Lessons from the Bench

Many an attorney has found him or herself standing in front of a judge, wishing they knew what the robed individual was thinking. For Stephen Larson, a founding partner of Larson LLP, which has offices in Southern California and Washington, D.C., the answer became clear after he spent 10 years as a U.S. magistrate and district judge. 

“You see what works, what doesn’t work, what’s effective, what’s ineffective,” Larson says. “You also get the sense of what rings true to a judge and what doesn’t.”

Larson began his role behind the bench after nearly 10 years as a federal prosecutor. The opportunity for judicial work arose when he discovered there was an opening in Riverside, near his childhood home. 

“I was getting to the point where I was open to another experience,” he recalls. “It was an opportunity to be a federal judge in that area that I was very familiar with, and I went for it.”

Larson adjudicated more than 1,000 cases ranging from disputes in the government sector to the entertainment sector, and many areas in between. 

One prominent case he oversaw was United States v. Duro, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office attempted to close down a camp known as Duroville that housed migrant workers and their families on the Torres and Martinez reservations located in Southern California. Larson ultimately blocked the government effort, finding that a solution came only when multiple affected entities, including the federal government, state government, Native American tribal leadership and local authorities worked together. 

He says there are lessons from the Duroville case that may be applicable to the current clash over immigration rights and deportation happening in the country, particularly as it pertains to individuals working in spheres such as agriculture and business. 

“All of these societal issues, whether it’s immigration or anything else, oftentimes have multiple layers to them, and multiple interests that really need to be coordinated and considered before you to get to an effective resolution,” he says. “When I look at the immigration issue today, that seems to be lacking just as it was initially in the [Duroville] situation.”

Larson also spent time in the spotlight in 2009 when he oversaw two prominent cases; Barbie v. Bratz, an ongoing legal battle in which toymakers Mattel and MGA Entertainment fought for intellectual property rights of Bratz dolls, and United States v. Nazario, which involved a U.S. Marine accused of an alleged war crime during the Iraq War’s Battle of Fallujah. 

“[Nazario] was going on in the morning, and then I was having the Bratz trial in the afternoon,” Larson recalls. “I remember the Daily Journal had a headline. They called it the ‘Docket of Dolls and Death.’”

Despite the disparity of gravitas between the two cases, Larson says the way he conducted the trials was largely the same. 

“Your role as a judge is to oversee the trial, decide what evidence comes in, what evidence doesn’t come in as a matter of law, make sure that both sides receive a fair hearing,” he says. “You can’t help but have a kind of different emotional investment in one subject matter than the other, but in terms of what you do and how you do it, it’s relatively the same.”

Now back in private practice, Larson says he’s taken many of the lessons he learned as a judge into the courtroom as an attorney. Some involve conduct, such as being mindful of the fact that the jury is always watching, avoiding petty attacks on opposing counsel and being kind and courteous to the deputy courtroom clerk. 

Another is to ensure that courtroom arguments are different from what’s already been submitted to the judge on paper. 

“There is nothing more frustrating than sitting on the bench and just listening to counsel regurgitate or repeat what they’ve already set forth in their papers,” he says. “Tell the judge something new.”

For now, Larson says, he’s happy being back in practice and doesn’t anticipate holding the gavel any time soon. 

“I thoroughly enjoyed my time on the bench, but I’m also thoroughly enjoying what I’m doing now,” says the commercial and appellate litigator. “My desire at this point is to keep doing what I’m doing as long as I can.”