n the bench, Sixth District Court of Appeal Justice Nathan Mihara seems to have the concentration of a bird dog -- head forward, eyes locked, rarely making a sound.
But lawyers who argue before Mihara say that silence -- coupled with Mihara's thousand-yard stare -- can make for a lonely and unpredictable afternoon.
Mihara, 50, says that's just his way. "If I have questions I ask them," he says. "I don't ask questions just for the sake of asking questions. That's not my style."
Appointed to the Sixth District in 1993 by Gov. Pete Wilson, Mihara, like most of his colleagues on the San Jose bench, has a conservative reputation.
As a deputy attorney general for nine years before being appointed to the Santa Clara County Municipal Court in 1985, and later the superior court, the Hastings College of the Law graduate also has a reputation for favoring criminal cases over civil.
"He doesn't think it's important and he doesn't want to know anything about it," says an appellate lawyer about Mihara's approach to civil cases and echoing the private comments of other lawyers.
"In the heart of Silicon Valley the civil caseload has to be incredibly interesting," the lawyer said. "But for some reason the court isn't spotting the important issues."
Mihara acknowledges that civil law was something he became involved with only after being appointed to the bench, but he says he has adjusted.
He says being in Silicon Valley means being on the cutting edge in civil areas like intellectual property and wrongful termination. And Mihara says he is genuinely interested in tackling those issues.
"It's an extremely interesting time to be an appellate justice," he says.
Mihara is described by fellow judges as careful, prepared, deliberate, honest and hard working, but like most of the justices in the Sixth District, he's not seen as someone who tries to single-handedly shape new law.
"It's not a court with a lot of intellectual curiosity," says one First District justice.
But that judge, and others who know Mihara, say that isn't necessarily a bad quality in an appellate justice.
Santa Clara Judge Socrates "Pete" Manoukian, who appeared before Mihara as an attorney and played football against him in high school, described Mihara as gracious and respectful of attorneys and lower court judges. He also defended Mihara's quiet approach.
"He realizes the job of the intermediate court is not to make sweeping changes in the law," Manoukian said.
While Mihara wouldn't discuss opinions he's written, some of his more well-known decisions include 1995's People v. Senior, 33 Cal.App 4th 531, where Mihara issued a ruling that precluded criminal defendants from filing multiple appeals.
Another high-profile opinion was 1994's Shahvar v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.App 4th 653. In that case Mihara held that attorneys and litigants who share information with the press can be held liable for defamation. The California Supreme Court refused to depublish the decision, but two years later legislation was passed to shield lawyers who talk to reporters.
If Mihara is not viewed as a dynamic presence on the bench, he does offer some advice to lawyers who enter briefs in his court: Make it short and sweet.
Mihara says he appreciates attorneys who can write with thoroughness and economy. His biggest pet peeve is lengthy footnotes. "If it's that important it should be in the body," he says. His advice for argument: "Focus on the winning issues."
You never know, he may just ask you a question.
