Talking the law, faith, and family with the new Washington Supreme Court Justice
BY COLIN RIGLEY
On his first date with the woman who would eventually become his wife, when she asked him about his dream job, Theo Angelis replied “I want to be a judge.”
Angelis began his career clerking for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A family tragedy prompted him to leave Washington, D.C., and return home to Seattle, but his passion for expanding justice, along with the inspiration provided by his service-minded coworkers, kept him in private practice. However, he was only delayed in fulfilling the dream he told his wife about when they first started dating.
Now the newest addition to the Washington Supreme Court, Justice Angelis was appointed by Gov. Bob Ferguson and began serving in the role on April 4. He is filling the seat vacated by Justice Barbara Madsen when she retired.
When you talk to Justice Angelis, two things become immediately apparent: He has a voracious appetite for knowledge and a desire to constantly improve himself and the administration of justice, and he has what’s best referred to as “golden retriever energy.”
“I read opinions all the time even if they have nothing to do with what I’m working on. …,” Angelis said. “I’m always dorking it up as much as possible because I love it.”
Consider Angelis’ system to root out his own implicit biases. For each case, he not only writes out the potential biases that might come into play, but he also writes out all of his emotional responses to the briefs, stores them on a hard drive, and distributes that to his clerks to keep him accountable.
“I do that with every case; I think it drives my clerks crazy,” Angelis said, chuckling to himself.
Before joining the Washington Supreme Court, Angelis was “an award-winning appellate and intellectual property litigator, an advocate who appeared in courts throughout Washington and the United States, a leader in the Bar and the community, and an author and editor of a leading treatise on Washington law.”11. www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=angelis.
‘Before joining the Supreme Court, I appeared before, and clerked for, appellate courts for over 25 years.’
After leaving D.C., Angelis took a job at K&L Gates LLP, where he worked for 26 years leading the firm’s appellate and intellectual property practices. Angelis also served as a trustee for the King County Bar Association (KCBA) and led its Fair Campaign Practices Committee, as president of the M. Margaret McKeown Federal Bar Association and the Middle Eastern Legal Association of Washington (MELAW), and as a board member of the Foundation for Washington State Courts.
He has received numerous awards, including the Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Founders Award, the ACLU’s Humanitarian Award, Citizen of the Year by St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Mentor of the Year by the KCBA, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) Amicus Award, and more. Angelis graduated summa cum laude from Claremont McKenna College, has two master’s degrees from Oxford University and the London School of Economics, and graduated from Yale Law School, where he was articles editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review.
In this interview, we talk to Angelis about his evolving perspective between public and private service in the law, his family, his faith, his work ethic, and more.
Q: How has the learning curve been thus far as you finish your first two months on the Supreme Court?
A: In many ways, the transition has been smooth. Before joining the Supreme Court, I appeared before, and clerked for, appellate courts for over 25 years. I have extensive experience with complex constitutional and statutory disputes. For example, I have litigated thorny privacy, free speech, search and seizure, and technology questions throughout my career, and my broad practice prepared me well to address those same issues on the Supreme Court.
In other areas, the learning curve has been real. For example, the court is deciding this term how to apply a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that elaborates upon the facts a judge can consider during sentencing. Our court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and state courts around the country have ruled hundreds of times on these issues, and the question before us is whether many of these cases need to be overruled. Because several of the issues raised were new to me, I compensated through hard work and deep study. I spent weeks carefully analyzing each issue raised. Thankfully, our court is collegial and has been extremely welcoming, so I was able to work collaboratively with my colleagues to ensure I was fully up to speed.
Q: You went from the D.C. circuit court to practicing with a private law firm for most of your career, and now you’re back on the public side. What drove you to make those transitions? What lessons about public law did you bring to private law, and vice versa?
A: While in law school, I had to decide whether to return home to Seattle or stay in Washington, D.C., and build a practice focused on appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts around the country. In my final year of law school, my sister and her two young sons died in a fire, and our family home was severely damaged. Our church community and the Seattle legal community stepped up to support my family and help us rebuild both physically and emotionally. That love and support confirmed for me that I was meant to return home and build my legal career here.
My time in Washington, D.C., provided a strong foundation for my private practice in two ways. First, I gained a deep knowledge of administrative law. That background helped immensely as I represented individuals, cities, and counties who were challenging U.S. government actions. For example, I challenged and defended rulings from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. My public law background was critical to success. Second, my work for the court gave me confidence that careful, meticulous legal work would genuinely change minds. One example is especially memorable for me. While clerking, I performed a 100-year historical analysis of a statute at the heart of a dispute about sovereign immunity. Judge Merrick Garland stopped me at a reception and congratulated me on the analysis and explained that it had convinced him. In another case, I spotted an issue that changed a dissent into the majority opinion. I was touched and gratified that my work could help the judges decide important cases. That experience convinced me that I could handle any case, no matter how difficult.
My transition back to public law—and my service on the Supreme Court—is the result of relentless pursuit of my dream. My wife reminds me that, on our first date in January 2008, I told her that my dream job was to become a judge. I spent the past 10 years working toward that goal, and I am humbled and grateful to have the opportunity to serve. My broad private practice, and my management experience, has already been a tremendous help to my work for the court.
Q: What do you enjoy most about your new role on the Washington Supreme Court? What about the job makes you nerd out?
A: I absolutely love the concrete steps the court is taking to improve access to justice. I am deeply committed to removing barriers that prevent Washingtonians from participating in the justice system and using it to protect and vindicate their rights. I also want to hasten and expand the innovations that our court has pioneered, which are designed to allow more Washingtonians to receive the legal services they need. We are exploring, for example, innovative models for delivering legal services, alternative structures for licensing legal professionals, and initiatives to expand the pipeline of legal professionals, especially those from underrepresented communities.
My first love, however, and the way I completely nerd out, is by spending long hours poring over our court’s opinions so that I can fully and truly understand all of our precedent on important topics. I love working in chambers late at night, sometimes with dusty books open to old opinions, and following every fork in the research trail. For a recent case, the Supreme Court needed to interpret Article II, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution, and each of the justices read more than 100 years of rulings interpreting that provision. That process—exhaustively researching important issues before the court and carefully discussing them—is what makes our court fantastic and, to be honest, a bit nerdy.
‘Our church community and the Seattle legal community stepped up to support my family and help us rebuild both physically and emotionally. That love and support confirmed for me that I was meant to return home and build my legal career here.’
Q: What do you believe are the biggest challenges the public faces when it comes to Washington’s court system, and how do you want to address those challenges in your role as a supreme court justice?
A: I believe that the biggest challenge the public faces is the inability to afford legal representation. For most middle-class and working-class Washingtonians, legal representation is a financial impossibility. Rights are only meaningful if there is a remedy for violating them, and too many Washingtonians have no hope of vindicating their rights. Throughout my career, I have fought for more legal aid, for legal clinics, and for robust pro bono programs to make justice a reality. The sad fact is that those efforts could only scratch the surface of the need. Now that I am on the court, there are new opportunities for me to help in designing new programs, reexamining and removing barriers, authorizing new systems for delivering legal services, and pioneering new initiatives to help close the gap between the need and the resources available. My goal is to focus on a few practical improvements. I want to start by ensuring that court fees are not locking Washingtonians out of the courtroom and that we minimize financial burdens on jurors and witnesses. I also want to support new delivery models that allow relatively simple legal services to be provided in innovative ways, and through alternative staffing models, so that important legal services are available to those who need them. This requires thoughtful use of technology to reduce barriers and improve efficiency without sacrificing fairness or protection of those seeking legal help.
Courts can feel intimidating, expensive, and inaccessible for many communities. Language barriers, procedural complexity, and lack of trust in institutions also prevent meaningful participation. Through dedication and creativity, we can move closer to the goal of a justice system that is accessible, understandable, fair, and worthy of public trust.
Q: How does your faith and community affect how you approach being a lawyer and a judge?
A: My faith and community are fundamental to how I approach being a lawyer and judge. As the son of a Greek Orthodox priest and a Presvytera [the wife of a priest], I was raised to value service, humility, and caring for others. I was taught that justice and mercy must walk hand in hand, and our greatest responsibility is to help those in need. These were not abstract lessons. My family regularly invited refugees, those experiencing homelessness, and those in dire financial need to live with us for months at a time. I developed a deep appreciation for the legal and financial challenges that can destroy livelihoods and the steps needed to rebuild them.
I learned, from those our family helped, that hard work and intelligence were no guarantee of success, and difficult times can befall anyone. I saw how compassion and support can bring out the best in us and allow each of us to thrive. I learned, firsthand, that every person is worthy of dignity and respect. I also learned that by listening carefully, and with love, that I could understand and appreciate opinions and perspectives that diverged significantly from my own. I also recognized, from a young age, the real-world impact that legal and governmental decisions can have on families and communities.
My faith informs my values, and it spurs me to service, but it never points me toward a particular outcome. As a judge, my responsibility is to apply the Constitution and the law fairly and impartially in every case. I have tried to implement the core values of integrity, empathy, discipline, and public service throughout my legal career.
My faith and community also led me to devote a significant part of my career to helping those most in need. I represented immigrants, refugees, veterans, and children pro bono as they struggled to overcome terrible experiences and unfair government treatment. When I started my practice, I promised myself that I would be a voice for those in need, and my faith and community strongly motivated me to continue that work even when doing so required around-the-clock work. On the Supreme Court, I remain equally motivated to ensure that all people in Washington who need our courts feel heard, respected, and confident they will be treated fairly regardless of background or resources. I will continue to approach my work with humility and with a deep commitment to fairness and equal justice under the law.
‘I love working in chambers late at night, sometimes with dusty books open to old opinions, and following every fork in the research trail.’
Q: In what ways do you feel you can advocate for change as a judge and where do you think the line is between being a legal advocate versus an impartial steward of the justice system?
A: When we hear cases, we put aside all policy and political preferences. Our role is to apply the law fairly, independently, neutrally, and consistently to the facts as presented to us. We advocate within our court, for the result we believe is correct, but we are guided by the law as we understand it.
But in our role supervising the justice system in Washington, we can and do advocate for change. We are certainly stewards of our courts, and we must be sure we do nothing that undercuts their impartiality. We can, however, advocate for meaningful change that will ensure constitutional protections and genuine remedies to those whose rights have been violated. We do that work primarily through our Supreme Court commissions and committees, including through our court rules. In those roles, we strongly advocate for change aimed at improving fairness, transparency, and accessibility. When doing that work, it is critical that we demonstrate independence, restraint, transparency, and broad participation in the process. By doing so, we can strengthen our courts and build public trust while simultaneously improving access to justice.
Q: How do you root out your own biases?
A: Every person has biases that come from their life experiences and beliefs. Social science teaches us that when we explicitly identify our potential biases, we can minimize their impact on our decision making. For each case, I therefore create a written list of my potential biases. I begin by writing down my emotional reaction to the facts of the case and the briefs submitted. I then list every experience from my past, and every belief and opinion that I have, that is related to the case. I consult the list regularly while working on the case, and I have found that doing so helps me ensure that my decisions are grounded solely in the law and the factual record.
More generally, I remind myself every day to approach each case with humility and an open mind. I also—before argument and before we conference—remind myself that it is far more important to listen carefully than to express my own viewpoints. I strive to truly understand what features of the case each justice finds important, and I focus most intently on the perspectives that differ from my own.
Our court has written opinions that strongly seek to protect against both explicit and implicit bias. That work is critical to self-reflection and ensuring genuine access to justice. As part of that work, it is critical that I engage in the self-reflection, and personal education, needed to minimize my own biases. We must continually work to ensure that every person who comes before the court receives fair, impartial, and respectful treatment.
Q: What’s one thing about you, which has nothing to do with the law, that others might be surprised to learn about you?
A: I love Greek dancing, and I used to dance competitively. I’m nowhere near as flexible or agile as I used to be, but whenever there is a wedding or celebration, I’m one of the first on the dance floor, and I still have some impressive moves.
QUICK BIO
Justice Theo Angelis began serving on the Washington Supreme Court on April 4 after his appointment by Gov. Bob Ferguson.
- Before joining the Supreme Court, he was in private practice for 26 years, at K&L Gates LLP. He led the firm’s appellate practice and, more recently, served as global leader of its intellectual property practice. Justice Angelis served as a trustee for the King County Bar Association and led its Fair Campaign Practices Committee for nearly a decade.
- He was also president of the M. Margaret McKeown Bar Association and the Middle Eastern Legal Association of Washington. He is extremely active in the Greek Orthodox Church, having served as a Sunday School teacher, a member of the Parish Council and Diocesan Council, and as outside counsel.
- Justice Angelis has two master’s degrees—from Oxford University and the London School of Economics—and a law degree from Yale Law School.
- Justice Angelis splits his time between Olympia and Seattle, and his first love is spending time with his wife and his two children.
About the author
Colin Rigley is a communications specialist with the WSBA. He has two decades of experience in journalism and communications. He can be reached at:
NOTE
1. www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=angelis.