Three for Three: Three questions for Three Alumnae on the Bench

A civil litigator by trade, Judge Deirdre Hill ’85 also has an impressive political background that includes serving as the inspector general of the Los Angeles Police Department, the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission and deputy director of the California Democratic Party. Hill was appointed to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County through unification in 2000 and has a general civil assignment at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. She serves on the Judicial Council’s Judicial Elections Advisory Board and the Los Angeles County Superior Court Education Committee.

1| What did you take away from your time at Loyola?

Politics runs in my veins [Hill’s mother is the longtime state legislator Teresa Hughes], and my years at Loyola marked the beginning of my getting involved in local politics. I became very involved in the Student Bar Association and the Black Law Students Association, and that experience stuck with me. Loyola also gave me a very practical background. That’s what the school was known for back then, and it holds true today. You wouldn’t just hear about discovery but know what it was. It was definitely helpful to have some practical tools when you were meeting with potential employers.

2| How have women evolved in the legal profession?

I remember, you’d be wheeling in a big litigation case on rollers and the receptionist would just believe you were the court reporter. There were always the little remarks that you were a “girl” as opposed to a lawyer. One of the biggest issues for the women of my generation was getting to a point where you felt you could balance work and family. I had my first child at 29, and that was considered very early among my peers. But what I see now is more women and men being comfortable with building a family and not having it be a negative in their careers. Just the fact that we are going to have our first presiding female judge [Judge Lee Smalley Edmon] is really huge. Women have different styles oftentimes than men, and it’s refreshing that everybody will have a role in participating. That’s a seminal moment in the history of this court.

3| What trends are you seeing in the courtroom?

I teach classes on unlawful detainers, and foreclosures and evictions. I see six to seven of those cases a day. There are just so many people out of work. I can see the effects of the recession everywhere in my courtroom, whether it’s a credit-card case, a collections case or a breach-of-contract case. Everyone seems to be more litigious than ever. If they can’t get their remedy in one avenue, then they will go on to the next. But at the same time, we are also seeing people without the money to fight a case. Now we get a lot of people who say, “I just don’t have a job, what can I do? I have to concede. You can get a judgment against me, but I can’t pay.”

Judge Rita Miller ’79 spent more than 20 years at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, where she specialized in complex civil litigation. She was appointed to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2000 and holds a civil assignment at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. She is also a member of the steering committee for Loyola’s Civil Justice Program.



1| How is the recession affecting your courtroom?

We have a lot more collections cases and a lot more pro se litigants in the system. But I’ve also noticed a pattern of chain reactions in the system unlike anything we’ve seen before. Say a pizza parlor isn’t making payments on a bank loan. The bank sues the owners for defaulting. Now the pizza place goes out of business and the mini mall where the shop rented space can’t pay its obligations. Investors in the mini mall can’t pay their mortgages and they default. Then one of the investors might feel that they were wrongly ushered into a bad investment and they sue. It’s an endless cycle with a huge reach.

2| How does a poor economy affect the scales of justice?

I have huge numbers of people who come in to my court who can no longer afford to do their civil duty. Many of these people are unemployed and say they can’t lose the time they would spend looking for work. I’ve had people flat out refuse to serve—a lot of people just won’t do it. I’ve had people say, “If you make me sit here I won’t be able to listen to the case because I’m too worried about my other problems.” I listen to what each person has to say and judge on a case-by-case basis. But I have to combine compassion for people’s circumstances with the litigant’s rights to be able to bring their case to court. We have to be firm with people or litigants can’t get a fair jury trial.

3| What is your favorite component of Loyola’s Civil Justice Program?

The Journalist Law School [Loyola’s annual four-day legal bootcamp for editors, reporters and producers] is just fantastic. Lawyers tend to complain about journalists getting things wrong or not understanding procedure. I remember reading an article about a trial where the reporter said the judge didn’t return calls for comment. Well, a judge can’t comment in the middle of a trial. But a reporter doesn’t necessarily know that. But I think the legal
profession shouldn’t complain unless they make some effort themselves to educate journalists. Loyola does a great job in that regard.

One of the newest and youngest members of the bench, Geanene Yriarte ’97 was only 38 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed her to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in 2009. A career prosecutor, Yriarte spent 12 years at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where she became a star for her winning record trying gang and major crime cases. Today, she sits in a civil assignment in Pomona, CA.


1| What was it like transitioning from prosecutor to jurist?

It’s been an interesting adjustment. As a prosecutor, although you’re in front of judges every day, you’re never really tuned in to the decisionmaking process. You stand there and make your argument and listen as the other side makes their argument and the judge just rules—and then you go on. You don’t spend a lot of time thinking about what went into the ruling. Now I’m the one making the rules, so I have to approach my job from an entirely different angle. When I was with the District Attorney’s Office, I would craft the best argument to try and persuade. But as a judge, my job is to say the law is the law, period. It’s not about who can persuade me with a passionate argument. It’s who is right in the eye of the law.

2| How did your Loyola education influence your career?

When I started school, I had no inkling I’d end up as a prosecutor. I’d worked in a grocery store in La Puente, CA since I was 16 and ended up in law school because I knew it was a pathway toward a more secure future. Then I went into Professor Laurie Levenson’s first-year Criminal Law class and I was fascinated by everything she taught us. She was the first step toward a career in the District Attorney’s Office, and I relied on her guidance throughout my time at Loyola and beyond. Professor William Hobbs’ Criminal Trial Advocacy course was absolutely lifechanging for me. It gave me training in trial skills any young trial attorney would be lucky to receive. Hobbs was very particular, and he trained others to present the same way. And today, as a judge, I still draw on Hobbs because I know what should be required of the lawyers in front of me.

3| What are your interests outside the courtroom?

My passion lies in helping students from lower-income communities like the one I grew up in. I talk a lot about family and decision making. I tell them they should be shooting for the stars. Nothing is unattainable: You can push yourself, you can set goals, and you can do it. I know because I did it. With older students, I also talk a lot about crime and how bad decision making can negatively affect their futures. It just takes a single act. I know how true that is.