Filling the vacancy created by the retirement of the late Paul Haakenson, Marin County resident Matthew Siroka was recently appointed to serve as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court. He received his law degree from U.C. Law San Francisco (formerly U.C. Hastings College of the Law). Though presently closing out his private practice as defense counsel in a homicide trial, Siroka graciously took the time to share his motivations to become a judge and the life experiences that led him to it. He is known to friends and colleagues as “Matt” and has been married to Alejandra Siroka of Argentina since 2005 (she is a relationship and communications coach with her company Language Alchemy).

What made you decide to become a lawyer?
My grandparents on both sides were labor and civil rights activists, and I learned early on that the law could be a powerful force for good. I went to law school to better understand how the law and power work and to see how I could use it to help make a more just society.

You worked for the California Appellate Project for a couple of years---what kind of training did you get there and was it worth your while?
It was the actually the First District Appellate Project. I learned a lot about criminal procedure, what proceedings in the trial court look like on appeal, and a lot of substantive criminal and constitutional law. I read many trial transcripts and saw many different approaches to handling trials and evidence. I also read many briefs and learned about persuasive writing. It was definitely worthwhile.

What kind of experience do you have in the civil arena?
I’ve tried a couple of civil cases (one to verdict, one settled during trial). I’ve handled many more civil cases that did not go to trial so I have experience with depositions, summary judgement, motions practice, discovery, etc. I’ve also done administrative writs of mandate, and handled administrative hearings in front of several different administrative bodies.

What made you decide to become a judge?
When there were some retirements a few years ago, some people suggested the idea. I thought about it carefully and decided to apply- here’s an excerpt from my application:

Being an advocate is deeply meaningful. I can offer people support, dignity and respect. I can advance or protect their interests. Advocates are the lifeblood of the law - we keep it moving and healthy. But judges are the soul of the law. And if judges serve with compassion, humility and integrity, then the law can become a transformative force in people's lives. I want to move beyond taking sides to serve the greater good and be part of that transformative force.

As the institutions of government have come under political and physical attack, cynicism has proven its most powerful weapon; it is an intensely corrosive and destabilizing force. As society has grown more polarized in its views, infusing our legal system with compassionate understanding is our best hope for maintaining some level of social cohesion. People will be more willing to resolve their differences through the rule of law and accept the legitimacy of the courts if they see the law not as a rigid structure of power imposed on them from above, but as a human-scale process where real people work together to try to resolve their differences. Only then will people utter the words that reflect a successful rules-based system: "I don't agree with the outcome, but I respect the process.” I hope to contribute to the mending of our differences by helping create an environment that promotes respect for the rule of law and for each person.

How many jury trials have you had?
About 18 jury trials plus many lengthy evidentiary hearings involving experts and such (habeas evidentiary hearings, motions for new trial, etc.)

What are your views on mental health and addiction treatment as opposed to incarceration?
Every case is different and each situation has to be evaluated on its merits. That said, Penal Code section 17.2 states:

(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available.

(b) The court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider alternatives to incarceration, including, without limitation, collaborative justice court programs, diversion, restorative justice, and probation.

(c) The court shall have the discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council.

I assume the Legislature means what it said, and the passage of Penal Code section 1001.36 reinforces that.

At the same time, I know that “treatment” is not a magic wand we can waive. It must be effective and calibrated to the person’s needs. That’s always true, but if a person is receiving mental health treatment (including substance abuse treatment) instead of incarceration for a criminal offense, the justice system should strive to make the treatment as effective as possible. That’s the humane and practical thing to do. Otherwise, if they re-offend, people will say, well we tried treatment and it didn’t work.

What qualities do you believe make for a good judge?
Compassion, humility, intellectual rigor, empathy, discernment and of course, fairness. In addition, I believe judges should continually examine their own assumptions and biases and make efforts to have contact a variety of people, places and ideas, so as not to become imprisoned by their assumptions about what is “average” or “normal”.

I’d like to be the kind of judge in front of whom I would like to appear: friendly, intellectually rigorous, fair, humble, and dedicated to equal justice under law.

How do you feel about judging individuals who appear before you?
I’m not judging the individuals; I’m making decisions about specific issues in their lives at the moment in time they appear before me. For example, fitness as a parent, likelihood to appear in court, competency, etc.

What will your expectations be from attorneys appearing before you?
Be prepared. Be courteous to opposing counsel, litigants and court staff. Be clear about what you want from the proceeding.