Interview with Chief Justice of the Appeals Court Amy L. Blake
Interviewed by Brooke Hartley
BH: You were sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Appeals Court in November. How have your first months as Chief been?
CJ: They’ve been a whirlwind. A lot to learn—certainly things they don’t teach you in law school but it’s been equally as rewarding. Every day is a challenge and so far it’s been great.
BH: What was your path to the bench and then to Chief Justice?
CJ: I could never have imagined that I would be a judge never mind the Chief Justice of the Appeals Court. There are no lawyers in my family, and I never thought about going to law school. Honestly, I thought I was going to go to medical school. I think my parents wanted me to go to medical school. When I went to college, I was taking all science classes. I took a political science class as an elective and I fell in love with it. I thought, “wow, there is something else out there.” Over time, I made the decision that medical school was not for me and thought I might want to go to law school.
BH: Once you followed that path and became a lawyer, at what point did you decide you wanted to become a judge?
CJ: There are some people who will tell you that they knew from the minute they graduated law school they wanted to be a judge. That was not me. After being a prosecutor for a short period of time, I went into private practice. After about fourteen years or so in private practice, I realized that as a lawyer, there’s a lot you can do to help someone, but it’s limited to who you represent. The constellation of people impacted by the decisions of a Probate and Family Court judge is extensive. If I were a judge, I could help more people. That was the first inkling that I thought maybe being a judge is the next step for me.
BH: Fast forward more recently, what made you decide to apply to be Chief Justice?
CJ: When Chief Justice Green announced his retirement, I took stock of where I was on the Court. I had been an Associate Justice for ten years. I was on many of the Court’s committees. I realized that I was the person that many people came to when they had a question or a concern or just needed to talk or vent and because I considered myself to be a people person, I might be the right person to take the Court forward.
BH: The Appeals Court, as you well know, was established over fifty years ago. You are the eighth person and the first woman to serve as Chief Justice. What does it mean to you to break this glass ceiling?
CJ: It’s really overwhelming. It’s crazy to me that I became Chief in 2024 and the Appeals Court had never had a female Chief Justice. Interestingly enough, every trial court had had a woman chief, the Supreme Judicial Court had a woman chief, and the Chief of the Trial Court was a woman. What happened to the Appeals Court? I’m incredibly proud to be the first because I think it gives hope and a pathway for other women. But as proud as I am of the fact that I am the first woman, I’m always reminded of what my day job is—to be the best Chief Justice for all of the judges and the staff. It’s humbling and it’s inspiring.
BH: How does being the first woman to serve as Chief Justice impact the way you lead the Court, if at all?
CJ: I think I have a bit of a softer touch and I don’t know if that’s because I’m a woman or if it’s because of my personality, but it’s important to me to connect with every member of the Court. I made a commitment before the Governor’s Council that I was going to meet one on one with every single member of the staff. I am actually near completion of that. I think that speaks to how I prioritize people. Our metrics are a critical part of what we need to report out to the world, including for budget hearings and things like that, but it’s the intangible and the soft numbers that I prioritize. That means making sure people are happy to come to work; they feel safe at work; they’re fulfilled at work; they have goals at work; and there’s a path for them to succeed. You create a culture of excellence by having a happy and dedicated staff.
BH: For a long time, you have been a leader and mentor to women in law. Before you were the first woman to be Chief Justice of the Appeals Court, did you at some point in your career have a mentor that inspired you to take on this role for others?
CJ: I’ve always thought it was important to give somebody a hand up when you can and that’s men and women alike. I think as a woman, I experienced some prejudice and misogyny throughout my career. I’ve always been mindful that I had a special role in terms of helping women and so when I thought back about my mentors, I was in some ways surprised to realize that my greatest mentor was a man. That was my first boss in private practice, attorney Monroe Inker. He valued the advancement of women in the law. He gave me opportunities as a young lawyer that I think many young lawyers don’t get today. Also, over time, he came to understand that the balance between family life and work life is critical. It took him a little while to buy into that but he created a space that allowed women to be successful professionals while also allowing them to be moms, which was very impactful.
BH: Being the first woman to serve as Chief Justice is obviously an amazing accomplishment but for those who know you and have followed your career it’s not surprising. You attended New England Law School at night while working a full time job; you graduated cum laude; while in law school you were named the New England Scholar and awarded the Amos L. Taylor Award for Excellence in Achievement; you were the first woman to be made partner at your law firm; you were named distinguished jurist in 2013 by the Massachusetts Association of Women’s Lawyers while serving on the Probate and Family Court. It’s obvious that you are talented but your record reveals that you are also hard working. What drives you?
CJ: I grew up in a very traditional household where my dad worked and my mom stayed home and took care of me and my brothers. I knew that that’s not what I wanted for my life even at that age. Unfortunately, my parents went through a very difficult divorce. I knew early on that I never wanted to be dependent on anyone and I wanted to follow my passion. So, changing gears from science to the law was following my passion. There was great risk in doing so, but I knew that it would be fulfilling. What has driven me is the foundation of my childhood, my family, and my desire, both personally and professionally, to do the things that make me happiest. At the end of the day, I want to feel fulfilled, that I’ve contributed, and that I’ve made a difference.
BH: Have you ever been told no? Have you ever not succeeded and how has that impacted your path forward?
CJ: I’ve been told no in many ways. I’ve applied to jobs that I didn’t get. I applied to law schools that I didn’t get into. I lost cases, some that I should have lost, but others that I didn’t think I should have lost. From each of those things, you have the opportunity to learn. I think loss—having someone say no—makes you stronger. I remember leaving a law firm after an interview that I knew didn’t go well and I wasn’t going to get the job and I thought some day you will say, “I wish I had hired her!”
BH: I know, having been a law clerk at the Appeals Court, that in addition to being a leader, you are also a teacher. You are a teacher to your law clerks, interns, and law students. Obviously, you are a very busy person. Why is it important for you to make time for this?
CJ: You have to make choices. You can choose just to do the day job and go home and there’s nothing wrong with that. For some people that’s enough. For me, I would not be sitting here talking to you, Brooke, if people hadn’t helped me. Sometimes I help people in the smallest of ways, and sometimes it takes a little bit more. If I had even a slight role in helping somebody move forward and be successful, that is everything to me. The best part of being a woman in the law is to know that you can help others. As a young lawyer, you look at that landscape and it’s overwhelming. Boston is a small legal community, but you don’t know that when you first get out of law school. If I could help be the compass for somebody to point them in the right direction, then I feel like I’ve earned my place.
BH: You have experience as a district attorney, in private practice, and as a judge of the Probate and Family Court. How has this experience shaped who you are as Chief Justice of the Appeals Court?
CJ: One of the important things that you learn as a lawyer is having to deliver bad news. Sometimes that is setting a client’s expectations or in a criminal case that is setting a victim or a family’s expectations about what the system can and can’t provide. Sometimes it’s delivering the news that you argued a motion and, notwithstanding your brilliant legal strategy, you lost. As a domestic relations attorney, my cases often involved people’s children and people’s money—the things that were closest to them. I think that I have developed a way of delivering news. As a judge, I’m always mindful that the “losing party” needs to know not only that their argument was heard but also why they lost. They must be able to reflect on the decision and must be able to say, the judge didn’t agree with me but she heard me. This translates to my new role as Chief, when I sometimes have to deliver bad news to staff.
BH: Are there any changes you would like to make in the Court, big or small?
CJ: From the day I was sworn, my focus has been on the staff and ensuring that they are heard. When I can improve things for them, I do, but I’m careful to be fair and equitable in how I do it. There are some things I’m doing internally that I’m hopeful will give people the opportunity to be together in a way that we haven’t before. In fact, I recently hosted the first ever all-staff meeting. It was a huge success. Each department made a presentation to showcase who they are and what they do.
I also hope, from what I learned in my one-on-one meetings, to put together an action plan for each department manager. I’ve listened to what people say they need and want. There are very attainable things that people have shared with me. I’m going to put those ideas forward in a way as to protect people’s confidentiality but to give the managers some suggestions about what they can do in their own department and how they can connect with other departments to break down some of the silos that exist.
Obviously, the most important thing is that we get the decisions right and we get them out timely. But if you don’t have a happy, talented, dedicated staff, that can’t happen.
BH: A big part of your role is bringing people together and lifting people up. Now since Covid, the Appeals Court has allowed employees to work remote part time. How has this changed the landscape of the Court and is it more difficult to bring people together with this hybrid work schedule?
CJ: It definitely is harder. Coming out of the pandemic, I was cautiously optimistic because I saw the incredible remote work that our staff and judges did during the pandemic. Currently, we are operating without missing a beat and in some ways, even more seamlessly actually. But what it does present are challenges, particularly when new people get hired. People aren’t sitting around the proverbial water cooler chatting about “did you watch this episode last night” or “what did you do this weekend.” I am looking for opportunities for people to connect. We have an internal mentorship program where we match people from different departments to get them talking. We also do pop-up lunches in the library and all departments are invited.
BH: The Appeals Court has recently increased accessibility to the Court and to the appellate process for self-represented litigants. How successful do you feel these efforts have been and are there any more changes that will be coming in the future?
CJ: To me this is all about access to justice and it’s a core tenet of mine. I serve on the Supreme Judicial Court committee where we just rewrote the guidelines in civil cases for self-represented litigants. That was a three-year project. I’m really proud of the result. It’s so critical to this Court because of the amount of self-represented litigants we see, most especially out of the Housing Court appeals. We’ve done some very creative things and are continuing to innovate. We just renewed the informal brief pilot project, which allows self-represented litigants to have relaxation of the rules in terms of what goes into a brief. The pilot program puts together a barebones fill in the blank structure that allows us to get better information. The fact that we live stream and archive our hearings is also helpful, for lawyers certainly, but also for self-represented litigants who can watch and then see what to expect.
Our pro bono clinic on civil appeals, hosted by our clerk’s office, has resumed after being suspended during the pandemic. We’ve also worked and continue to work with Suffolk University’s Legal Information and Technology Lab. Together, we have created guided interviews where a self-represented litigant can answer questions and, through the use of technology, can actually create a response, for example, to an eviction. We’re hoping to expand that to help with briefs as well. I think it’s critical that we continue to innovate. We have really smart people here with really creative ideas. AI is here whether we like it or not. To me, the most helpful use of AI is with self-represented litigants.
BH: What do you see as being some of your biggest challenges as Chief Justice?
CJ: Right now, the biggest challenge is with what is happening in the world today. The judiciary is under attack. There are days that you see a headline or hear something on the radio on your way to work and it can be very deflating. I hope to instill in everyone that works at this Court that what we do is important and has a direct impact on people every day. Notwithstanding the noise that we hear right now, the people that work at the Massachusetts Appeals Court can be proud of the work that they do, lift one another up, hold their heads high and know that the rule of law is alive and well in Massachusetts. Every day we will work together to ensure that we follow the law.
BH: If you could give yourself one piece of advice when you were beginning your career what would it be?
CJ: I would say to always be my authentic self. I have a big personality. I’m not a shrinking violet. There were times in my career when people would say, “Amy, you might be a little too much. Pull it back.” And I did and it wasn’t comfortable. It wasn’t me and it wasn’t the best me. At the end of the day, you have to be true to yourself. I don’t think I would be sitting here today if I had listened to folks that said pull it back, be less, be quieter, be smaller. I’ve often wondered if they would have given that same feedback to a man. I don’t know the answer to that but what I would say is be you.
Brooke Hartley is currently an Assistant District Attorney in the Appeals Unit at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. Upon graduating from Boston College Law School in 2018, she was a law clerk at the Massachusetts Appeals Court and then a law clerk at the Supreme Judicial Court.
This article represents the opinions and legal conclusions of its author and not necessarily those of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.
