U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.: A Lifelong Commitment to Equal Justice Under the Law

Don: Solomon Oliver is a United States District Judge based in Cleveland, Ohio. Born and raised in the segregated South, he moved north to attend college, and after years of working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and teaching at both the college and law school levels, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the federal bench in 1994.

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talked with Judge Oliver about his childhood in Alabama during the early years of the civil rights era, his experience in the late 1960s as a minority student at the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio, his decision while there to become a lawyer and later to become a judge, the values he looks for and hopes to instill in the law clerks who work for him, and his lifelong commitment to the principle of equal rights and opportunity for all enshrined in America's founding documents.

I have had the privilege of knowing Judge Oliver as both a colleague and a role model, and I'm pleased to present this interview to you. I'm Don Frederico, and this is Higher Callings.

I'm with the Judge Sol Oliver from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He sits in Cleveland. Good morning Judge. How are you?

Judge Oliver: Good morning Don.

Don: You and I have known each other a long time through our work together on the Board of Trustees of the College of Wooster. So I may refer to you sometimes by your first name, but other people most likely know you as Judge Oliver. So hopefully no one will be confused by that.

Judge Oliver: No. Either one is fine, of course

Don: We have a lot to cover. You've had a long and distinguished career both before you went on the bench, but since you went on the bench. So we'll get through as much as we can. And, I think this will be really a great interview covering a lot of interesting topics.

So let's just start. You grew up in the segregated South. And you were already in school before the Supreme Court decided Brown vs. Board of Education. Can you just tell us a little bit about your childhood and some of the early influences you had in your life?

Judge Oliver: Sure, I'd be happy to. So, as you said, I grew up in Bessemer, Alabama, which is just outside of Birmingham, about eight miles west. And, that town was about 55% African American. But everything was segregated from top to bottom. And all of the jobs in the department stores, such as cashier, were taken by whites. Blacks could not work as cashiers. Blacks could not work as bus drivers, could not work driving garbage trucks. Really, most of the most menial jobs were left for African Americans. So, I've often said that, growing up in the South of that day, that there was no job that I could have if a White person wanted it. And so that's kind of how it was.

The school I went to was a clapboard school, deteriorating quickly. We had coal burning stoves up to sixth grade. One day I came to school and the school was on fire. And that was the catalyst for us getting the middle school that we had been promised for years. But that's kind of the way it was.

So the library we had was about one small room compared to the White library. Very inadequate. There were parks for Whites. We had no equivalent parks of the type they had. Everything was segregated. And of course, as you know, it wasn't just in fact, but by law, it could be segregated and it was that.

I had five brothers. I still do. And four sisters. I've been blessed that way.

Don: Where were you in the hierarchy of the family?

Judge Oliver: Number four. My father and mother were people who really believed in us, who taught us. They were hardworking people who believed in their children and hoped one day we would have opportunities they did not have.

And so, we were blessed that way. So my mother, of course, worked in the home. Tried to get us ready for school. She was our first teacher. My father worked initially in the steel mill. He worked there for 30 years before he left there. And eventually he did become a minister. I had uncles and aunts. A very supportive community. I had teachers in school. They were all African Americans and they really gave us a good start in that regard.

So we had, on the one hand, a very warm community of support. But on the other hand, we had a very hostile environment. And hostile, not so much in the sense of active hate and so forth, but because really the society was geared toward Whites and against us.

Don: Separate but not equal.

Judge Oliver: Not equal at all. There had never been a Black judge on the federal bench when I was born, for example. So that's the state of the way things were.

Don: You left the South, I think when you enrolled at the College of Wooster. What was it that drove you to make that move and go north? And go to the college?

Judge Oliver: Well, a lot had happened between the time I was born and the time I decided to make the decision to go to college. And those things were instrumental in my decision in a general way.

You know that in the early sixties that there were, that the civil rights movement was fully underway. And, in the Birmingham area, there were protests in the streets. And many people know about Bull Connor, the police chief, and turning the fire hose on the children and others who were demonstrating. That was 1963.

We also saw, for example, in '63, George Wallace stand in the schoolhouse door at Foster Auditorium down at the University of Alabama. And he was trying to prevent the enrollment of two Black students. But we saw the U.S. Justice Department come in and take over the law enforcement, persons there who were national guards. And he had to step aside so that they could enter. So again, that gave us hope.

Don: And you were a teenager when that was happening?

Judge Oliver: 1963. So I would've been about 11th grade.

There were other, horrendous events that happened, but again, we took hope from them in the long run. That was the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and the four girls. Again, that was a horrible event, but I think that most of us and all of us felt that the fight had to continue. And so all of those things were going on.

I, myself, had been attacked in 1963 on the way to a church convention with two deacons. Stopped at a gas station there in Georgia, went to the restroom, not trying to deliberately integrate it, but just trying to make sure that I got there. And I was attacked by this young man who thought we were civil rights workers and that Bobby Kennedy had sent us to the South to integrate.

And so again, these were influences. It caused me to be firm in my resolve that segregation should be dismantled totally. And so those things happened. And over the Sixties, a lot of things happened like that.

So I was at Miles College before I came to Wooster. That's our local college. My sisters had gone there. Many of our local leaders had been educated there. But when I was there, there was a College of Wooster grad who was teaching on the faculty, Mary-Lou McCorkle, and she just pestered me. She pestered me, pestered me. "Call the Dean. He's interested in your possibly transferring to the College." And I put it off and put it off.

Went to Harvard summer school, because I had a connection to Harvard, and got some resources the summer after my freshman year. And again, she wrote me a special delivery letter, and "Call the Dean. Call the Dean." And so I did. And I was greeted by his secretary, Ms. Turner. And I said, "Collect call." They said, "Collect call from Solomon Oliver to Dean Drushal. Will you accept the charge?” And she says, "I doubt it." And so, I thought there I had a chance that I would escape. But he, when he heard that, he came on the line right away, and he encouraged me, despite all my concerns about whether I'd have enough money and all the rest of it.

And so, I put in an application, and I came to the College sight unseen. But, it was hope. Wooster represented hope for me, represented opportunity for me. And, I think the opportunities opened up because of the civil rights movement. I think colleges like Wooster all over the North began to see what was going on in the movement, began to be more conscious about deliberately trying to enhance diversity. That's what happened. That's what brought me to Wooster.

Don: So what years were you at Wooster?

Judge Oliver: So I was there from 1966 as a sophomore to 1969.

Don: Okay. So during the Vietnam War, as well as the civil rights movement, some riots and protests around the country. It was a pretty turbulent time. And Wooster, of course, at the time was, predominantly a White Presbyterian college. What was the experience like for you when you got there?

Judge Oliver: Overall, it was very good experience for me. You know, I had gone only to Black institutions, and all my classmates had been Black and all my teachers, except that Miles College had some White professors. And I had gone to Harvard summer school, so I had that experience. But I didn't have much more. This was my first sustained opportunity to be in an environment that was predominantly White. And, by and large I found it to be supportive. Sixties, that was a different time, and so I think people were, most, honestly trying to grapple with the racism in our society.

They were becoming conscious about implicit bias. And I think the war kind of pulled people together in terms of trying to figure out how to protest or think about how was America going to come to grips with what was going on over there?

So it was exciting. It was turbulent. But I made some good friends. I had some professors who became lifelong friends. And it was good for me.

Now, I don't mean that there weren't challenges. I don't mean, for example, that as Black students we weren't raising issues with the faculty about change, about having more Black professors, about changing the curriculum.It doesn't mean that I didn't have late night talks with my White classmates about things relating to race and ethnicity. So that kind of challenge was there, in the air. And, it was frustrating at times, but overall I think that it was a very good environment for me, very challenging in every respect.

Don: Was it while you were at Wooster that you decided to go into law?

Judge Oliver: Well, I didn't know what I wanted to go into. But I did. I felt like I wanted to do something that I thought was important, whatever that means, coming from the background I did. Something to make a contribution in the larger society, but also from a racial standpoint, to do something that would help.

So I thought about being a professor, getting a PhD in political science or law. And as time moved on, I finally just went ahead and tilted toward law. There were recruiters at the College at that time, and so I thought about it and that's the route I chose. But not being totally convinced that that's the route I should have taken.

Don: Now, Wooster also had an impact on you, a lifelong impact in your personal life. Is that where you met Louisa, your wife?

Judge Oliver: I did. And she was the first exchange student in a program that Wooster developed with Miles College. So, in her junior year, she went down to Miles and spent a semester as an exchange student. She was the very first exchange student between the two colleges. But I did meet her at Wooster, and we started dating there. And then she left a year ahead of me, graduated a year ahead of me, and went to Columbia social work school. And I followed later at NYU Law and thereafter we reconnected.

Don: Now I understand the NYU decision. Louisa was in New York and I imagine in addition to NYU being a very good school, you also didn't mind the fact that you could reunite with her in New York City.

Judge Oliver: Oh, I certainly didn't mind. (Laughter)

Don: And the two of you are still together today, and she's a lovely woman. And that's just great.

Well, tell me about your thinking about what you wanted to do as a lawyer. And not only while you were at Wooster, but when you went to NYU. What was your path in terms of deciding about your career trajectory and what you hoped to accomplish as a lawyer?

Judge Oliver: So, the reason I went into law was, I saw law as a means for working on social change. And, by now I was familiar with the civil rights movement. I had some glimpse, but not a full understanding, of how lawyers were involved in working to eradicate the separate-but-equal regime. And so, that influenced me, my thought that I could be involved in some way in eradicating barriers that existed in society for African Americans and for others.

And so, that really was the primary motivation. It wasn't that I had an intention to go into a law firm. There are other ways, other than working directly in civil rights work. For example, as you know, many persons cannot afford lawyers. And so apart from the criminal justice system, where now they're entitled to have lawyers, they're not in civil cases, and yet those things are fundamental.

And so I was vague, in my mind, it was very vague as to what I might do. But some of the things I might do would've been to work in some kind of legal services organization or legal aid. I didn't have a full blueprint as to what I would do, but I just felt generally that it would give me an opportunity to do something that would be helpful to the larger society. That's kind of the vague thought that I had when I went there.

Don: And then, when you graduated from NYU, was it then that you returned to Wooster to teach?

Judge Oliver: Yeah, I was kind of derailed from where I was headed with the law.

I got a call in my last year of law school from the chairman of the political science department of the College of Wooster saying, "Would you be interested in coming back to, at least for a short period, if not longer, teach in the political science department?" Law-related courses-- civil liberties, constitutional development, those kind of courses. There was a person I would be replacing who had been at Wooster, Kent Weeks, and he became Dean at another college. But he had a law degree and a PhD and he had taught those courses. So I paused for a moment, and I got back to him. And I said, "Yeah, I'd like to do that."

So I went to Columbia the summer after my last year of law school. They paid for me to take some graduate courses. I transferred those graduate courses to Case Western Reserve. I was not required to do those, but he made clear that they were prepared to pay. And so, I came to Wooster, again, as part of the college movement to get more diverse faculty.

Initially I came when Wooster was diversifying its student body. Wooster had always had African American students from the beginning, but they were all small numbers of students. And they were mostly gifted athletes who were also very good students, but there were not many of them.

And so when I came and I transferred there, that was the first year that Wooster had a large number of entering students at the same time. So I was part of that wave. And the next wave was when I was invited back to teach. Wooster had only a couple of Black faculty, not many in its history.

And so students had protested and pushed, and then there were also committed people there on the faculty who decided that it was time for Wooster to, now that they have Black students and more of them, to have a more complete diversification of its faculty, of its curriculum, and so forth.

And so I was part of that invite. And it was tempting to me to go back three years after I left, and also because I wasn't sure that I didn't want to do teaching anyway. And so I went back.

Don: So how long did you teach at Wooster before you moved on to your next job?

Judge Oliver: I taught three years, exciting three years. I was a pre-law advisor at the College. I taught the first Black politics course at the College. I was elected by the faculty to the committee that meets with the trustees, the Conference with Trustees Committee. I was on the Committee of Committees. I supervised a lot of I.S. [Independent Study] Projects. And it was just great.

The problem was, I had to figure out, do I want to do this long term? Because that's where I'm headed, and it's very good, but if I want to get back into the law, which I thought I might want to do, I thought, well, I'd better get moving.

Don: Right. You didn't go to law school to become a teacher. It just kind of worked out that way for a few years.

Judge Oliver: Yeah. And so, I was trying to figure out how to make the transition back to the law. And I had invited a friend who was head of the National Conference of Black Lawyers who came to speak. And, I was talking to him about that as we jogged around the track at the College. And he said, "I think clerking would be a good thing." And he had clerked for Constance Baker Motley. Constance Baker Motley was the first African American female judge. She was in the Southern District of New York. And he had clerked for her. He was her first law clerk. And he pushed me in that direction. And when I looked at what it was all about, which I didn't know much about, I decided I would apply for clerkships and see if I could get one.

Don: And you did end up getting one, and you got one with a judge in the Third Circuit, which for people who don't know, the Third Circuit is based in Philadelphia, but it covers Pennsylvania and . . .

Judge Oliver: New Jersey . . .

Don: Delaware, New Jersey.

Judge Oliver: Right. And I was really fortunate. And I know now how fortunate I was. I clerked for William H. Hastie. Hastie was the first African American Article III judge in the United States. I was his last law clerk. And he was appointed by Truman in 1949.

Just a stellar background, as you can imagine. So much was required of African Americans who achieved during that period of time in any area. So he had gone to Amherst College, number one in his class, Harvard Law School, Harvard Law Review. He had been Dean of Howard Law School when they were formulating some of the strategies that led to Brown.

He was a mentor of Thurgood Marshall there, but he also had been on the Territorial District Court, the Virgin Islands. He had been Assistant Secretary of War during World War II. And he resigned because they were not integrating the armed forces fast enough. So, he received the NAACP's top medal, the Spingarn Medal, for his courage.

He just was an outstanding mentor, but also a great historical figure. And so having the chance to team up as his law clerk, if you want to call it teaming up, and to work for him was just, I would say even now, one of the highlights of my career.

Don: I can understand why. What were some of the things that you learned from him during your clerkship?

Judge Oliver: Well, I think among the ones that could be easily stated, hard work. He was a hard worker. He was precise. He was a good writer. And so he required a lot there.

I learned a lot about writing and about expressing things in a way that adequately described them but don't overstate or understate. But what I learned from him was that he had a great sense of humility. That he was a courteous person. That he respected people and it showed. And that he was extremely, extremely, competent, and a committed person, I think, to making sure that the promise of the Constitution and the promise of the Bill of Rights was fulfilled. I mean, that was a lifelong commitment for him. And, just to be around someone who carried those kinds of values and commitment, that was the biggest thing.

Don: And then at the end of the clerkship, is that when, you went to the U.S. Attorney's Office?

Judge Oliver: I went to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland. At that time, I had the opportunity to go to the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. also, but I didn't really want to do criminal work at that time. I felt like that was something that I wasn't cut out for. I have a different concept of that now than I had then, but, you know, I thought it was part of the government, really, and at the civil side, I could be working on behalf of the government to do environmental cases or to do other kinds of things.

And so I didn't take the D.C. job. I took the Cleveland job. And I had worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York as a student. That was my kind of work-study job. And so I got some insight into what the office did. And they were doing some civil rights cases and against the pipe fitters union, the plumbers unions, and those kinds of things. And so that gave me some insight into what I might be able to do.

And Robert Kennedy had been head of the Justice Department. And that was the person that they thought I was going down south to represent when I got attacked in the bathroom. You know, they said Robert Kennedy, they sent these people down here to integrate the South. It wasn't true at all, but my sense was that if Robert Kennedy could put that kind of fear in them, then perhaps it's something I should do.

Don: Were you working on civil rights cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office?

Judge Oliver: Not mainly civil rights cases as it turned out, but a broad range of civil cases. Some defending, the United States, and some affirmative litigation such as, for example, in the environmental area that I talked about. But it was an exciting time. Even when I defended cases, Don, I felt good about the work I was doing because I felt that my responsibility was not just to try to win a case for the United States, but to make sure justice was done in a particular case. And so I had quite a bit of discretion to do that. And so, I kind of reconceptualized in my mind what it was like to be a prosecutor, so to speak. So even if I had been a criminal prosecutor, now as I look back on it, I think I'd have been able to carry out that role, and carry it out in a fair way.

Don: Yeah, I'm sure you would.

So, just to put things in context, in terms of the timeline, when did you go to the U.S. Attorney's Office and how long were you there?

Judge Oliver: I finished up my clerkship in '76. So it would've been the summer, fall of '76. And so 1976, I went to U.S. Justice Department, meaning the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland. And, I spent six years there, from 1976 to 1982. And I became Chief of the Civil Division of that office after a couple years. And then, before I left, I became the founding Chief of the Appellate Litigation Unit in that office.

Don: You became a judge in 1994. What were you doing between the time you left the U.S. Attorney's Office and when you became a judge?

Judge Oliver: Well, I headed back to teaching, but not at the college level. I went into law teaching. So I explored the possibility of going into law teaching. And I landed at Cleveland Marshall College of Law of Cleveland State University in Cleveland. I had done some adjunct teaching, when I was Assistant U.S. Attorney, at Case Western Reserve Law School in Cleveland. I did that for about three years. But when I came out of the U.S. Attorney's Office, I went to Cleveland Marshall. I taught there.

Don: What kind of courses did you teach?

Judge Oliver: Well, federal jurisdiction. That was one. And I thought I could teach that because I worked in the federal system, not only as a law clerk, but I worked six years in the U.S. Attorney's Office. And so I'd be before the judges in the federal court. I knew who they were. And I had a good orientation, I thought. So I taught federal jurisdiction, civil procedure, and then I also taught trial advocacy. Those were the three courses I taught. And I remained at the law school for 12 years and I never varied. Those are the three that I taught for the 12 years that I was there.

Don: Great, great. So in 1994, President Clinton nominated you to become a United States District Judge in Cleveland. Can you tell me just a little bit about how that came about and why you were interested in taking on that role?

Judge Oliver: I never really grew up thinking I would be a judge. Certainly when I grew up in the South, no one I've said would give a plug nickel, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on my chance to become a federal judge given what was going on there. I also knew that I didn't want to run for judge. I didn't want to stand for office, for election.

Don: Which would happen in the state court system, not the federal court system.

Judge Oliver: Right. State court system. And so, if I was going to be a judge, it would have to be in the federal system. And also I understood that parties change and that you have to have the kind of background that would be appealing to the party that was in power when you sought to become a judge. And my background was such that only a Democratic president would consider me, for sure. Not because I'd been involved heavily in politics or anything, but just, my background was just pretty clearly one where my whole life would show that I'd been a Democrat. And my actions in life would have suggested that.

So, when President Clinton came into power, I had a fleeting thought, but it turns out it wasn't so fleeting, but initially it was, well, if I'm gonna ever become a judge or hold high appointed office as U.S. Attorney or something like that, this was probably my only shot. I was 46 years old, 45, 46 years old, and so I thought, maybe I'll explore that. And so I let our Democratic senators, Metzenbaum and Glenn, know, like others did, that I was interested. I said either the U.S. Attorney slot or being a District Judge. And they didn't bite on the U.S. Attorney slot, but they were very encouraging on my being considered for a District Judge.

I did get an interview with the screening committee, the staff persons. I got invited down to Washington to interview with Senator Metzenbaum, Senator Glenn. And, even though there were hundreds of applications, there were five openings on our court, and there were hundreds of applications, but somehow I was able to emerge and I can't explain it all.

Don: And the rest is history. You've been on the bench for 28 years now.

Judge Oliver: That's right. Came on in 1994.

Don: So, when you became a judge, Sol, were there any judges at the time that you held up as role models? Certainly, I know the judge you clerked for was a role model for you, but were there others as well?

Judge Oliver: Yeah. Certainly Hastie would be number one by far. Not only because of his history outside of the court, which was important, and the commitments that he made to, lifelong commitments, he made to a eradication of segregation.

But beyond that, there was, I would say, Judge Nathaniel Jones, who sat on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was from Ohio. He grew up in Youngstown. A very modest beginning, but he had worked at the U.S. Attorney's Office earlier, during the Kennedy Administration. He eventually became General Counsel of the NAACP, and he was appointed by President Carter about 1980. So again, a very principled person, a very competent person, a very kind person in general, but also open to me. And he also was helpful to me in understanding what I would be facing, and also helped try to get me over the line in terms of getting confirmed. And so we remained lifelong friends.

Don: What are some of the qualities that you think are important for judges to bring to their jobs and that you have aspired to throughout your judicial career?

Judge Oliver: Well, I think just basic fairness. I mean, I think that's really the number one quality, is that. And to be fair, you've got to understand your potential biases and work against them. And you want to not only be fair, but you want to appear to be fair, which means that you want to treat everybody who comes before the court with respect.

So if it's a litigant, you want that plaintiff or defendant to feel like they're being respected. If it's a lawyer, you want them to feel that way. And you want people who are watching the proceedings, you want them to feel like the process they're engaged in, whether they win or lose, is one where there has been an attempt to be fair. And, that's what I think, that's really what I would hope for.

Don: Yeah. I couldn't agree more with you. And I think probably most judges and lawyers agree with that. It's funny. You don't hear a lot of talk about that. You know, when judges are talked about in the media, the issues that the media raises often are: What's their political affiliation? How intelligent are they? How honest are they? But fairness is really the, I've always thought, the number one priority for any judge. So I couldn't agree more with you on that.

Judge Oliver: Yeah. I think that's right, Don. Obviously I'm assuming some things. I'm assuming that the judge will be competent. In the federal system, I think I can say, I think that happens for the most part. I think the screening process, not perfect, but it's one where in order to get through it, you've been scrutinized, not just by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the senators, but by the ABA and so forth. So I think on the competence end, in terms of background, in terms of education, in terms of experience, we're doing pretty well on that.

But, you know, judges still have, sometimes, temperaments which can be grating, which can give people the impression that they're not being heard. It doesn't happen all the time, but there's still some good examples I hear of.

Don: Yeah. You know, I obviously, I practice more in the District of Massachusetts than in any other federal court. And just in my experience, over time I've seen a change in the bench. It seems to me that there may have been a time historically when there were more judges put on the bench who brought a little bit of arrogance to the position, and it was unpleasant often to be in their courtrooms because of that.

The appointments over the last, I don't know, 20 years maybe, that I'm familiar with have not been like that at all. They've been people who really are public servants. They view their role as public servants. They understand they have the authority of a judge. But they come to exactly the same attitudes that you described. They want to bring respect to the people in their courtroom, just as they hope to be respected as the judge in the courtroom, and a certain degree of humility that can sometimes be lost in the judiciary. But fortunately, I think by and large, it's not.

And I know you personally, and I've known you for, I don't know how long, I've known you pretty well for 15 years maybe. And, I see those characteristics in you. You bring humility and respect and I'm sure patience. I've never been in your courtroom, but I suspect that you're a patient judge. And yet you get the job done too, and you let people know that you're in charge, just like any district judge would.

Judge Oliver: Well, you're very kind, you're very kind.

Don: Well, it's easy to be kind when you're also being honest.

You've had a lot of law clerks, given the number of years you've been on the bench. What qualities do you hope that the clerkship helps to instill in them? What do you hope they learn during the clerkship?

Judge Oliver: Let me say a little bit about, first, what I'm trying to find in law clerks, which relates to that.

So I've had about, I don't know the exact number, 44 or 45 law clerks. And, they're a pretty diverse lot. About half of them, a little more than half, have been African American. But I've had Hispanic clerks, Asian American clerks, obviously have had White law clerks, men and women, and other diversities, diverse law clerks, law clerks with diversity in other ways. And that's been a goal of mine.

You know, there are not relatively speaking that many minority clerks among those who clerk. And that's something we've been trying to address. And I certainly have been trying to address. Because these clerkship opportunities can provide pathways to lots of important things that these clerks can do. They can go to the Justice Department. They can go into law firms. They can go into teaching. But wherever they go, clerkships are normally viewed as an important criteria. And that's something that's built into our profession, as you know. Clerking is valued. And so, my goal has been to increase diversity in my clerkship opportunities. And I've been able to do that.

When I'm trying to pick a clerk, regardless of whether they're African American or other, my goal is not just to find people who can do good research and writing, because I want that. That's a given. And so you want outstanding clerks, wherever they come from, whatever school they come from. And I think all judges want that. So beyond that, I'm trying to find people who, regardless of where they go, what field they go into, that they see themselves as being able to make a contribution that's broader than themselves.

I don't have anything against people going to law firms and doing well and making money. But the question is, how do you perceive your role as a lawyer? And are you finding other ways to make a contribution to society? And so, I'm trying to ferret that out. I'm trying to understand the people who I'm interviewing to determine, kind of, what's there beyond fact that they, somebody told them that it'd be good to get a clerkship. I mean, why do they want this?

And so, that's kind of the background of how I do it. And so I think I've been pretty good at kind of interviewing clerks and determining those who might be thinking about law in a broader way than just, what can I make or how much money can I make or, you know, the prestige that might come from being in a firm, or something like that.

And so, what I'd like them to get is, first, good experience at writing in the legal field, because that's going to be important to them forever, but especially as new lawyers. They're not going to be in the courtroom trying cases right away, but they can make themselves invaluable to lawyers who are going to be in the courtroom. They can show that they can write, they have a knowledge of the process, and that they're willing to work hard and be there late helping those who will be on the front line. So I want to make sure they have those skills so that they can mesh right away in whatever legal environment they go into.

I want to expose them to different lawyers' styles, so they get a sense of what seems to work, what's doesn't seem to work, so they get a sense of the kind of lawyer they don't want to be, and also the kind of lawyer they do want to be. And so, I want them to see that.

Don: How do you do that? Let me just stop you there for a second. I know, when I clerked for a judge many years ago, my judge would, if we had a trial or a hearing or something, there were times when he would kind of take us aside during a recess and critique the lawyers in the courtroom and what we had just seen. Do you do that with your clerks, or do you have other ways of doing that?

Judge Oliver: I do some of that. And of course when you get to know them and they're close to you, you can communicate things to them that you may not communicate out loud to others. But it is real time. So we've done a lot, for example, on Zoom and so forth over the last few years. They're sitting there with me when I conduct proceedings, whether it's there or in the courtroom. But they can see by my interaction with the lawyers, if I express concern about, and I ask a lawyer a question, they say, "Well, I just don't, you know, I don't know."And so, later on I'm saying to them, "Well, isn't that something that you would know if you came to court? Have you talked to your client? Do you know whether your client's interested in trying to do a settlement? Do you know how much the medical bills are?" If you've got a malpractice case up to date, you know, a whole range of things. And do they come unprepared?

And so sometimes you don't have to say anything. You can just kind of look at the look on their face, anticipating how I feel about it. But I do talk to them. We get together for lunch around the table here in the chambers quite often. And then informally we chat. But my door is open. And so I get to know them pretty well and they get to know me pretty well. And, so I'm trying to also project the kinds of values that I think they should, that lawyers should have, that judges should have, every day. It's not a put on. It's the way I am. I hope that its something they think is worthy of consideration.

Don: So what are those values that you want to instill in your clerks, that lawyers should have?

Judge Oliver: Well, I think it's part of what we've been talking about. I want them to figure out a way, regardless of where they are and what job they hold, to make a contribution to the legal system, which is so important, overall legal system, which is so important to our society. I want, you know, if they, I said before, if they go to a firm, first of all, they should take their advising role seriously. Not just a litigiousness, the litigation role in terms of how can I win this case if we go to trial? But if they're in a civil rights case, for example, I would think they would also advise their clients about how to comply with the law, or when they think that a settlement may be meritorious or may be a positive thing for them to do, despite the fact that they might be able to win the case.

So, I want them to be whole lawyers, to think broadly about their roles, if they're gonna be in that situation. And then some will go to the Civil Rights Division, of course. So directly involved in litigation of civil rights. Some going into immigration law. And so again, they've chosen already to directly try to address some of the needs of society.

So I have a range of clerks, some who are partners in large law firms across the country, or associates. Civil Rights Division in one place. Immigration law is another. U.S. Attorneys. I have six African American women who have been U.S. Attorneys, law clerks who've been Assistant U.S. Attorneys across the country.

And I think that what I want them to know is that they should perceive that role broadly. That they're working for the Justice Department. That they're not just prosecutors trying to get wins, but they're trying to see justice is done. So that's kind of what I'm trying to convey, is think about your role in the system as one that would enhance the values of the system in promoting fairness and equity.

Don: So district judges preside over a wide variety of matters. Most of what you see in court are probably, I assume, either criminal cases or private disputes among private parties. But every now and then there's a case that can have a wide ranging social impact on a community, that federal district judges are asked to oversee. And often they're in the form of consent decrees. You have a case like that now, that you've had for several years, involving the Cleveland Police Department. And I'd like to just hear a little bit about that case, because I know how significant that type of case can be to a community like the City of Cleveland in this case.

For those listeners who may not know a whole lot about consent decrees, maybe we could start by just having you explain a little bit what a consent degree is. Could you do that please?

Judge Oliver: Sure. So the U.S. Justice Department did an investigation of the City of Cleveland's police department. And I suspect that investigation started when they were getting complaints about how African Americans and others were allegedly mistreated by police. A lot of that involves allegations that police have used excessive force, for example, in arresting persons, perhaps injuring them seriously or sometimes even killing them in pursuit. And so, after doing an investigation, the Justice Department concluded that there was good reason to believe that the City of Cleveland's police department had engaged in unconstitutional police practices.

And then of course they talked with the city before filing a lawsuit against the city and they negotiated back and forth around those issues. And they concluded that rather than file a lawsuit and then have a long drawn out process of litigating whether or not the City of Cleveland had engaged in unconstitutional police practices, that they would, the City of Cleveland would agree with the Justice Department that a lawsuit, when it was filed, and it was going to be filed, by the Justice Department, but they would agree to the outcome of litigation.

So that's what the consent decree is, that they would agree to reform their police practices along the lines that the Justice Department had suggested. And so they have a written document, which includes all the terms of what the city will be required to do to address the possible constitutional violations, but in a broad sense.

Don: So the parties came together, the Department of Justice on the one hand and the City of Cleveland on the other, and as you said, they basically hammered out a settlement agreement that would require the city and the police department to take certain steps to reform whatever needed to be reformed to avoid similar situations in the future. Is that a fair summary of what they did?

Judge Oliver: That's right. And it had a broad range of reforms involved.

Don: But before we get to that, the role of the judge in that situation, and this was you in this case, is the consent decree is not just a settlement agreement, but it takes on essentially the force of law because the city is agreeing to submit to an injunction that would require them, as a court order, to take these steps. And your job as the judge is to oversee the implementation of what they had agreed to. Is that also accurate?

Judge Oliver: Exactly. And the decree set out that there would be monitors in the case that report to the judge. And so, you know, I can't be out there every day watching what's going on and trying to figure out whether there's compliance without some help. And so the monitor has a team of people who are responsible for interacting with the Department of Justice and especially the City of Cleveland to make sure that things are moving forward relative to the requirements that are there.

Don: Now, when was the consent decree entered into?

Judge Oliver: Oh, it's an old one. It was 2015.

Don: Okay. So it's seven years ago and it's still in place and you're still overseeing it. Is that right?

Judge Oliver: Yeah. We have to get to a point of full compliance, and we knew that would take some time. We thought it might take five years to implement all the things that had to be done. But we found out over time, as we've gone along, it's taken longer. It's very comprehensive.

Don: What are some of the key provisions? Just very high level.

Judge Oliver: Very high level, there are provisions regarding training because, you know, we talk about bad apples, people who just want to do bad, but that's not the whole problem with policing. You have to have adequate training. And sometimes what happens is officers commit violations because they don't know. They're not properly trained. You can't just shoot at someone who's running. It used to be thought you could do that, but there has to be a danger to the police, a danger to someone else in the community before you can use that kind of lethal force. And so, there's guidance in the training about what kind of force you can use depending on the circumstances. So officers will know and be sure of that.

There is anti-bias training, "bias-free policing" is what we call it, because people do act, not just in policing, but in all kinds of areas, based on their biases. And there are a lot of biases around race relative to policing. So there's anti-bias training. So that's another area.

And then there's a community policing model where we are trying to work on mechanisms that will cause police not to be viewed as enemies by the people that they're there to assist. That's one of the big problems in terms of communities. In Black communities with police officers, for example, the feeling of distrust in the community and distrust between police officers and the community. So there are a number of things that are in the decree which will cause there to be better relationships developed with police and community leaders and institutions.

Don: Now as a district judge, you have a lot of job security. There, aren't a lot of requirements of what district judges should be doing with their time, other than sitting in court, and resolving the cases in front of you, or presiding over trials that resolve the cases.

But you do a lot more than that. And I know other judges do too. I'm not suggesting that you're unique among the federal judiciary, because I think this is true of a lot of judges. But you're engaged in a lot of activities that train lawyers, that train law students, that try to make a positive difference in the justice system and in the legal system and in the legal community.

I know you've also been recognized for a lot of that work. You've received awards from the American Bar Association, from the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. You've been recognized by a number of universities. You've got some honorary degrees. You teach. You preside over moot courts.

Why do you do all that? What's your motivation? And why do you think other judges do the same types of things?

Judge Oliver: Well, I think it relates to what I hope for in law clerks. When I talk about, you know, I like them to think about law as a profession, where they're trying to make a contribution that's broader than themselves. And it's just what I've always done. And I try to get involved. When I get involved, I try to be very involved. So I've had special opportunities that have come up. I served on the Civil Rules Advisory Committee. And I also served on the Evidence Rules Advisory Committee. These are committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States. And I did serve for a time on the Judicial Conference itself. So I've done that.

But one other thing I've done ties my work as a judge with being a professor, ties it to the education field. The ABA has a council that's responsible for accrediting all the law schools. It sets the standards for law schools. It determines whether they should be accredited or not. And I've been involved in that for over 20 years and I've chaired that section, the council of the ABA. The Section of Legal Education is what it's called. So to me that was a natural because I enjoy teaching, and I taught for a lot of years. I was Associate Dean of the law school. And so this gave me a chance to be involved with legal educators and others with setting the rules with that.

I've done moot courts. Again, it's working with young people, or not so young sometimes because the students sometimes now are not 25 years old. But just a chance to give them some feedback, to kind of model what you think judges and lawyers should be doing.

So I've done that locally. But I've done it at your alma mater, Cornell, at Minnesota, Alabama, and Virginia, and Boston University. So I've just tried to be engaged, to interact with students and faculty. I don't know why I do it other than I enjoy it a lot.

Don: There's going to come a time, and I hope it's not in the near future, when Judge Oliver is going to take the robe off for the last time. How do you want to be remembered? What do you hope your legacy will be?

Judge Oliver: Oh, I don't think much about legacies. But, I guess, I'd like to think that I'm perceived as someone who fought hard to be fair. Also, someone who worked hard to create opportunities for all.

And then, I think in that regard, I feel pretty comfortable in regard to the law clerks. I have two law clerks now who've been nominated for the district court and their nominations are pending. I have three that, two that are magistrate judges, another that has been approved to be a magistrate judge subject to the FBI check. And then, of course I talked about those at the Justice Department and across the profession. And in law teaching, I had one former clerk who is the Dean of Boston University Law School, for example. And so, I've worked to do that.

But I have not just worked in that area. I guess, you know, when you think back, and I'll be quick, in regard to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the changes we have had to undergo in our Constitution to try to meet the ideal in the Declaration that all persons, I would say, are created equal, and they're endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and so forth. We're working hard. We're still working to achieve that ideal. And I'd like to think that people would think that I did something to help advance the ball, so to speak, in regard to those ideals. We're not there.

But that's my hope. I want young people to understand, of all races, that no race has a monopoly on anything, but especially on talent. No race, no religion, no nationality. So they shouldn't have a monopoly on opportunity. And so I've been working to help ensure that all Americans have the opportunities that are embedded in the Declaration and in our Constitution.

That's a lot. But, if I could be viewed as doing or trying to do those things, I think I'd be very happy.

Don: Well, any of us who have gotten to know you in a variety of settings I think do view you that way. And I think you're going to have a wonderful legacy.

So Sol, it's always great to talk with you. I've really appreciated your time for doing this interview. And I look forward to observing you at board meetings or on the bench, or, you know, just seeing what else you're going to accomplish over the rest of your career. So thank you very much for your time. It's an honor to know you and a pleasure to know you and to consider you a friend.

Judge Oliver: Thank you very much, Don. And, I've enjoyed knowing you and working with you. And especially as you chaired the Board of Trustees at the College of Wooster. You did a sterling job.

Don: Well, thank you. All right. You take care now.

Judge Oliver: All right. Bye-bye.