Meet Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who’s overseeing Google’s second antitrust case

Ahead of the trial, here’s what you need to know.

Judicial style and philosophy

Judge Brinkema has a reputation for her straightforward, no-nonsense, by-the-book approach inside the courtroom. Her judicial philosophy emphasizes fairness and the adherence to legal precedents, and her ability to maintain balance and impartiality have stood her in good stead to handle complex and high profile cases.

Case in point: Jason Kint, CEO of trade association Digital Content Next, noted that during the last pre-trial on Sept. 4, Brinkema denied Google’s request to have more laptops in the courtroom. He witnessed her saying, “That’s not how we do things here. That would be too many devices. This is an old-fashioned courthouse.”

Career highlights

Judge Brinkema’s courtroom resume is littered with notable rulings and high profile cases, including (among others):

• Iyman Faris (2003), the al-Qaeda operative who she sentenced to 20 years in prison for providing material to support the group.
• Zacarias Moussaoui (2006), the 9/11 conspirator whose trial she presided over, and resulted in a life in a supermax prison sentence.
• Jeffrey Sterling (2015), the former CIA agent who she sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for leaking classified information.

Early life and education

Judge Brinkema achieved both a Bachelor’s (1966) and a Master’s (1970) degree from Rutger’s University, after which she earned her Juris Doctor (1976) from Cornell Law School.

After education, she took on roles including:

• Trial attorney, U.S. Department of Justice (1976-1977), where she focused on issues related to public corruption.
• Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Virginia (1977-1983), where she handled various criminal cases.
• Attorney, Office of International Affairs (1983-1984), where she dealt with international legal matters.

Between 1984-1985, Judge Brinkema practiced law privately in Alexandria, Virginia, and also served as a part-time legal instructor at the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Academy. This experience led her to take up the role of U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1985-1993), which paved the way for her appointment to the federal bench.

Why was Judge Brinkema chosen to oversee this trial?

Judge Brinkema was chosen because of her status as U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia — where the trial is taking place.

But she was also chosen for her expertise in antitrust rulings. Google’s second trial requires a judge with extensive experience in managing intricate legal and regulatory issues. Her role includes overseeing proceedings, ruling on motions as well as ensuring a fair trial while addressing the complexities of digital market competition.

Judge Brinkema has already been involved in pre-trial proceedings. In June, she denied Google’s request to avoid trial, stating there are “way too many facts in dispute.” Additionally in court last month, she criticized Google’s business practices around [mis]handling evidence, accusing the tech giant of “clear abuse of privilege” after finding out about Google’s practice of automatically deleting employee chat records.

Professional engagement and recognition

The American Bar Association rated her as “Unanimously Well Qualified” for her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia — a rating of the highest level.

Does the industry think she’s the right person to oversee a case of this magnitude?

With such a wealth of experience under her belt, the industry so far seem to welcome Brinkema as the judge on this case. Kint, for example, said he has sat in Brinkema’s courtroom for three motions. 

“No nonsense, rule of law, and not in any way intimidated by the enormity of this case, in terms of corporate accountability,” he said. “From that standpoint, I sense a lot of trust and confidence in her, as the judge that will hear the case.”

Sarah Wiley, director of policy at digital advertising watchdog Check My Ads, has also watched Brinkema during a pre-trial hearing. Speaking about Brinkema during the Moussaoui case, Wiley said the judge refused to believe the CIA’s denials that videotapes of interrogations using torture techniques of two Al Qaeda operatives never existed. But later investigations found those tapes did exist and were destroyed. “She [Brinkema] never backed down and I believe this past history shows how she is not easily misled.”