Remarks to the FBA Leadership Summit by Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr.

This article was featured in Beltway Bulletin in the Summer 2025 issue of The Federal Lawyer.

The keynote speaker at FBA’s Leadership Summit in March was Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., who succeeded Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on March 1, 2024. Judge Conrad offered his insights into what it means to be a leader and the importance of leadership in service to a great purpose. He challenges each of us to reflect upon these questions and to find and act upon our own answers, “for our profession, for our nation, and for the cause of fair, impartial, law-based justice that we all serve.” We are deeply grateful to Judge Conrad for allowing us to reprint his inspiring remarks in the Beltway Bulletin. 

—Cissy Jackson and Dan Renberg

 

Good afternoon, and thank you.

I am honored to stand before this meeting of the Federal Bar Association.  As a federal prosecutor for 16 years, and then as a judge for nearly 20 years in the Western District of North Carolina, I’ve rubbed elbows with attorneys my entire career.  I love trial work.  And I’m painfully aware of the time required to be excellent in your careers and cases, leaving little time to focus on the issues facing our profession.  Your willingness to be here, walking the halls of Congress, meeting with people to advance the ball in our courts, I can only say thank you.

And I love combining the mission of the FBA with the notion of leadership.  A leadership Summit for lawyers is a worthy use of time

I maintain without apology that the law is a noble profession; that lawyers by their nature are leaders; and that there is a lot to say about the positive role played by lawyers in society.

In doing so, I won’t tell any lawyer jokes, because, as the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reminded us, “lawyers don’t think lawyer jokes are funny … and other people don’t think they are jokes.”

Lawyers are leaders: by training, by avocation, by vocation.  Leadership skills got you into and through law school, landed you the jobs you are doing now, and encouraged you to actively participate in the Federal Bar Association.  But to you lawyer leaders, I ask, what does it really mean to be a leader?

An unconventional way to approach this is to suggest that the way we define leadership is a lot like Potter Stewart once defined obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

Leadership is that way, too.  We know it when we see it.  Even without words, a leader can remind us to reach for our highest purpose, put aside doubts and easy cynicism, to dedicate ourselves to a daily pursuit of excellence, even when that may seem to come at a personal cost.

Often when we talk about leaders, we think about heroes of history or industry, quasi-giants who occupy grand stages and are remembered for generations to come.  Right here in the Washington capital area, there’s no shortage of those types of leaders.  Across the Potomac, monuments recall George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, while John Adams was the first president to occupy the White House.  Three of these heroes gave birth to our democracy, and the fourth helped preserve it.

A problem with this perspective is that it’s hard to relate to the giants of history we learned about in school.  We feel insignificant.  But the truth is we all have the capacity to lead.  Even if only a few are likely to remember our names, or our accomplishments, we all have the power to make the world a better place for those we come in contact with.

This is true even for those great early Americans I’ve referenced.  In 1765, just 10 years before the American Revolution started, some of John Adams’ biggest concerns were the birth of his first child, and his marriage the year before to his wife Abigail.  George Washington was changing his crop from tobacco to wheat, in response to falling prices and soil erosion.  Thomas Jefferson had just been admitted to the Virginia bar, only for courts to be closed by the Stamp Act crisis.

And can you imagine walking up to the Albemarle County Courthouse and seeing the lawyers negotiating their cases with each other on the courthouse steps?  On any given day you would see James Madison, James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson, who all practiced law together in Charlottesville, Virginia.

It’s unlikely that these individuals, any more than you, thought of themselves as historical figures in the making.  Mostly, they were living their lives and pursuing their careers raising their families.  But even then, they were discovering and defining their purpose.  They were making history each day in the excellence of their legal pursuits.

So what can we all learn about leadership, especially in a time when our institutions of law face new, clearly significant challenges?

When I talk about leadership, I start from three points.

The first is that excellence almost never comes in isolation, it occurs through a unified team.  This has been true for me whether playing college basketball, as I did at Clemson University, as a chief judge in my district court, or as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  Strong teamwork always requires intentional leadership, someone to clarify meaningful goals, support individuals in stretching to achieve them, and winning them over by sharing the work.

The second is that leaders do not always sit at the head table.  In my opinion, servant leaders are the best leaders because they place themselves in service of a cause greater than themselves, and in the service of those they work with.  At the heart of servant leadership is humility.

Finally, I believe leaders emerge from confronting adversity.  Leaders don’t shrink from a time of challenge.  They put aside the potential costs to do what they believe is best.  They respond in extraordinary fashion to the ordinary things of life.  And when called to meet the moment, they do.

We see that in the lives of history’s heroes.  We celebrate the Fourth of July every year with fireworks and picnics, knowing that the American Revolution turned out well.  But the moment they signed the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson became traitors in the eyes of the Crown, and that knowledge surely was not lost on them.  For the sake of a greater cause, they accepted hanging as a very likely outcome.

In real life, sometimes hopes and dreams are dashed, villains can come out on top, and good guys may finish last.  So even small-scale leadership feels risky.  Leaders increase their risk of being second-guessed – and even worse – by the simple act of stepping up.  They risk the sting of failure when they could have just accepted the status quo.  But the willingness of leaders to stand up for themselves and others, risking failure, is what makes them so necessary.

Coming to the legal profession, I want to take one example of servant leadership that remains fresh in my mind.  And it comes out of our world, and our confrontation with the COVID pandemic – only five years ago but in some ways a lifetime away.  Across the world, we are still coming to terms with the profound ways this pandemic affected us: the suffering and loss; the isolation; the fear; the recalibration of personal, professional, and spiritual values.  It touched everything, and it certainly touched the bar and the courts.

In the Western District of North Carolina, the recovery from the initial shock began almost immediately, because we really had no choice.  As we began to pick ourselves up, we looked around and concluded that the cause of justice had to go on.

At the heart of all this was an action that carried fatal risks if done carelessly: the resumption of in-person jury trials.

We decided to reconfigure our ceremonial courtroom, creating a big jury box out of the spectator section, so that jurors could sit at a safe distance from one another.  We took temperatures at the front door and gave out protective gear to everyone who entered.

In May 2020, barely two months after COVID closed down courts across the country, we conducted mock proceedings to see if we could resume hearings, and ultimately trials.  As our confidence grew, we began trying cases in June.  In the last seven months of 2020, the Western District of North Carolina conducted 29 jury trials.  This was more than in the year preceding COVID.

So who were the heroes in all this?  Who were the servant leaders?

I think of people like our longtime cleaning supervisor at the courthouse who volunteered to work overtime with a spray bottle and chemical disinfectant, to wipe down tables and chairs after every hearing.

I also think of the US Marshals Service, who at close quarters transported witnesses and defendants between Mecklenburg County jail and federal court.  The IT staff who worked massive amounts of overtime without saying a word, to rewire a courtroom at the same time they were wiring a whole new court building.  The probation and pretrial services officers, who showed up every day to do their pretrial screenings and post-conviction supervision.

And perhaps most impressively, I remember two categories of servants: the jurors, who continued to do their civic duty while the world was in lockdown; and the lawyers who made sure that everyone who came before the court was represented.

During the first criminal case we heard, the Federal Defender personally tried the case.  He said he did not want to ask his line defenders to do something he was not willing to do.

For each of these deadly serious challenges, a leader stepped forward within our courthouse.  I am happy to say that all these risks, and all this sacrifice by so many, paid off.

We checked with jurors for two weeks after each verdict; the only reported COVID case had no connection to jury service.

And our court proceedings touched lives in very personal ways.

The very first trial involved a man charged with robbery who was acquitted.  The defendant went home that night and ate dinner with his family.  All because 12 jurors swallowed their anxieties and came to court for a $50 daily fee; and a federal defender was willing to stand up in the middle of a pandemic and say, “I’m ready for the defense.”

Most examples of leadership contain some common themes.  In my estimation, leadership requires the following:

• Courage and faith. Ironically, in many stories of heroes, going back to the Old Testament, the first reaction of the would-be leader is fear—a protest that “you must have the wrong guy.” “Here I am Lord, send him.” But the leader/hero presses through the self-doubt for the greater good.
• An important cause, or greater good. As I noted during COVID, the judges, the lawyers, and the cleaning and IT staff, all led in different ways. But all were servants to one goal: getting our system of justice up and running again.  We didn’t need credit or acclaim to know that this was needed, or to demand our best effort.
• The choice to take personal ownership. This is especially true when the moment calls for some gift we may possess that others might not. We may feel a sense not only that our personal involvement is needed, but that our failure to show up may carry a decisive cost.
• Acceptance of adversity. Like COVID, adversity can initially daze us. But before we can turn to solutions, we need to accept the problem exactly as it is.  A leader recognizes that adversity makes us stronger.
• Humility or servanthood. By ourselves, we can accomplish little. A leader recognizes this.  While we all can aspire to personal excellence, a leader focuses on the best interest of the group.  Whether the crisis involves a difficult case or a child in trouble, we learn to put a pause on our personal agendas until the challenge has passed.
• Personal connection. People matter. In the end, we can command people to come to an office or to meet a deadline, but excellent work is always volunteered.  A leader learns what makes the members of their team tick, what inspires them, what they care about, and who they are when the office closes for the night or weekend.
• Loyalty and mutual sacrifice. Like the federal defender in my district, a leader is willing to do what they ask of others. A leader should be willing to fight in the trench—and in fact to grab a shovel and help dig the trench.
• Finally, leaders have vision. “Without a vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18).  More than many institutions, the law honors the heritage and precedential guidance of the past.  But leaders always remain ready to embrace the future.  Leaders communicate vision, and they recognize and nurture vision in others.

I am sure that other experts on leadership could identify many additional factors, but these qualities have stood out for me in many settings.  I think they are a good set-up for discussing where we are today, and the role the Federal Bar Association has historically played.

For starters, the FBA is a leader, and it has played a vital role for more than a century.  This organization was established in 1920, two years before the Judicial Conference of the United States.  Woodrow Wilson was in the White House, and America was still recovering from the previous great pandemic, the Spanish Flu of 1918.  Even more than when you were formed, the FBA’s slogan is true today: “National Reach, Local Impact.”

In my years on the bench in Charlotte, North Carolina, including seven years as chief judge, I recognized the local FBA chapter to be a unique communication channel that explained the needs of the bar to the Judiciary, and vice versa.  It also was a great place for lawyers new to federal practice to find networking and support as they learned to navigate in the U.S. courts.

In 2013, in the Western District of North Carolina, the court explained a need for pro se representation, and the FBA spearheaded an effort that became our “Pro Se Settlement Assistance Program,” still serving needy parties and the court today.

In every way the FBA and federal courts are wholly independent from one another as institutions, but of course there are common areas of concern and interest.  Even a casual glance at the FBA website underscores how many parallel concerns we have.  It’s especially heartening that the FBA looks beyond just the professional needs of practicing lawyers, and also speaks for the needs of the Judiciary.  Given what is at stake, it is encouraging to see that among your policy priorities, you include such matters as promoting judicial security, judicial independence, establishing new judgeships, and securing necessary funding for the courts.

The FBA has worked to shore up respect and trust in the courts, as a fair, impartial, and independent arbiter of disputes according to law.  You encourage Americans to support a place where opposing sides are heard, and where the side that loses today can seek redress through an appeal.  And importantly, you support a forum of the people where critical decisions are made not by experts but by a jury of citizens.  It is the system our founders bestowed upon us.  It is the envy of the world.  The Independent Judiciary is America’s gift to government.  You know it, we know it, and hopefully this concept will dawn on all in our country.

When I talked earlier about the importance of a great purpose, no one in this room has to look far.  All they have to do is look around.  Against a backdrop of increasing societal chaos and division, we must strive to protect the legacy that was given to us: a system capable of protecting the rule of law and rights granted under the Constitution.  You have shared in this great work, and will keep doing so for as long as you practice and advocate for the law.  We are leaders, and we are servants, to a cause that began long before we were born, and will continue long after we exit the stage.

I wish I could say our system of justice is in a peaceful maintenance mode.  But I think most of us know that we face a time of uncertainty and challenge, which potentially affects the very institutions we serve.  Pressures and divisions regarding the courts and legal profession have been building for many years.

While those divisions appear to be at a high boil today, no one should interpret what I am about to say as a partisan statement or analysis.  I was proudly appointed by President George W. Bush, but as Chief Justice Roberts eloquently noted, there are not Clinton judges, or Bush judges, or Obama, Biden, or Trump judges.  There are federal judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution.  While we may differ as to the interpretation or application of the law, I believe the Chief Justice is correct when it comes to the needs of the Judiciary as an institution.  In those areas, I suspect the vast majority of Article III judges are in agreement.

I’ll start with two operational issues.

One, more judgeships are needed.  The last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted in 1990, and no new judgeships have been created in more than 20 years.  This is by far the longest such gap since the original Judiciary Act. Since 1990, when Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden helped pass through a bill creating 60 judgeships for one president to fill, total case filings have increased 37 percent.  Delays have increased, especially in civil caseloads.

Last year, Congress approved legislation to add 66 district court judgeships to be created in tranches over three presidential administrations, a carefully crafted congressional compromise which closely aligned with the Conference’s prior recommendation.  Regrettably, the same Joe Biden, then President, vetoed the bill.

This year, similar legislation is being considered in the House. Passage remains a high priority for the Judiciary.

Two, the federal Judiciary has a significant funding shortage.  We understand that the entire federal government has entered difficult times, but the recently passed continuing resolution means we are operating at the same funding levels as in Fiscal Year 2023.  As a result of inflation, this effectively is a dramatic budget cut.  This will affect courts, and the delivery of justice, nationwide.

And then, of course, the Judiciary is facing challenges about its role in a highly polarized period of history.

Quite bluntly, the Judiciary and, importantly and ominously, individual judges are the subjects of a confluence of attacks that are placing our institution and mission in jeopardy.  These challenges have been building for years, through administrations led by both national parties.  In his Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, published on December 31, 2024, Chief Justice Roberts laid out four areas of concern that can be applied fairly and evenly, regardless of who may be issuing a specific attack.  If you haven’t read this report, I strongly encourage you to visit the U.S. Supreme Court website.  My thoughts about these concerns align entirely with what the Chief Justice wrote.

First, there is nothing new or inappropriate about publicly criticizing court rulings.  Literally, three of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore bitterly criticized one or more rulings by the Supreme Court.  Public criticism from both parties has continued through recent administrations.  The founders were wise enough to give judges life tenure, so that they could base their rulings on the law, without fear of political payback.  This constitutional protection enables judges to have thick skins in the face of ordinary political discourse.

Second, it was understood early on that the separation of powers all but guaranteed that there would be tensions among the three branches of government.  As we have seen dating to the 19^th century, even decisions by the President can be challenged if they violate the law or Constitution.  Disputes with such high stakes are bound to stir public passions.  And as the Chief Justice noted, history shows that the courts don’t always get it right the first time.

But in his report, Chief Justice Roberts identified four areas of what he termed “illegitimate activity” that, in his view, do threaten the independence of judges and the federal courts.  They are violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

To quote the Chief Justice: “Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law.  The rule of law depends, in turn, on Article III of the Constitution and judges and justices appointed and confirmed under it. … [V]iolence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”

Without question, all these dangers have been escalating in recent years.  Judges appointed by both parties have come under attack and personal threat.  In the past five years, the U.S. Marshals Service has investigated more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges and justices.

The FBA has supported the physical security of judges and their families, advocating for the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which became law in 2022.  As many of you know, this was named for the 20-year-old son of Judge Esther Salas.  Daniel was tragically murdered at the family’s front door while on college break.  The killer, a disgruntled litigant, found Judge Salas’s address through an easy and inexpensive internet search.

Since the Anderl Act was passed, nearly 80 percent of all federal judges have requested help in removing personally identifiable information from the internet.  This is an important step, but personal data removal is not an airtight defense.  Some judges’ home addresses have continued to be disclosed, and as the chief justice noted, intimidation continues in other forms.

In the current social media climate, angry rhetoric, and particularly rhetoric attacking a judge’s motives without evidence, can direct a torrent of rage against individual judges and create a climate where violence seems acceptable and encouraged.  Our judges have had pizzas delivered to their homes, and the homes of their children, a not so subtle message, “we know where you live.”  They have been doxed, and referred for impeachment based on displeasure with their rulings.  Gratefully, their colleagues and groups like the FBA are standing shoulder to shoulder with them.  It may be true that we may have been late in answering the call, that judges have been subject to similar attacks during previous administrations, but that is not a reason to be silent now.

Finally, of course, there is the profound danger of openly defying federal court rulings.  This is in the headlines lately, but it has been building for years, with advocates across the political spectrum citing this possibility when an important ruling doesn’t go their way.

This threat has some historic precedent.  After Brown v. Board, it took nearly 15 years to overcome the defiance by some state and local governments.

Fortunately, Democratic and Republican administrations have since the 1960s accepted even the decisions they disagreed with.

This historic respect for court decisions remains important going forward.  While almost everyone has felt aggrieved by one ruling or another, the notion that individuals, legislatures, executives, and the courts themselves all are accountable to the law, is a vital safeguard of democracy.  To simply ignore court rulings one disagrees with poses a grave threat to the system our Founders passed down to us.

In recent years, the courts have stepped up efforts to provide civic education, and the FBA has proudly supported similar efforts.  But as Chief Justice Roberts noted, much more is needed, and on a national scale.  At a time when division and distrust have been stoked for decades, with no one side entirely blameless, faith in our institutions is in disrepair.  We need to return to some consensus that everyone relies on the rule of law, and we all have an obligation to support it.

Which returns us to a question that I asked at the start.  We all are here at a Leadership Summit.  But to you lawyer leaders, I ask again, what does it really mean to be a leader?

There are no easy answers, but it’s a question that deserves your reflection and attention when this conference is over.  I am sure we all wish that clouds were not gathering over the courts, and the practice of law.  The lack of easy answers may feed doubt and indecision.  But from the very start, America’s founders and leaders faced their world as it was, not as they wished it to be.  They pushed forward in the face of doubt, and even of world-scale crises.  So far, in the nearly 250 years that our nation has existed, we moved through one threat to our future after another.  And now it is our time to keep moving forward.  For our profession, for our nation, and for the cause of fair, impartial, law-based justice that we all serve.

“National Reach, Local Impact.”  That is the Federal Bar Association’s motto.  Perhaps, in this time, local reach can have national impact.

This is a very high cause indeed, and it requires the sustained, forceful commitment of servant leaders.  I am honored to have been in this room of servant leaders today.

Thank you.