Todd Sanders:
So welcome back to the podcast. We are extremely honored today to have Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer from the Arizona Supreme Court joining us. Justice thank you for being with us today it's quite an honor.
Ann Timmer:
Well thank you and thanks for inviting me.
Todd Sanders:
Well maybe to give folks a sense of who you are, obviously your bio is everywhere as I noticed when I just put your name in the internet. Tell us a little bit about yourself and then maybe something that we wouldn't find on your bio that we'd find interesting.
Ann Timmer:
Well that's interesting. Well I can't say that I was born and raised in Arizona because I wasn't, but I consider it home for many decades. I grew up as an associated press bratt so to speak, my father was transferred all over. So we lived in the south, the Midwest and then moved out here when I was 14 years old. So when I hit-
Todd Sanders:
A lot of change here.
Ann Timmer:
A lot of changes. When I hit Arizona I literally thought I'm never leaving and I haven't. So I've gone to one school which was University of Arizona for undergrad and then I went to law school at Arizona State because I wanted to practice there.
Todd Sanders:
You covered your bases?
Ann Timmer:
Covered my bases, yes. Plus I could live at home for free with my parents if I went to ASU for law school.
Todd Sanders:
Good move.
Ann Timmer:
So that was my move. From then on I got out of school and I practiced law, mostly business actually in private firms for 15 years. Before I got married and had three kids and decided to go on the bench and was fortunate enough to be appointed by Jane Hall back in 2000 to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Loved that court, served as an appellate court judge and ended up as their chief judge for a few years and then went on the Arizona Supreme Court in 2012 appointed by Governor Brewer then. So that's the down and dirty-
Todd Sanders:
That's quite a trajectory, yeah.
Ann Timmer:
Now what would people not know about me? Well, let's see. I actually won a bronze medal in the Junior Olympics for synchronized swimming, you probably would never find that anywhere.
Todd Sanders:
I could tell you, you wouldn't 'cause I looked. That's fantastic. So are you still a swimmer?
Ann Timmer:
No. I'd love to swim actually but not with my leg in the air and all of that any anymore.
Todd Sanders:
Right, of course. Yeah, and you probably don't find the time. Well and interesting that you obviously were in the legal profession working on business issues and then all of a sudden you decided to make a move to the bench. What was the thinking there?
Ann Timmer:
Well the catalyst really was the circumstances I was in, at the time the court of appeals was very, very behind on cases. They had a two-year backlog and so to cure it they invited people from private practice to come and do what's called pro teming, so fill in. So you would sit with one regular judge and then two pro-tems, two lawyers from the community would sit and hear cases and then actually write decisions. I thought, "This is the best job ever." It's really a purely legal job in all different kind of areas, you would never get bored and well I left it at that but I never thought about being a judge. But as a result of the experience I had a judge call me up and say, "We're going to have some openings coming up and you would be terrific. You really should think about doing this." Of course I de-mirrored thinking, "I could never be a judge." But then once that seed is planted you start to think about it and at the time I had three young children, three kids within four years.
So there's a lot of pressures that come on you when you're in private practice with business development and the business aspect of the practice. So I thought, well that really does fit with my lifestyle and my desire really to do public service. So that all culminated in a plan to apply for the bench.
Todd Sanders:
Then the court of appeals and then the Supreme Court opening came up and-
Ann Timmer:
Yes, well exactly. Actually a few openings, it took me a few times actually to do it.
Todd Sanders:
Which I think is important for people to know it's not automatic you have to work.
Ann Timmer:
Oh no, you have to work for it. I think with anything in life if you're rejected for something you don't take it as a failure or a rejection. Maybe my ego is too stoked to take it as a rejection, I was thinking I knew I was qualified and I had good feedback. So it's more a matter of is this the right person for the right time that the court needs? You'd have to be pretty egotistical to think you're the only one that could fill this shop. You're not, and there's other considerations that go into it. Your background of your experience, where you're from in the state. I think at the time one of the openings they had no one from Pima County so that's a consideration or had you ever been a trial judge? That's a consideration, a number of things. So I thought my time would come and it did and here am.
Todd Sanders:
And you made the switch.
Ann Timmer:
Made the switch.
Todd Sanders:
Excellent. So thinking of the law, and I think for most people I think people feel like they sort of understand the legislative process and certainly the executive more probably of an enigma is the judicial branch. Give us a sense, from your perspective what part of the law do you identify with most or do you most enjoy working in?
Ann Timmer:
What body of law? Type of law?
Todd Sanders:
Correct.
Ann Timmer:
I like them all, so that's... I even like tax which my colleagues say-
Todd Sanders:
[inaudible 00:05:15] why?
Ann Timmer:
I know they're like, "Why do like..." I think I go back always to business, because that's what my practice was. I did a lot of commercial law, employment based and most notably construction based and I enjoy those cases when they come up. They don't come up as often to the Supreme Court, most people don't realize in the business community but 95% of business cases stop at the court of appeals. So that really is your business court in Arizona, they do the statewide tax from all counties. They do Division One in Phoenix and it's expensive to go up the chain and it takes time and of course I know from having business clients that very often it might be the money involved. But it's also the time, we need predictability and planning and so the idea that you're going to spend another two years going up to another court it sometimes can be difficult to swallow. So surprisingly we don't get as many of the commercial cases as I had when I was on the court of appeals and I missed those.
Todd Sanders:
Yeah, that is surprising. But it makes sense and certainly that uncertainty in that time lag probably dissuades some from seeking the next step.
Ann Timmer:
Yes.
Todd Sanders:
I also know you've done some work in guardianship cases as well, in guardianship law. Is that correct?
Ann Timmer:
Well I have not as a lawyer but really on my administrative side. On the administrative side, I think a lot of people don't realize that the Arizona Supreme Court by constitution also governs the administration of the practice of law and the administration of the court system in general. So we do all kind of things that people would never know. We do all the court rules, you might think of that but we also the ones that admit the lawyers and discipline the lawyers. But we also license other entities, we license fiduciaries. We do license fiduciaries or the ones who are able to be paid to get guardianship, conservatorship. We also license defensive driving schools, I don't know why. Juvenile detention centers we oversee with the counties and a number of other things, foster care review board, the probation system. All things that people generally do not associate with the judicial branch.
Todd Sanders:
Yes.
Ann Timmer:
So as part of that the fact that we do license the fiduciaries for example, I chaired a task force to look into guardianships and conservatorships. Could we do it better? Could our court rules be better? This was about 12 years ago and at the time if you were in Arizona you might recall that there were a number of high profile situations reported in the media. With people frankly ending up in not desirable circumstances because their retirement had been drained and it's not that people stole, it was more as the system was permitting this. So something's wrong with the system that permits that, that somebody could have a million dollars and within four years be destitute.
Todd Sanders:
Sure.
Ann Timmer:
So we looked into it and so I'd shared a task force to examine the system. I actually had no background experience in probate, I never practiced in that area. As it turned out that probably was a good thing because I was the only one in the room that didn't really have a dog in the fight and could look things from maybe an outside different perspective.
Todd Sanders:
No preconceived notions.
Ann Timmer:
Exactly. So a lot of things you could say well, this doesn't make sense why don't we budget for some of these things and things like that. So anyways, the end result we ended up changing the rules quite a bit for that oversee guardianship, conservatorships. But also getting guardianship of your own child when they turn 18 if they're disabled, which is what led me to this task force because I have a disabled child who turned 18. I went through the process, my husband and I-
Todd Sanders:
Which really helps, I mean you really understood it.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah. Well you thought you understood it and what I could do is identify all the pitfalls. My husband's an attorney as well and my thinking was if two attorneys are having this much difficulty navigating the system then there's something wrong with the system. So luckily I could just go upstairs, at the time I was on the court of appeals and I could go to the Chief Justice and say, "Something's wrong with this system." She said, "I agree, why don't you share a task force on it?"
Todd Sanders:
Do the job.
Ann Timmer:
Right. So that's what led me to it and I was delighted to do that and then we worked with the legislature, which again separation of power as some people think that means you never work together. Well, that's not true. So we approached them and they changed a lot of the laws on probate that corresponded with our rule changes and I have to say that the pitfalls I identified in the guardianship process at least for my daughter were sewn up.
Todd Sanders:
Well and what a great experience at the end of the day and the fact that you were able to really impact so many people that are having to go through this. I'm assuming those of us with older parents too probably at some point would be getting into some of these issues and that's complicated enough and to have a process that's difficult would be really difficult to navigate.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah, exactly. Well, and that's really what I think the court... Since I've been involved in the courts and it's been now 23 years, hard to believe. But I've seen that, that trend is definitely towards making it simple, making things as simple and intuitive as possible. But of course rules and laws you have to maintain. But we recognize that lawyers are expensive and most of us, myself included would do the do it yourself route and so what are you going to do to help people through that? So there's more of a focus on self-help and what can we do to help people help themselves.
Todd Sanders:
Well, it makes sense and for the layman. It can be daunting and intimidating, I went through an adoption of my son and not a simple process. Probably for the attorney it was and we are grateful for her work, but certainly not something that we felt like we could really approach and I think making it simpler for the layman is certainly something that is good for Arizona.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah, I agree. Absolutely.
Todd Sanders:
So I mentioned vice chief justice, what does that mean? Tell us about your role then?
Ann Timmer:
The number two. Well, it's actually in our constitution that we will have a chief justice and a vice chief justice. I assume they did that because if the vice chief justice fell over there'd be somebody left that could just take the reins and continue on and that's how things have happened. So a chief justice serves for five years, you're elected by your peers to be the chief justice. Some states it's appointed directly by the governor but not Arizona, we just have the peers will elect their chief justice. Serve for a five-year term as does the vice chief justice also elected by the peers and then the expectation but no guarantee is that the vice chief justice will be the next chief justice and unless you're a real jerk or something that's going to happen. So you spend a lot of time as the vice chief. You oversee some things in particular, they're particularly assigned to you as the vice chief justice. But the idea is that they'll also give you additional training to take over as chief justice.
Todd Sanders:
So in this time you've been in this role, what have been some of the more challenging aspects of this job?
Ann Timmer:
As a judge or as a Supreme Court?
Todd Sanders:
As a Supreme Court?
Ann Timmer:
Challenging? I think a challenging aspect that I find and a troubling one is losing the confidence of people in the community in the court system. I mean what I see from the courts, having an insider review are all the great things that we've done, all the efforts people have made to try to have the best system out there. The innovation that has taken place in Arizona in particular and to brag a little bit because not due to me. But Arizona is actually noted for leading the way in many state courts for the innovations that we've done. So a lot of the jury reforms starting back in the 90s came from Arizona and have been adopted elsewhere and a host of other things. So I'm proud of the judiciary and I get frustrated by seeing that despite efforts those people seem to be losing confidence in the judiciary and that's frustrating. So there's been a little bit of a shift I think in thinking, at least thinking for me that instead of taking on the role that judges are very used to which is to remain impartial and have that appearance of impartiality.
Traditionally there's been a little of that, that well we shouldn't be out there speaking. We shouldn't let people think that we have views on anything I suppose, I think those days are done. Because we have a great system in our courts and it's one that deserves to be protected and my fear is that the more disinformation that's out there about. The courts the more judges are accused of being corrupt or traitorous or making partial decisions rather than impartial decisions, the more people will think, "Well that must be so. How could that be going on? And we're not hearing anybody saying otherwise." Because the judiciary for the most part doesn't have a great fan base of supporters ready to get out there and say, "No, that's not how things go." So I think it's time for us to start taking that fight a little bit to people. So that they can see that you've better protect what you value and you've got something valuable with the court system you have, so that's what I find probably the most frustrating.
Todd Sanders:
Well and that's such an important point and traveling around the world, especially in the Third World. The importance of a strong judicial system that you can count on is so important and I do think that some take that for granted here in our country unfortunately.
Ann Timmer:
Well I think that's my fear that we are taking it for granted and people worldwide do, they all look to the US judicial system as that's what we want to do. We're not perfect, no system is perfect but the foundation and the principles that were built on that is something to be admired and a lot of regimes don't want that. We had something I think gosh, three years ago, just pre-pandemic. Everything is either pre-pandemic or post-pandemic, right? I believe it was just pre-pandemic and we had folks wanting to talk to us, I guess they were former government or government sponsored I can't really recall which. But I remember the message and the message was that outside forces are starting to try to sow seeds of distrust in democracy and that the way that they're trying to do that among others, I assume. Is by attacking us right in our backyard, our little homegrown local courthouses and court system and so a lot of misreporting and putting false spins on things.
So for example, one was a news story of well the judge had severed some parental rights which is a terrible thing do.
Todd Sanders:
Sure.
Ann Timmer:
I mean to have happened not to do it. But to have happened in particular circumstances, But the way it's [inaudible 00:16:48] judge is yanking children away from their parents, that kind of thing. Where of course it doesn't tell the story-
Todd Sanders:
The context.
Ann Timmer:
It's the context. But if you can get people to start to mistrust the people that they rely on day to day in the little local courthouses. Then that's a way to bring down trust in a real foundational point of our democracy, one of the cornerstones.
Todd Sanders:
Well, and it seems like the judicial system is now getting increasingly dragged into culture war disputes and that probably leads to some of this misinformation occurring.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah, I think you're probably right. It seems like a lot of I don't want to say battles, but they are being fought in the courts and in some of the political battles as well and that's understandable. Some things are justiciable, many things are not. If they're truly political, they are non-justiciable which is not only a difficult word to say but also-
Todd Sanders:
I was impressed.
Ann Timmer:
But sometimes a difficult concept to identify. But if something is truly a policy decision and not a legal one we'll turn that back and say, "This is just not something a court could decide." For example we have an Arizona in our constitution that tuition will be nearly free as possible.
Todd Sanders:
I remember that when I was a student.
Ann Timmer:
Yes.
Todd Sanders:
Correct.
Ann Timmer:
Don't we all?
Todd Sanders:
Yes.
Ann Timmer:
Right? I remember my tuition at U of A it was 250 a semester. Can you believe that? And free parking, yeah.
Todd Sanders:
Imagine, yeah.
Ann Timmer:
Which I paid more for my daughter's parking at U of A than I did for tuition, which is crazy. But yes, nearly free as possible and there was a lawsuit filed on that. I remember the court said, "This is just not something that's justiciable because there are no standards for the court to apply to decide what is nearly free as possible." That's a classic case of you need to go to the legislature and get this figured out.
Todd Sanders:
That's a good distinction for people and I do remember wishing it would go to the court, because I was having a hard time affording it. Although it probably was a fraction, I can tell you it was a fraction of what it is today. So I did on my research notice that you're part of the Legal Rebels class of 2021, the American Bar Association. What does that mean? I mean, I'm pretty excited that one of our justices is a Legal Rebel.
Ann Timmer:
A Legal Rebel, I know. I'm trying to think back of why did they say that I was a Legal Rebel? I believe it was something through the ABA. I'm hesitating because trying to remember if it was technology based or I believe it was because I again, shared a task force on creating innovation and trying to close the access to justice gap that we have and I mean civil justice. So again, can you an afford attorney to defend yourself in your landlord tenant matter or your debt collection matter or frankly your family law matter, any matter. It's difficult to navigate the process as we try to do our best with self-help materials, etc. But it's intimidating to go to a court and we know it and there is an advantage if you have legal assistance. So we can expect that all of that is going to be built on the backs of lawyers offering their services for free. I have found lawyers are actually very generous in their pro bono work they do and what's called low bono, meaning lower hourly rates that they will charge for things to help people.
But according to one survey that was done or a report, it would take every lawyer in the United States they would have to work 900 hours a year for free to start to close the gap. That's not going to happen, we can't build it on the backs of lawyers it's not fair. So what else can we do? So we headed a task force and the end result of the whole thing is that Arizona became the first and only state to eliminate an ethical rule which had prohibited lawyers and non-lawyers from sharing legal fees. Well what does that do? It allows more investment for technology innovation. It allows for partnerships between lawyers and others like accountants or financial planners or someone that can set up like a one-stop shop scenario. I know we have one, and the court now licensed those entities that decide to partner up like that, we call them alternate business structures and we licensed them. They have an ethical code, they have a disciplinary system and a consequence.
Todd Sanders:
You're protected as a consumer.
Ann Timmer:
Exactly, and you can start to become more innovative. So I think there's one for example that is designed to help Hispanic businesses to... I'm trying to pick something in the business genre. To small business become up and running and so they offer legal services, financial services. All those kinds of things that any burgeoning business would need and they do it in Spanish to help folks out. So that's the practice of law as an aspect that would be illegal or at least unethical and not permitted in the other states and districts and territories in the US, but Arizona allows it. We also now license something we call legal paraprofessional, so we've created a new tier of legal service provider to practice law. So if you are a legal paraprofessional, you can be hired to practice law in four distinct areas. Three of which you never really see attorneys very often in city courts and JP courts, civil matters. So that means it's under $12,000, criminal matters, misdemeanors, as long as jail time's not involved.
Agency matters, if the agency permits it and then the one area you do see lawyers but not nearly enough is family law.
Todd Sanders:
Yeah, there seems to be a shortage there.
Ann Timmer:
Yes, so we're starting with that. Again, Arizona has that tradition of taking innovations and making changes as long as it's in a calculated manner so that the consumer is protected. That's important, obviously the overriding consideration for us but I think that's why the Legal Rebel.
Todd Sanders:
Well, it makes a lot of sense and it goes against the grain I guess in some ways. But it really does open up I think the opportunity to find justice to a lot more people. [inaudible 00:23:05]
Ann Timmer:
Well that's what we're hoping for and hoping that this is... It hasn't made much of an impact yet. It's only been a year and a half I think that these things are going. But it's planting the seeds for change and hopefully from there things will grow out of that system that will have even greater impact.
Todd Sanders:
Well I wasn't going to ask you about artificial intelligence because I thought well, the Supreme Court. But when you're mentioning this I wonder, is there going to be a place for artificial intelligence in this profession and will that or could that then lead to additional access for people?
Ann Timmer:
Yes. Well there already is a place for artificial intelligence, it's already being used and the question is okay well how much more can it be used for people? It's being used all the time. When you go onto your particular... Like a city traffic places. Something will guide you through this is what you need to do, that's artificial intelligence. I've seen demonstrations for this county of Los Angeles, which I love their system and I would love to be able to do it but it's always a function of money and they're what's called an integrated court system. So every city court that's in Los Angeles County, it's all under one court. So they've got a billion dollar budget, it's kind of crazy and if you get a traffic ticket anywhere in LA County you can just go online and up pops this little avatar named Gina, she speaks nine or 10 languages.
You just pick which one you want and she will guide you through not only the process generally. But you just put your ticket number in and she'll say, "Hello Ann, I see that you got a ticket in San Bernardino County and you qualify for defensive driving school. If you want to take that option I can help you fill out the paperwork virtually and how to do that." Or, "If you want a court date, let's pick your date." That kind of thing. Because of that their traffic through their system has been reduced greatly. They showed pictures of people that were out the door and around the block waiting to be able to take care of their tickets and such. Now it's reduced to nobody in there and they clear out like 4,000 matters a week with nobody having to leave work or leave home or do anything like that. So I imagine those kinds of innovations are going to spread but they're expensive.
Todd Sanders:
I know, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. I mean I guess you could take it all the way as far as you could have an AI attorney at some point. An artificial intelligence that might represent you, probably not in our lifetimes but maybe.
Ann Timmer:
Maybe. So far people have been messing around with that and it hasn't really worked. Because I love technology, it's fun to play with. So first thing I did when I heard about the new ChatGPT it's like great, I'm writing an opinion about something and I wonder what it has to say about it? So I put in with very explicitly the seminal issue in my case and it was a divided case. It's been issued now four in the majority and three in the descent and ChatGPT was with me. It came out on my side and said, "This is the answer." I'm like, "This is great." I said, "Can you give me any authority to back this up?" It said, "Absolutely, here's three cases with citations and the whole thing." Meaning it was the name of the case and then you can find this at 23 federal second at page 250, that kind of thing and here's what it says. I'm like how come I didn't find this case? Why didn't my law clerks find this case?
Todd Sanders:
Right.
Ann Timmer:
So I went to look it up, well it's 'cause it doesn't exist it made it up.
Todd Sanders:
You're kidding?
Ann Timmer:
No, it just makes it up. So if it doesn't know... Because it's predictive. So it's predicting that someday there will be a case that says this and it'll be located here, so they call it some kind of hallucination that actually happens. So it's not there yet but it is the first step and they give you all the warnings that don't rely on this. Some lawyer just got in trouble back east for having his brief written by ChatGPT and of course the court gets it and looks up and like, "These cases don't exist." So he got sanctioned by-
Todd Sanders:
Yeah, my kid in college tells me the same thing. You got to be careful with that, it's a good tool but it's not the end all be all.
Ann Timmer:
It's a tool right now and I did ask ChatGPT if it could replace lawyers and judges because I had a vested interest and it said, "No, because I cannot make value judgements." So at least at this point in time, and I would like to think never can an artificial intelligence make value judgments.
Todd Sanders:
It'd be hard to imagine.
Ann Timmer:
It would be hard to imagine and because it's predictive it's relying on the past and so you have to be very careful if you're going to use it. For example, for HR you would think this would be great, you can vet all these applications and then make recommendations. Well it's using a background of well gee, we've traditionally had a white man fill this position for example so this person would fit exactly. So when it's based on a database that might not be what we think is appropriate, legally now you have to be very, very careful.
Todd Sanders:
Yes, and I think going forward... I'm sure you're probably going to see probably some interesting cases come up relating to this particular subject, which of course we'll see what happens with that.
Ann Timmer:
I was just at a presentation not too long ago where the I believe it was the president of Microsoft was saying that he was speaking before Congress about this and had recommended a six-month pause. It's going so quickly right now, let's just pause and think about the ramifications of some of what we're building into our systems. I thought that's probably a good idea because we hadn't really thought in terms of the HR or what else are we are looking at. Now on the plus side I am going on a trip in the next couple of months and you just mentioned you're going on a trip and I plugged in where I want to go and ChatGPT gave me a great itinerary.
Todd Sanders:
Okay.
Ann Timmer:
So with some things it's great.
Todd Sanders:
We'll have to look at that. Since we are a business podcast and you have really been focused on access. When we think about the judicial system and business, what more could be done or what should businesses be looking for in terms of access to the system that might make their lives a little bit easier or more accessible to the system?
Ann Timmer:
Well I know that the speed is the big issue for businesses. I think that the more you can try to agree on things to narrow down your dispute the better. So if you just have complaints that okay you... I had too many clients when I practiced law say, "I will fight this to the ends degree of the principle of the thing." I would always say, "Well that's great because I'll make money on fighting for this principle. But let me warn you now in six months you're going to be sick of this case, sick of spending the money and the emotion that came out of the dispute is going to be old news and you're going to be looking at me saying now I'm stuck in this case." So I always recommended as much as you can do with the opposing side. If you can narrow down your issues and say, this is what really disputed then have something that's singularly manageable to go quickly through the system.
It'll save on your time and your money and just live with that and if you can do alternative dispute resolution, of course through binding mediation or binding arbitration. I would always pick that and then just get your result and move on.
Todd Sanders:
So keep emotion out of it if you can and it sounds like mediation really can make a difference in terms of the timing.
Ann Timmer:
It can and I hate to say it, because I know our civil filings have really been going down and I don't like seeing that. Because that means that people are choosing not to use the court system, I suspect because of the time and this lingers in time means cost as well for attorney's fees. So, so many people are bypassing the system and going to private mediation. There's a lot of retired judges now setting up shop, being private mediators and I understand the attraction because it can be done more quickly and sometimes I assume more cheaply. But I don't know that.
Todd Sanders:
Another aspect that I think is interesting about the courts is the court in Arizona has recently expanded. How has that changed or maybe not changed the court?
Ann Timmer:
The Supreme Court or the recent Courts of Appeals?
Todd Sanders:
[inaudible 00:31:27]. Yes.
Ann Timmer:
Yes. Because we've had two expansions that's-
Todd Sanders:
Correct, Supreme Court.
Ann Timmer:
The Supreme Court, how has it changed things? Well none of us thought that we really needed two more when it was five. Because of course we're practical people and looking at in terms of caseload, do we really need more help? Will it make things go faster? All five of us answered that question, "No it won't, it'll probably slow things down."
Todd Sanders:
So more hands doesn't necessarily mean it would be-
Ann Timmer:
No. The way we work is collective decision making. So it's not just one person working on one case and deciding one case, that might be helpful if you're going to expand the court to more people. But instead of five people being on one decision, now you have seven people on one decision.
Todd Sanders:
A bigger committee.
Ann Timmer:
Yes, it's a bigger committee. Exactly, so you can see if you're on a board of directors do you get more done with the smaller one or the bigger one? I mean, it's the same kind of principle. So that was initially... It's not helpful for that. Having said that I think that having seven for a state of this size is a good thing, it does allow more opportunity for the diversity of backgrounds and people that you have coming in and out of the court. So that you'll have more people that will retire just a matter of numbers, so that means more replacements and so you can have a broader range of experience and backgrounds. Again, that all comes back to not only helping deciding particular cases like I've done commercial business type things or some of my colleagues have done more in the criminal area. So you can draw on some of those experiences but it also helps for that trust level we were talking about. You see people maybe that look like you and reflect society a little bit more.
People think okay, well those people look like my neighbors so I can maybe have a little more trust in them.
Todd Sanders:
I want to go back to something you mentioned or you talked about the separation of powers in your time in the courts. Has that been tested in your experience with the Supreme Court and perhaps what's the relationship between the executive and the legislature from the Supreme Court perspective? Is it a good working relationship, you feel like there's a good way for the three powers to work together?
Ann Timmer:
Well the first part of your question has separation of powers, how has that worked? Has there been any challenges to those?
Todd Sanders:
Has it been tested? Yes.
Ann Timmer:
Sure, all the time. Because it's three different branches, all with the same good intentions to serve the public in the way that they think it should be served. So we have powers that sometimes overlap and a little bit blurry on some issues, some gray areas. So for example between the legislature and the courts, what is substantive law? Which is in the bailiwick of the legislature to make the law and what are the procedural rules? Meaning this is how the court system should operate, that's totally with the courts. But what's procedural? What's substantive? Sometimes it can be a very blurry line. Many times the legislature will enact what really are procedural rules but they're laws. So when they're challenged we will look at them and if we agree with them okay, we'll change our rules to correspond. Because there's no sense in trying to get into some kind of turf battle over something that doesn't... It's not worth it and it doesn't matter if we agree that that's a good way to go.
If it ever comes down though to all right, that's procedural and we make the rules and now it conflicts with our rules. Well our rules prevail, and in my time we've written actually many decisions saying just that. That you have to follow the court rules over the statutory law, that's a procedural rule and it hasn't raised any huge ire and we've done the same thing the opposite way too. We've had to decide you know what? Our rule is inconsistent with the law and it's really more substantive and therefore the rule violates separation of power, so you have to follow the law. The second part of your question was how the judiciary perceives the relationship?
Todd Sanders:
Well yeah, I mean we all have this idea of sort of this natural tension between these three branches that don't necessarily... There's not a lot of communication between the three or there's not a lot of coordination. Is there discussion back and forth and do you all coordinate on certain things or talk? Communicate?
Ann Timmer:
We certainly communicate but coordinate no, not really. But communicate, absolutely. Because the legislature does make it a law and laws that affect the court system as a system but it also affects the court's ability to continue to run this system. So for example they passed a law a few years ago, it was a great idea of having all orders of protection you should be able to file for them online. Instead of having the party, maybe a victim of harassment be the one to be responsible for serving the order that should just automatically be done by... The courts should give it right to law enforcement to serve, that sounds great.
Todd Sanders:
Yeah.
Ann Timmer:
Of course it was 90 days after [inaudible 00:36:44] this will go into effect. I'm like, "What?" That means we have to build a whole system to accomplish that. So that's the kind of communication that you would say, "Well, just so you know if you're going to pass a law like this you're going to have to be able to equip us with the ability to build out a system statewide that allows us to do this kind of thing and it can't be done in 90 days." So that's-
Todd Sanders:
I'm sure that was appreciated.
Ann Timmer:
Yes. So I think we ended up having a year for that which even that was tough but we got it done, it's called AZPOINT and so every court now in Arizona has this from the JP courts all the way up to superior court for doing it that way. But that's the kind of thing, we don't lobby for policy because the court isn't one for policy. That's up to the legislature, but we do have legislative liaisons who will communicate about the court's needs. Of course, the funding needs or anything that affects the running of the court system.
Todd Sanders:
A couple of other things before we wrap up. Judicial performance review system we have here versus the elections of judges, I mean we have a retention system. But talk to us a little bit about why that system is so important? The judicial performance review system. Yes.
Ann Timmer:
Well when merit selection came into our constitution sometime back what? Gosh, I should know this. Late 60s, early 70s, whenever it was. Maybe mid-70s by this time and people said, "Great. Now who are all these judges on the ballot? We don't know anything about them." So very quickly on the heels of merit selection and retention elections came judicial performance review and that's a citizen commission. It's a separate constitutional body that is in charge of basically doing the job for the community of vetting the judges. So what they will do is they use a number of mechanisms to decide is this someone that we should recommend to all the voters that they should retain or should not retain in their job? So they'll do things like send out questionnaires to anybody that just had a case in a trial court or in an appellate court after every oral argument and after every decision is released the participants will get a survey questionnaire. How did the judge do? How clearly was it written? How clearly was it reasoned? Explained? Etc, etc, and you can also make anonymous comment as well.
It's all anonymous and then that is looked at by the commission. If they have a concern they will invite the judge in to say, "We have a concern. We've gotten some reports about maybe your demeanor on the bench. How would you address that?" That kind of thing and then they will vote on, "Should we recommend to the voters? Up or down, yes or no?" Then that's all published to the voters and so the information is there if you care to look at it. It's tough to get people's attention for that. But that's the importance of it, is so that you're able to make a meaningful vote.
Todd Sanders:
It's incredibly helpful, I mean people always look at that list of judges and it's hard for them to decide. But that system, it really helps inform I think people in terms of what they're voting on.
Ann Timmer:
I think so. I mean let's face it, voting these days you have to do some research. You can't just what the heck? I'll just pick a design on the thing. I mean mean who knows about the mining inspector or the water people? You have to do some research and judges it's nice because it's laid out for you. So I don't know all these judges so I do the same thing, I just check my-
Todd Sanders:
That's good for us to know you do too.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah, I check my brochure.
Todd Sanders:
I think it's important to note the Supreme Court's also part of that retention vote.
Ann Timmer:
Yes, I was just up in 2022 and this was the first year I've seen it be politicized a little bit more. People using JPR results to weaponize it against some judges and go after them. Not because of the results, as much as they didn't like a ruling and that is a real concern to me. Because as a judge I always tell new judges or people that want to become one that that's fine. But realize you're giving up your client base if you're in private practice or you're standing of whoever you are in the government practice. But be prepared, you can be fired even if you do a good job and you have to understand that and not be swayed by it in your rulings. Be prepared to make the unpopular ruling, even if it means you lose your job. Because you could always go back and find another job but you can't do that kind of damage to the system or lose your integrity over this.
Todd Sanders:
Justice has to be blind.
Ann Timmer:
It does.
Todd Sanders:
So final question. What is the one thing you wish the public understood, or what is the thing that the public misunderstands about the judicial system?
Ann Timmer:
I think the public perhaps is a consequence of the reduced amount of civics education that they've been getting, doesn't seem to understand that judges don't make policy decisions. They don't make decisions about how they wish the case would come out, many times I tell all my new law clerks that when the governor appointed me I didn't get a tiara. I don't get to call things the way I... I wouldn't mind one. But I didn't get to call things the way I see it and many times I've made decisions that I don't agree with the outcome. I just don't think the public believes that of people, that truly judges through training and just through their own sense of integrity and honor and oath of office they take. Make decisions based on the law or the constitution and the fair interpretation and application and not according to their own desires.
Todd Sanders:
Yeah. That is a tough one for people to understand, not their political affiliation or where they might come from but the facts.
Ann Timmer:
Correct.
Todd Sanders:
Well I want to thank you for spending so much time with us, we're going to do a quick lightning round with you I promise it's easy. Why don't we start with first job? It can be before college.
Ann Timmer:
Baskin-Robbins.
Todd Sanders:
Excellent, favorite flavor there by the way?
Ann Timmer:
Favorite flavor? Jamoca® Almond Fudge.
Todd Sanders:
That's a good one, what did you learn?
Ann Timmer:
That I'm terrible at scooping ice cream, I think I got laid off after two weeks.
Todd Sanders:
Did you take the kids? Once you had kids, did you still take them?
Ann Timmer:
Sure.
Todd Sanders:
Okay, all right excellent. Now obviously you have a great job, but dream job?
Ann Timmer:
Dream job, I always wanted astronaut sciences.
Todd Sanders:
That's another excellent answer. Favorite legal either thriller, either book or movie? Are you a Scott Turow person?
Ann Timmer:
I do like Scott Turow, I did love that movie and that book.
Todd Sanders:
Yes.
Ann Timmer:
The book on... What was it called now? The one where it was really the wife.
Todd Sanders:
Yes, well we're going to have to insert that into the comments but yes.
Ann Timmer:
But I like all the Grisham stuff too.
Todd Sanders:
Yeah, Grisham? Yeah, okay.
Ann Timmer:
Of course and Inherit the Wind, the old time movies and Adam and... What is that called? Adams Rib.
Todd Sanders:
Yep.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah. Well mostly because I like Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy.
Todd Sanders:
You can't go wrong with that.
Ann Timmer:
Yeah.
Todd Sanders:
Then final, who would be your superhero alter ego? If you could be a superhero, who would that be?
Ann Timmer:
Well Wonder Woman, of course.
Todd Sanders:
On that bombshell we want to thank you for joining us today and thank you for your service to Arizona.
Ann Timmer:
Well, thank you. Thanks for having me.
Todd Sanders:
I appreciate it.