U.S. Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung described on Wednesday the various tactics he employs to resolve court cases, summing up his role with a laxative-based metaphor.

“Someone told a group of us federal magistrate judges that magistrate judges are the Metamucil of the federal system. Our job is to move things through,” he quipped.

Chung is the newest member of Colorado’s federal bench, having been sworn in in January 2025. Speaking to attorneys at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse in Denver, he described how the job differed from his perceptions as a federal prosecutor.

“I only saw magistrate judges during detention hearings or when I needed search warrants from them, which makes you think criminal work is a big part of what’s going on,” he said. But “it’s a very small part of what I do.”

Unlike presidentially nominated and U.S. Senate-confirmed district judges, magistrate judges are appointed to eight-year terms and primarily handle preliminary and administrative matters in cases. However, if the litigants consent in a civil case, a magistrate judge may handle the entire proceeding.

Chung said that the work of Colorado’s federal trial court has exploded in recent months, with civil case filings surpassing 4,000 for the first time in 2025. They are on track to exceed 5,000 this year, he added. In part, a wave of immigration detention challenges has hit the court, with Chung and the other magistrate judges handling the litigation alongside the district judges.

“One of the things that is surprising is how my very presence encourages people to be more civil,” said Chung, raising an example of litigants’ disputes over evidence. “It is surprising how many times I might come into a discovery dispute hearing and I’ll ask the plaintiff’s side, ‘All right, I see your discovery request. What is it you’re actually looking for?’ They say the thing. And the other side is like, ‘That’s the first time I’ve ever heard this.’ I say, ‘Are you OK with it?’ They say, ‘We’re OK with it!’

“I think being in the room sometimes causes attorneys to think twice about taking more extreme positions,” he added.

A significant portion of magistrate judges’ work involves facilitating settlement conferences between litigants in civil cases. Chung’s predecessor, Michael E. Hegarty, was prolific at settling cases, and Chung said the work involves “understanding the real human side of things.”

“Ninety-nine percent of civil cases end up settling or get resolved prior to trial. Very few of them go to trial,” he said. “Most of the time, they are coming to me because my criteria is: both parties have to agree that this is a worthwhile effort.”

What he does not appreciate, Chung added, is encountering unrealistic expectations at the settlement conference.

“If your demand six weeks ago was $100,000, and a week before the settlement conference, your demand is now $250,000, and there’s no real good explanation why … the attorneys know the settlement range is probably not going to be between $100,000 and $250,000. It’s going to be somewhere below the initial demand,” Chung said. “It doesn’t mean I can’t settle the case. I have done that. It just takes longer, though, because it means you’re further apart.”

Chung also said he adopted procedures specifically for self-represented, or “pro se,” litigants, including a letter with basic things to know about pursuing a case in federal court.

“I read that to every pro se litigant. I say, ‘It’s not because I think you’re gonna break the rules, but I do it for everyone in your situation so we’re all on the same page,'” he said.

He described a common situation in which a defendant files a motion to dismiss against a pro se plaintiff, who then responds by alleging additional facts that did not appear in their original complaint. In that scenario, Chung talks to the parties and lets them know the plaintiff could simply amend their complaint with the new allegations, or he could grant the defendant’s dismissal motion — and permit the plaintiff to refile their case anyway.

Occasionally, the ability to appoint attorneys through the court’s pro bono program is “immensely helpful in clearing up the issues,” he said.

“I’m trying to look for, ‘Is there some sort of objective marker that would indicate this case has enough merit to move forward that I would assign a pro bono attorney to it?’” Chung said. “If something with my name pops up on that list, you can be assured I have gone through that (consideration).”

Finally, Chung said he is open to feedback on how he conducts himself in the courtroom.

“One of the things about becoming a judge is your feedback loop gets almost entirely cut off. People will tell me I’m doing a great job. No one tells you you’re doing a bad job,” he said. “If there are areas I can be more efficient, while also respecting the rights of the parties, I am open to that.”

The discussion was sponsored by the Faculty of Federal Advocates.