 |
| Judge Stephen J. Murphy III |
Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III said his first month as the district's newest chief judge has been spent learning his responsibilities and meeting with colleagues, while also still balancing his own caseload.
Judge Murphy was named chief judge in July after former Chief U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox announced his retirement earlier this year and joined alternative dispute resolution services provider JAMS.
Judge Murphy recently sat down with Law360 to discuss his new role. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
How have the first few weeks in the role been?
It's been a lot of learning. My time has been learning more of the things I'm responsible for doing, and it's surprising, because there's a lot more than I thought. It's not just a matter of the budget and case managers. For instance, if an individual files an application to be a member of our bar and they have some sort of disclosure or a prior ethical issue or something, I've got to take a look at that. And I'm still doing my cases. I've been going door-to-door and sitting down and talking to all my colleagues.
How are caseloads?
Caseloads have been going up. I'm not surprised. First of all, we have had a couple of retirements from the court, and those judges shed their caseloads. Former Chief Judge Cox left, and then senior judges are not taking a 100% full draw, so the 14 of us who are active district judges are seeing an uptick in civil numbers, we're seeing more criminal cases. So all in all, our numbers are going up. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it's good to have the work and serve on things like that, but with tighter budgets and fewer judges, it takes more of a time commitment.
Are there any challenges the court is facing?
We are down a magistrate judge position. The Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will authorize expenditures for a magistrate judge, and the last time we made a presentation to them, we had a retirement of a magistrate judge and wrote a proposal to get another, which was at the same time case numbers were dropping and all those judges I'd mentioned who'd gone on senior status or retired had not retired. So our weighted case averages were much lower, so the circuit did not authorize bringing on a magistrate judge. I'd like to take another look at that. The magistrate judges in our district are working extremely hard. They've got a lot to do. It's a very busy position that they hold, and being down one person, if our case numbers are going to uptick a bit, it would be nice to get them some relief.
Have you seen any practice trends over your time as a judge?
Reliance on technology has strikingly increased. It's rare now that we get an individual in court who doesn't want to have access to the shared technology that allows them to present their evidence in the courtroom on the screen electronically.
I also think that the civility has improved a bit. I don't know what it's like outside of the courtroom, but inside the courtroom, if I set forth my expectations that the lawyers meet and confer, mostly they meet my expectations.
Speaking of technology, have there been discussions about artificial intelligence usage in the district?
I've never surveyed them, but I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the judges on our court would say AI can save time. If you are trying to summarize a transcript as a lawyer, and you can get AI to do it in a more cost-effective and efficient manner for a client, that's all a good thing.
Obviously, the concern the court has is when lawyers rely on AI not to support their work, but to do it. And obviously lawyers have an obligation to file documents that are accurate, well researched and within the bounds of propriety and ethics. But there's been this unfortunate trend where lawyers will file documents with cases that were generated by AI and don't exist.
Any judge has the capability to order an attorney to show cause, why or why they should not be disciplined for filing a brief with made up citations or phony material, and we're all aware of it. I don't know if we have an actual rule on that, but we would hope any occurrence of those would be either nonexistent or remote.
Any advice to lawyers in the district when it comes to using AI?
Be careful. Use AI for what it's able to do within the bounds of good judgment and ethics. File things that maybe you've received assistance from technological sources on, but not that are manufactured and not checked before they're filed. Because that's where folks seem to run into trouble.
What about disclosure of AI usage?
We had a robust debate on this. I think there's a divide among judges, not just here but other places, which is: What does [disclosure] really get you? If somebody says, "I used AI in the preparation of this," I mean, then are we going to have law clerks go check the quotes more carefully? Courts might want to think about affirming that, if AI is used, that notwithstanding that all the work in the brief came from a human being.
With the current administration, there's been some friction with the courts, I think is fair to say. Have you all had discussions about how to maintain judicial independence in all of this?
We have a highly, highly diverse bench. ... [Discussing an order regarding appointment of a U.S. attorney] is an example of a situation where we have discussions about concerns certain judges have about what might be going on from the perspective of the executive branch or whatever it may be. We've had discussions about what the perspective of the president and the senators might be about replacing Sean Cox, you know, things like that. But I've been really impressed.
People have severe concerns about all kinds of different things, but I haven't seen a single person abandon their role as a judge or officer of the court to act on any of those concerns. And you know, frankly, I think some people have concerns that might be personal, ideological, preferential, whatever the case may be, and I think they're free to do whatever they want. But you know, when you're being asked to vote upon a U.S. attorney extension, or when you're being asked to decide a case, you put all that aside, and ultimately we have a robust debate.
We're not a policymaking body. We're not an authoritative body. We resolve the cases in front of us. If a lawyer is out of line, we do a disciplinary process. If the U.S. attorney brings a case that we think is overkill, one of our colleagues discusses it with him, sure, those things happen, but in meeting with my colleagues these past couple of weeks, I am really impressed with how thoughtful these folks are as judges and I would be extremely surprised to see anything happen here like has happened in other districts. I'm not saying those other districts are out of line, either, but I think we've got a good thing going here, I really do.
Any other goals for your time in this role?
I have a couple of minor things that I'd like to do. I'd like to make sure that all of our judges are getting the staff that they need and that they feel supported. I'd like to continue to ensure judicial security. I think that's extremely important. I'd like to consider making a request to the circuit for a magistrate judge.
The main thing I'd like to do is I'd like to have stronger ties with my colleagues than I did beforehand, because you can sit here in this office and do your job and communicate with your law clerks and issue opinions and go into the courtroom and not necessarily sit down with your colleagues.
We are a court in which each judge has their own docket, and you do your own work. We do have our meetings, we do have our lunches, but there are several judges that are new, and I just haven't been able to spend as much time with them. So I think that, you know, if I can leave here and have good relationships and improve ties with all the people, some of whom I don't know well, that'd be a great accomplishment for me.
--Editing by Alanna Weissman.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
