The US Supreme Court

[Ed Anger]

The clear solution is to banish it all and declare me your Emperor. I will love you all yet oppress you utterly.

[Berkut]

I was thinking today that lawyers are uniquely ill suited to become judges.

They've spent their entire professional careers with an mission of almost exactly the opposite of what a judge is supposed to think about in regards to the law. A judge should respect the law first and foremost, but a lawyer's job is to figure out how to use the law to serve their clients interests.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want a judge to do. A lawyer starts from the perspective that they need to figure out how to present and interpret the law to achieve a desired outcome. While we expect judges to reverse that completely.

I dunno.  Not necessarily.  Lawyers, like judges, are supposed to consider all aspects of a case rationally, including/especially that which is unfavorable to their client.  This is so that they can advise their client properly.  They simply have to be able to pack that up when zealous advocacy is required and comparatively stupid arguments need to be advanced.

But again, their primary concern is to be an advocate for their clients - to figure out how to advance their clients cause within the legal system. For them, the goal is all about the desired outcome, not about the law per se.

That doesn't mean they are not operating in good faith by any means- that is how the system is meant to work.

But a judge should not start from a conclusion, then try to figure out how to use the law to support that conclusion or desired outcome. But that is exactly what a lawyer spends their entire career doing.

[garbon]

The clear solution is to banish it all and declare me your Emperor. I will love you all yet oppress you utterly.

Sorry but I think there's an Ohio exclusion.

[stjaba]

I was thinking today that lawyers are uniquely ill suited to become judges.

They've spent their entire professional careers with an mission of almost exactly the opposite of what a judge is supposed to think about in regards to the law. A judge should respect the law first and foremost, but a lawyer's job is to figure out how to use the law to serve their clients interests.

This is exactly what we DO NOT want a judge to do. A lawyer starts from the perspective that they need to figure out how to present and interpret the law to achieve a desired outcome. While we expect judges to reverse that completely.

Interestingly some countries (e.g. Germany and I think France) have people who train to be judges right out of law school. So, judges in those countries are exactly what you would want. Interestingly, being a judge is considered less prestigious - they are considered basically civil servants.

[Ideologue]

I came.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's a distinction between practitioners and theorists (jurists?) too.  They're all lawyers but the latter are effectively academics but far more influential than in England (and I guess America).

I don't really understand any civil law system though so I don't know how they work.  The idea of an investigating magistrate for example is very weird to me and no matter how may series of Spiral I watch I still don't understand.

[Ideologue]

Are law professors in E+W paid scandalously exorbitant salaries like they are here?

[Sheilbh]

Are law professors in E+W paid scandalously exorbitant salaries like they are here?

I have no idea.  I think they're in line with academics in general.  I think professors on average earn about double what lecturers do though.

[Ideologue]

You should ask them.  In class.

Actually, if they're paid what normal profs are, I guess that's cool.  They're almost universally paid well over six figures here, I believe.

[garbon]

I came.

Isn't that between you and your kleenex?

[Ideologue]

I want to go to judge school.

[garbon]

How does the dairy factory help?

[Sheilbh]

You should ask them.  In class.

Actually, if they're paid what normal profs are, I guess that's cool.  They're almost universally paid well over six figures here, I believe.

Well most law teaching here is done at an undergrad level, so they're in a normal university and they aren't able to charge extortionate fees.  So law is less of cash cow for the universities than, say, engineering or science which'll get corporate investors.

In post-grad law schools like mine things could be different, especially in the private sector.  But I have very few lecturers or tutors who are actually attached to my university.  The majority either travel from another university to teach (generally Oxbridge) or, in a couple of cases, are former practitioners.  I imagine all of them get very well remunerated for that, but it's not quite the same as a normal teaching position.

[Ideologue]

Ah, that's right. Man, I totally forgot that the Langdell Plague didn't cross the ocean.  Yeah, they're probably fine.

[The Minsky Moment]

But again, their primary concern is to be an advocate for their clients - to figure out how to advance their clients cause within the legal system. For them, the goal is all about the desired outcome, not about the law per se.

That doesn't mean they are not operating in good faith by any means- that is how the system is meant to work.

But a judge should not start from a conclusion, then try to figure out how to use the law to support that conclusion or desired outcome. But that is exactly what a lawyer spends their entire career doing.

No that isn't really true.  Much of what a lawyer in private practice does is evaluate and assess the strengths and weaknesses of claims and defenses in an objective way in order to provide useful advice to a client.  And if anything, I think advocacy is good preparation for judging because it forces practioners to consider both sides of the issue - both because of the need to anticipate the other side's arguments, but also because over time a lawyer is likely to find him or herself on different sides of the same issue.

As a practical matter, it would be difficult to have judges with no legal training or background at all.  Cases like Roe v. Wade and the health care mandate case get a lot of attention, but are far from typical.  Much of what judges do is deal with cases that involve teasing out the meaning of IRS regulations, or procedural requirements in bringing ERISA cases, or other very technical kinds of issues.  Here's an example: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-520.pdf

I do agree, however, that it would be desirable to diversify the higher echelons of the federal bench by appointing people with a broader array of experience.  It used to be fairly common to see appointments of professional politicians to the Supreme Court - like Earl Warren.  A few years back, Orrin Hatch was mentioned as a possible appointee to the Court, and I think he would have been a very interesting selection.  But it didn't happen because the trend now is to appoint only sitting judges, and preferably those who have decided as few controversial cases as possible.