he, he and a and a committee of fellow judges who created and suggested what is the format to this day. It was a 7 year appointment, subject to a request and a consideration of

00:12:03.200 - 00:12:23.969

a 3 year extension. And some of our colleagues have done only the seven years, others, and I being one who who opted to the extra 3, so my appointment was in May of 19, I'm sorry, May of 2000 until May of 2010, 10 year appointment

00:12:23.969 - 00:12:41.570

and, and the last two of which I was the chief of the BAP and you had a law clerk who was sort of a BAP law clerk. You mean he's Judge Basin. Judge Neil Basin, like, actually Judge, Thomas Carlson as clerk was

00:12:41.570 - 00:13:01.049

Judge Billy Lafferty, Judge Edward Jellen had an illustrious law clerk named Judge Elaine Hammond, and, and there's a 4th one remind me of the 4th 10, Oh, Judge Novack, Judge Novack was Judge Newsom's clerk. So there's a rich history of judges keeping

00:13:01.489 - 00:13:17.869

their clerks in. In the in the loop in the loop and in the court. Judge Mason was the only one obviously who left the district and he, he's still there now sitting and I'm very proud of him and and watch his career develop as he continues

00:13:17.869 - 00:13:38.739

along. Yes, he, he's well recognized now as well. So, but, so 10 years on the BAP, that's a long time. you must have enjoyed it. A lot of travel. All right, a lot of Southwest Airlines credits, so, and the interesting thing about the

00:13:38.739 - 00:13:56.059

BAP, of course, is that you, you're sitting in an appellate capacity. your opinions have a little more force, in that role. What, what did you enjoy about the BAP? Well, what was, what was there were there were countless things I enjoyed. I particularly. I

00:13:56.059 - 00:14:11.380

enjoyed the interaction with my fellow colleagues or whatever the two happened to be on a particular panel and also their law clerks, believe it or not, I think I knew the BAP judges law clerks better than I knew some of my own fellow judges here because

00:14:11.380 - 00:14:28.950

sitting in San Francisco I didn't have much occasion to see the the clerks coming through in San Jose or maybe you know goodness more so, and we worked very closely with them. And whereas some judges don't enjoy and don't prefer the the notion of being

00:14:28.950 - 00:14:46.390

collaborative and working with colleagues, I enjoyed that process and so that the the variety of the kind of work, the nature of the, the job being an appellate judge there there is a funny again a quirk to it that probably is unique to that.

00:14:46.880 - 00:15:03.359

And that is we are doing peer reviews and so although Elaine I couldn't be a BAP judge on the case for you because we are in the same district, but we see our brothers and sisters in a different light when we review their work. But think

00:15:03.359 - 00:15:18.719

about it I might review one judge's work on a Wednesday and that judge might be sitting on a back panel reviewing my job. I work on a Thursday, so I tell you what, one thing we learned is to be respectful and, and not to talk about

00:15:18.719 - 00:15:37.030

our fellow judges as the court below and instead of saying that judge really screwed up, you say that judge didn't do such and such or but you take out the negatives you don't have fails. If they didn't or did or could have, so it was a

00:15:37.030 - 00:15:53.609

wonderful experience also seeing things from a different point of view, as I say not as there's a judge now long gone from the Ninth Circuit that used to say that the difference between between being a trial judge and an appellate judges is in the first case you're

00:15:53.609 - 00:16:07.130

searching for the truth and in the second you're searching for error. So who had that to say? Well, I mean that's the point. I'm sorry, I'm asking who, who would, what was the judge that would say that? Oh, I think that was Judge Pamela Rymer of

00:16:07.130 - 00:16:24.630

the Ninth Circuit who that was quote that I remember she had said that, so I mean, obviously I think you have been involved in multiple seminal cases, both on, both as a bankruptcy judge but also as on the BAP. Do you have any cases

00:16:24.630 - 00:16:39.780

that you that you have good or bad thoughts about or wanna share? Well, if you want to call this a seminal case, I guess I have a unique, unique kind of claim to fame. I was, in the PG&E one case, the United States Supreme

00:16:39.780 - 00:16:54.809

Court reversed the decision of my 9 to 0, but I didn't take it personally because the court was, following 9th Circuit precedent that I, of course, was bound to follow. I would say that there was a case that doesn't get a lot of publicity,

00:16:54.900 - 00:17:13.300

but that I thought was particularly useful at the BAP called In re SNTL and SNTL was a case of first impression on a number of things, but the SNL, SNTL case was one of those rare cases where my decision at the BAP was adopted verbatim by

00:17:13.300 - 00:17:31.050

the majority panel. So if you research SNTL, you'll, you'll see that I am the author of the Ninth Circuit decision even though I am not a member of the Ninth Circuit. Well done and any other cases that you come to mind or you feel like

00:17:31.050 - 00:17:45.719

have been particularly helpful to other judges? Well, no, I, I, I rather than than try to say a case, I would say that one of the things that was really enjoyable for me and, and my fellows who are on the fellow judges on the BAP,

00:17:46.050 - 00:18:04.540

Judge Paris, Judge Brant, Judge Dunn, Judge Russell, Judge Klein and others was that. The BAP CPA went into effect in 2005, so in the second half of my term, my 10 year term, I was on the cutting edge of a number of first impression cases that

00:18:04.540 - 00:18:18.800

had just not been dealt with before and that there some of which have been ignored, some of which have been overruled, but many of which have just become kind of the the standard stuff that. You and I and every other bankruptcy judge decides and deals

00:18:18.800 - 00:18:32.969

with every day because it's become the law. So rather than try to think of the name of a particular case, it's the concept and, and a number of my colleagues said in the in the same situation about that that was very helpful and, and I

00:18:32.969 - 00:18:48.910

must say that the BAP judges when, when people in Congress decide maybe they have to split the circuit. It bothers me for various reasons, but one of which the BAP might be a victim of that if it ever happens, and although the BAP decisions are

00:18:48.910 - 00:19:09.979

not legally precedential, they are respected and the Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit itself and virtually every judge of that court that I know and I don't know some of the newer judges they respect the BAP and appreciate the, the contribution that the

00:19:09.979 - 00:19:26.390

bankruptcy judges bring to a body of law that generally they're not familiar with, so that's a great feeling to do that. Very nice. You've created the baseline in essence so maybe, maybe. But you know we also have it as we also as a trial judge, I

00:19:26.390 - 00:19:48.550

don't feel absolutely bound by a BAP decision if I don't think it's right and I it is perhaps irreverent to say it, but I, I believe that BAP decisions are binding as long as they're correct. And I've heard you say that before. All right, so I mean, the

00:19:48.560 - 00:20:06.420

next big thing that comes to mind with you is that you've had two very large bankruptcies with the same with the same debtor. Actually it is actually still the same case, right? No, it's a different case, different case. The the the first case finally got

00:20:06.420 - 00:20:24.400

closed 3 or 4 years ago. And so where is the, so you still have the second case so so you had mentioned previously when we were talking that when the first PG&E case came around there was a lot of other things happening with you

00:20:24.400 - 00:20:39.199

at the same time. Well, I mentioned that I went on the map in in the middle of 1990 also in in 1990 the Chief Justice appointed me to be a a member for a 6 year 3 year they became 6 and then became seven. To the

00:20:39.199 - 00:20:57.699

judicial Conference Committee on the administration of the bankruptcy laws and and that was a committee of bankruptcy judges and Article 3 judges and circuit judges that met twice a year to advise the judicial conference and the community that you know, the judiciary generally

00:20:58.079 - 00:21:18.510

on things that were administrative in bankruptcy and and an offshoot of that was to, and I served as a liaison. To the National Rules Committee, so those two assignments took place extensively during the 10 years that I mentioned and the same, the same virtually the 10

00:21:18.510 - 00:21:35.989

years I was, or I'm sorry, 7 of the 10 years I was on the BAP and the PG&E case that was filed in in January and excuse me, in April of 19. 2001 get my year straight. So, so I had BAP bankruptcy Committee, PG&E all running

00:21:35.989 - 00:21:52.810

out of parallel tracks, busy time. You were very busy. Did you, was it overwhelming or did you enthusiastic about it of course enthusiastic. Some of us are. Claim to be workaholics at least in those years I maybe don't have the same enthusiasm or energy now like

00:21:52.810 - 00:22:12.439

some of my younger colleagues like you who do things but no it was, it was a challenge and the, the case load was higher than here the PG&E case particularly was high vis for a long period of time. And the national committee

00:22:12.439 - 00:22:27.959

involved lots of travel, so, so there was travel on the BAP remember well almost all BAP hearings were not in our hometown. The only time we ever got to sit in our home district is if we were doing something remote remotely, and that was occasionally by

00:22:27.959 - 00:22:44.920

phone or video long before COVID and we learned about Zoom. So, so there was a lot of travel and you know I. That goes with the territory. Well, you, I mean, you've gotten a lot of travel in. I know that, you know, that may not

00:22:44.920 - 00:23:04.910

be your favorite part of the job now, so it's good that you're off the BAP. How do you come from dealing with PG&E the first time with it and then having PG&E the second time with there were similarities and differences. They're they're very different

00:23:04.910 - 00:23:25.189

cases. It's the same debtor, but if I could make a dangerous generalization, PG&E was almost, almost the victim in the first case. Because there was price gouging among nationally with companies like Enron and others that were playing games with natural gas particularly there was a

00:23:25.189 - 00:23:47.040

political dynamic that was unusual because PG&E wanted to increase its retail rates to offset the cost of natural gas particularly and. The Public Utilities Commission and the the legislature opposed it, so a company that is very solvent on paper suddenly was squeezed in terms of

00:23:47.329 - 00:24:09.569

ability to pay its debts as they come due and and so the outcome came about later and there were many fascinating aspects of it that I don't wanna ignore that were challenges. But then switched to 2000, 2019 when the devastating fires occurred and PG&E was

00:24:09.569 - 00:24:28.400

very much the villain and and I had to deal with it in in in terms of a mass tort that involved 70 or 80,000 victims of devastating fires and all the things that had to happen from that so and different different. Packages of

00:24:28.400 - 00:24:46.030

issues and the the dynamics and practically the emotional aspects of the second one are far comparison, far in comparison, more like the the mass tort cases that we have with abuse and drugs and other things and the first one was. All about regulations of things

00:24:46.939 - 00:25:05.599

and I, I understand that in the second PG&E case you provided an opportunity for people who had been affected by the fires to have a chance to be heard in some way. A little bit it was the the confirmation trials began in March of

00:25:05.599 - 00:25:24.780

2020 when we all learned about COVID and so I was in the middle of. Packed courtroom hearings when all of a sudden we were all sent home and of course San Francisco is San Francisco but a number of the closest victims were probably in the Santa

00:25:24.780 - 00:25:42.160

Rosa area and way north of there up in Paradise and Butte County and so on, and so it was not. Easy for any of them who chose to to come to San Francisco but when suddenly we had the phenomenon of using remote like Zoom or

00:25:42.160 - 00:25:58.089

before that before we even had Zoom, we did have the opportunity to allow some of them to participate in in some fashion and that was rewarding and refreshing at least for me to to know that they were able to do that, not that it would solve

00:25:58.089 - 00:26:21.189

their tragic losses and. Nothing could replace there's no no explanation for that, but it was something to make sure the courtroom was available. Well, and I will note that I recently was in contact with Cathy Yanni, who's the plan distributor right plan trust plan

00:26:21.189 - 00:26:41.959

trustee, and she is getting very close to closing out that fund and that the PG&E funds have been. have been dispersed primarily for most of them and that actually is gonna be a closing win. Well, it's it's one of these things where again

00:26:41.959 - 00:26:59.989

as I said, Elaine, it's hard to to say that one can quantity quantify the losses and. I wish and a lot of people had the expectation when the case was filed and the plan was developed that there'd be at least a 100% recovery in terms of

00:26:59.989 - 00:27:18.420

monetary losses and that that goal was not achieved but there was a nearly 70% recovery which given the fact that it happened relatively quickly when you compare to this day there hasn't been a penny paid out to the victims in the Purdue Pharma case. And

00:27:18.420 - 00:27:33.780

perhaps in some of the mass tort cases that have gotten much more publicity I would say though that one of the things that is not in the public eye is there are still hundreds and hundreds of securities fraud claims that are pending before me and

00:27:33.780 - 00:27:52.349

Miss Yanni and the fire trustee have nothing to do with that and those are still percolating along in parallel to a a class action that's pending in the district court involving. Other defendants with securities fraud and it's associated with the fires. Well, it's

00:27:52.349 - 00:28:15.369

the all the allegations are that PG&E overstated its value in the stock market publicly by understating its, noncompliance with fire safety rules. Now again, PG&E takes a contrary view and I express no opinion. I'm just saying that when the market went from a high of

00:28:15.369 - 00:28:33.930

maybe $70 to $10 there's quite a drop and quite a lot of economic losses. Someday some court may have to determine that those were as a result of fraud. Others may say no that that's not, but that's not, that's not a today item and it's

00:28:33.930 - 00:28:52.430

it's still pending. OK. So, do you have any other cases that you think either fondly or very or don't want to think more about it all? Elaine, I, I think back to a time when some of us were still around there was this big case

00:28:52.430 - 00:29:06.739

called Texaco that was an unusual bankruptcy and and it was indeed was one of the most unusual bankruptcies in history and didn't last very long but I remember a colleague from your home state in North Carolina. Named Tom Small who told me he had a Texaco

00:29:06.739 - 00:29:21.699

case too. It was a Texaco gas station on the corner of some small town in somewhere in North Carolina and, and so he knew about the big case. The message there for me is that a big case is somebody else somebody's case it doesn't

00:29:21.699 - 00:29:37.430

matter and if it's an individual who's fighting to keep his car or her house or or keep food on the table then it's a big case. A couple of the things that that I had found as the most fascinating at all of all in my career

00:29:37.430 - 00:29:55.310

though as a judge were a couple of cases involving churches and I don't mean I don't mean the abuse cases that that number of us have now I'm talking about one case comes to mind was a a church that was divided by factions

00:29:55.310 - 00:30:12.209

where portion of the members of the church were loyal to the pastor that was also accused of stealing a lot of their money and at the same time there was another church in San Francisco that had lost its physical church to a fire that had insurance

00:30:12.209 - 00:30:32.359

proceeds and one of the things that was very rewarding to me was using those two, one in bankruptcy, one not in bankruptcy. And having them come together and emerging from that was people who were very committed to their faith, have their physical church match up with their

00:30:32.359 - 00:30:51.640

funds of money and the two together are coming out to a successful merger, if you will, and yet I had to face issues such as might even be addressed in the abuse cases about a First Amendment and religious freedom and where federal courts can. Can make

00:30:51.640 - 00:31:10.449

decisions that impact the management of a church versus those where it cannot and there's a fine line sometimes so I've had that happen twice and and I found it very challenging and rewarding for the results and just a a good good experience all around. Well,

00:31:10.569 - 00:31:29.329

I'm gonna touch on a topic that you very rarely talk about, and that is the honors and the accolades that you often receive. Yay, you were one of the early members of the American College of Bankruptcy, I believe. I was, I was in

00:31:29.329 - 00:31:46.750

the 4th class. And but you've told me before you haven't been particularly active in that. I've been involved in a couple of things. There was a a negotiation competition a few years ago and there was a there was a judge now deceased Judge Dreher in

00:31:47.040 - 00:32:01.709

Nancy Dreher in Minnesota and I worked with her on a couple of the publications, but I have been been very active in in that for who can say what the reason is probably because it, it, at a time that I might have been active was

00:32:01.709 - 00:32:16.069

and I was doing some of those things that I've already told you about. I was also, involved early in the National Bankruptcy conference, but I withdrew from that organization about the time I became a judge in part because I couldn't. Didn't feel that

00:32:16.069 - 00:32:36.420

I could contribute the time and effort that that I should have, but those were two organizations that I was very pleased to be affiliated with what else should I ask you about? Or what else would you like to share? I, I, I, I

00:32:36.420 - 00:32:55.550

enjoy my, my job. I'm going to retire in just under 2 years, and, and by that time I will, I think it's time to make room if if this isn't already time for younger generations to come and take over, this position that I

00:32:55.550 - 00:33:13.319

enjoy. I, I remind you of a statistic that is, is not exactly correct, but. Roughly 350 million people in this country, roughly 350 bankruptcy judges, so we're 1 in a million. So I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm pleased to be one of the 1 in a million, so

00:33:13.319 - 00:33:30.400

are you. And and so I have absolutely, absolutely 100% fondness for my job and and happy to be still doing it. Do you have plans for retirement yet or are you still working on that? I'm not working on anything. I plan on just

00:33:30.400 - 00:33:44.670

getting there. I'm not in any hurry. It's a long way off, and, not gonna do it, you know the funny thing is I, I notified the Court of Appeals of my intention to do it on the very day, of the 6th anniversary of

00:33:44.670 - 00:33:55.790

the PG&E case, and I had, I hadn't even thought about it, and I, I told the court that I would like to retire or plan to retire in 2 years, so I, I gotta be at the 8 year mark for that case. Maybe we'll have it

00:33:55.790 - 00:34:15.070

done by then hopefully so, right, right. All right. Thank you very much for talking with me today. I really enjoyed hearing some of your stories and more so your experience and how you, you're, you really are hard to follow by anyone, so. Well, thank you very

00:34:15.070 - 00:34:21.760

much. I appreciate the invitation and I'm delighted to have you as a colleague. Me too. Same here give me five.