Following her first 15 months on the job, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella spoke on Tuesday about her evolving approach on the bench, including her expectations of attorneys who want her assistance in facilitating settlements of civil cases.

Of the more than 3,000 cases filed in Colorado’s federal trial court annually, only a small fraction — 51 last year — culminate in a trial. In contrast, magistrate judges are on track to complete settlement conferences in 170-180 lawsuits this year, among their other duties presiding over various aspects of civil and criminal cases.

Before facilitating a settlement, Starnella requires each side to submit confidential statements to her, including the circumstances of the underlying controversy, the key legal or factual disputes, what the parties want and, notably, a “good faith evaluation” of the case.

“I really appreciate those statements where an attorney is acknowledging the weaknesses. I’m like, ‘OK, this attorney is ready for a real discussion. We’re not posturing,'” said Starnella, speaking at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse in Denver.

“I haven’t been impressed in those settlement conferences where I realize the attorney did not ‘reality test’ with their client,” she continued. “And the client is coming in with the expectation that this will be their best day in court. No, settlement is all about compromise.”

Last week, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, in a similar presentation at the courthouse, spoke favorably about the use of settlement conferences to satisfy the district court’s congressional mandate of providing alternate dispute resolution. Among other things, he explained that settlements can relieve judges of having to issue orders, preside over trials and resolve procedural disputes.

Starnella agreed with his assessment of the virtues of settlement conferences, and said she has become more “facilitative,” rather than “evaluative” — that is, giving the parties her assessment of a case’s merits and demerits.

“That was problematic,” said Starnella. “I’m still developing my street credibility with you. So, when you hear me saying, ‘I don’t think the district judge is going to grant this summary judgment motion,’ you’re like, ‘What does she know?'”

Starnella came to the bench with a wide array of legal experience, which she obtained in large part through her work at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. Although she started as an attorney handling intellectual property, patent and trademark disputes, she later represented the state while defending against the constitutional claims of incarcerated persons, handling elections issues and otherwise advocating for the state in the face of litigation.

Her first job in Colorado, though, was a clerkship for U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello.

“I had good insight into knowing the lifespan of a case, having worked as a litigator, and having those daily conversations with a judge helped me find my voice as an attorney,” Starnella said.

Speaking about her new responsibility handling the appearances of criminal defendants, Starnella recalled her first pretrial detention hearing was “pretty intense.”

“The detention hearings I view as my most significant responsibility. Probably all of the district judges say sentencing is their most significant responsibility,” she said.

Starnella referenced a recent University of Chicago report finding many federal judges misapply the criteria for detaining a defendant before trial, even though defendants’ re-arrests or failures to appear only occur around 1% of the time when they are released. Starnella noted the law directs judges to release a person unless there no reasonable assurance they will appear or present no danger to the community.

“‘Reasonably assure’ does not mean ‘guarantee,'” she said. “I understand there’s probable cause supporting the indictment or the criminal complaint. But the person’s liberty is at risk. … I also understand if I’m detaining someone, I’m disrupting the family. If they’re the breadwinner, their detention is disrupting their livelihood, disrupting the support system this individual provides their children.”

Starnella also provided pieces of advice for attorneys. For example, she asked them to avoid speaking in absolutes.

“A big red flag goes up in my head when a lawyer appears before me and says, ‘Your honor, in my 30 years of practice, I never…’. I’m like, ‘I don’t know about that’,” she said.

Starnella further advised that requests to restrict certain documents from public view on court dockets need to explain what interest is at stake, and why merely redacting certain information is not an option.

Finally, she said she tries to make herself available to respond to sudden flare-ups in depositions — such as earlier this year when a witness walked out of a deposition in the courthouse without authorization, prompting Starnella to recommend financial sanctions.

“If I’m available, I want to resolve your disputes so you’ve got clarity and can proceed,” she said, adding she once intervened “even while I was on vacation. There was a seagull in the background.”

The discussion was sponsored by the Faculty of Federal Advocates.