An Interview with Justice Salvador A. Mungia
BY ELIZABETH PORTER
Justice Salvador A. Mungia, who was elected to the Washington Supreme Court last November, was sworn in on Jan. 13 at the Temple of Justice in Olympia. Before joining the court, Justice Mungia practiced law at Gordon Thomas Honeywell in Tacoma for almost 40 years.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: You have spoken previously about how you loved law school. I think you called it the coolest thing ever. What inspired you during your legal education?
A: I loved the intellectual rigor—the chance to really learn how to think. I mean, on the skeptical scale, lawyers are like at the very top. I loved the fact that I got to spend three years with like-minded people. I think most people go into the profession to make a difference.
And at least for me, I loved learning to see both sides of any argument, which I think is critical to becoming a lawyer. I mean obviously you want to advocate for your clients, but to do that, at least for me, I had to understand the other side. In practice, I always got a little nervous when we were too far apart in any kind of settlement talks because I kept on questioning myself: “What am I missing?”
Q: This is actually your second time working at the Washington Supreme Court. After law school, you served as a law clerk on the Washington Supreme Court for Justice Fred Dore. Are things the same? Different?
A: It was different back then. Back in 1985, all of us law clerks were down in the basement together, all working with one another and exchanging ideas. Now the law clerks are with us in chambers. I know they still get to see each other, but it’s not the same as when we were down there every day with the same group.
Q: So, you have had quite a long legal career since that time as a law clerk.
A: That’s a nice way of saying that.
Q: Are there any moments that really stand out from your career as learning experiences, whether positive or negative?
A: This is what I can tell you: Especially those first few years of private practice, you don’t know, in a sense, what you’re doing. I remember going to depositions and you just don’t know. I certainly remember times coming back to the office and telling the partner what happened and what I did, and they went, “You did what?”
I tried my first jury trial within a year at the firm. It was an exceptional opportunity. Talk about a learning experience.
But I got lucky. I had great mentorship, and not only within the firm. I was able to work on matters with great opposing counsel who really did try to help me out.
Q: Was there anything difficult that you learned from?
A: I will say this. I love our public education system, but I think my writing needed a lot of work. You know, my parents were both immigrants. Our use of the English language wasn’t exactly what you would hope to have. And so I was, you know, from day one, always trying to improve my writing. And my oral presentation skills. As a young associate, the night before I would argue a case, I would spend literally hours in front of the mirror going over what I was going to say to the judge.
It’s not one moment. Law practice is not a movie; it’s the slow, incremental process of starting from a baseline and trying to improve.
Q: What’s been the biggest change for you in making the transition from practice to serving as a justice?
A: One thing that is I think different is that I get to spend as much time as I want researching any issue. I mean, I don’t have that worry: “Man, I really got to be conscious of the client having to pay for this.”
Also, having discussions with law clerks, that is again the coolest thing in the world, because we’re bouncing off ideas and we’re probing. I guess that was unexpected because, again, when I was a law clerk, we didn’t have that much exposure to our justices. That’s an unexpected joy right there.
Q: During your campaign, you emphasized your commitment to working people in Washington. How do you envision doing that in your role now as a justice?
A: I think in two basic ways. One, obviously, you know, interpreting the laws fairly and equally for everyone throughout the state. I loved going to Eastern Washington and talking to people. They would tell me: “Treat me equally like you would anybody else. If I think you’re fair and equal, that’s all I can expect of a judge.” And so that’s paramount for me.
The second way is by trying to make a difference in the community. I’ve been volunteering at Sheridan Elementary School, which is on the east side of Tacoma, for, what, eight years? Eighty percent of the kids are kids of color, eligible for free or reduced school lunch. They all come from working class families. Anybody can do that, but I think because I was a lawyer, I had greater access to that school, and now that I’m a judge, I think I’ll have more of those opportunities to help people just like me when I was growing up.
Q: Many new lawyers want to make a difference in their community, but they are worried about how to do that while also paying their student loans, meeting their billable hours requirements, and taking care of family obligations. Do you have any advice?
A: Especially when you’re first starting out, you may not be able to do much. But do what you can. You may not be able to take on a big pro bono case. But likely you could volunteer for two hours a month, down at a legal clinic. And volunteering at a legal clinic, again, is one of the coolest things in the world. That really makes a difference for people, because otherwise they can’t talk to a lawyer. That’s one of our core values as a profession—making sure that people get access to the legal system.
Q: Do you have any recommendations for people who are advocating before you, either in briefs or at oral argument?
A: Yep, certainly do.
One: Don’t try to dance around a question. I’m looking for some guidance. And if you dance around, you’re not helping me, or your case.
Two: At the very beginning, always say what you are seeking. Make your opening count. The first minute or two, that’s platinum time. That’s the one time that you have the 100 percent attention of people listening to you. The same thing is true with writing a brief. After I read or listen to your introduction, I should be thinking, “You win.”
Three: Don’t unnecessarily raise the bar with an exaggeration that you’re not going to be able to prove. If anything, understate things, don’t be bombastic. Also, get rid of fluffy stuff. Shorter is better.
Four: I’m a big believer in the rule of three. So, if you can, organize your presentation into three parts. It’s just the way our minds work.
Q: Your fourth point is that lawyers should have three points?
A: Yes, I’ve just violated my rule.
Q: At a time when the United States Supreme Court is very preoccupied with interpretive methodologies, do you have an interpretive home?
A: No, not yet. The one thing I will tell you, and I’ve seen it already during my first month, is that I really want to respect precedent. I can feel that easy tug of saying, “Sal, we can get to a different result,” if I don’t necessarily love where a case takes us. But I’m looking at precedent, and that’s our job. If the precedent was based upon racism, sexism, or ableism—obviously those decisions are not given the same deference as other opinions. But I am concerned about having the law change just because there’s been a change in the composition of the court. I don’t think that’s productive for society.
Q: The Washington Supreme Court and the Washington Bar have committed to working toward eradicating systemic racism and its effects in the justice system. Do you have any thoughts about how all lawyers can best contribute to that work?
A: Yes. Self-awareness goes a long way. If you realize that everybody has biases, well, you’re part of everyone. Therefore, you have biases. You may have biases that you know about. And the scary thing is, you have biases you don’t know about. So, educate yourself. Take the Implicit Association Test.1 That’s an eye opener for people. I took it and, you know, I think of myself as an empathetic lawyer and found out that no, I’ve got these implicit biases. That doesn’t mean I’m going to act on them, but the more we can be aware that we have them, I think the more on guard we can be, so we don’t inadvertently act on them.
Q: Finally—any book suggestions? What is on your nightstand?
A: Justice Deferred, by Orville Vernon Burton and Armand Derfner.
QUICK BIO
Justice Salvador “Sal” A. Mungia was elected to the Washington Supreme Court in November 2024 and was sworn into office in January 2025.
- Justice Mungia is the son of immigrants: His father came from Mexico and his mother from Japan. He was born and raised in Tacoma.
- He graduated from Pacific Lutheran University with honors in 1981 and from the Georgetown University Law Center with honors in 1984.
- After graduating from law school, Justice Mungia clerked for a Washington Supreme Court justice and then for a federal district court judge before joining the law firm of Gordon Thomas Honeywell. He practiced there for 38 years and served as the managing partner the last two years of his practice.
- Justice Mungia served as the president of the Washington State Bar Association from 2009 to 2010. He has also served in numerous other roles with many other organizations including as president of the Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association, president of the Western States Bar Conference, chair of the Access to Justice Board, member of ACLU of Washington’s Board of Directors, and commissioner on the Tacoma Human Rights Commission.
- Justice Mungia believes that the best part of his life are his four children, two daughters-in-law, and one grandson.
About the author
Elizabeth Porter teaches Civil Procedure, Torts, and Constitutional Law at the University of Washington School of Law. She also co-directs the Ninth Circuit Pro Bono Appellate Advocacy Clinic.
NOTE
1. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html.