I remember talking to a lawyer who came to do a case in a more remote town. He said - the judge knows if he screws over my client, I will appeal. Meanwhile, the local lawyers are too scared to appeal, because they have to face him every day and if they appeal a case he’ll get even by screwing over ALL their clients, given the discretion a judge has in sentencing. He knows I only see him once or twice a year, so if he screws my client I will appeal and not look like a whiner constantly flooding the appeal court."
This was my impression that absolute power - like we see today with police - can bring out the best or worst in judges; and even in a moderately sized city, the legal community especially at the top is a very small clique with “interesting” personalities. My impression of “top tier lawyers” from articles and intervews I see is that the judge sees their reputation and connections more than their legal acumen…? And they’re all in the same country clubs, probably even golf together.
I’ve been a prosecutor and I’ve done criminal defense. In almost 30 years of practice in Ohio courts, much of that involved in criminal law in one way or another, including now as a magistrate, I’d say neither prosecutors nor defense lawyers, all in all, have a particular edge or are, as a rule, more qualified than the other. You can find very good and very bad lawyers on both sides of the courtroom. Your average public defender is going to be better at trying a criminal case than your average private counsel who only occasionally does so, though, just because the PD has more experience doing that kind of work, day in and day out.
That’s all true in Ohio, too, except that any lawyer here may defend a felony. (Some just shouldn’t, though, obviously). When I started as a prosecutor, you would begin in either the juvenile court or the child support unit, and after six months or so be reassigned to the other. Only then would you be assigned to the felony trial unit.
It is a little funny, but US District Court judges have lifetime tenure, pay that can only go up, enormous power in their own courtrooms, a relatively light workload (depending on the jurisdiction), a big staff, and prestige out the wazoo. I’ve never been particularly persuaded by arguments that federal judges are badly underpaid, because I know there are many, many smart, capable, experienced lawyers who would jump at the chance to become a federal judge if they could, and some (even many) who would be willing to take a pay cut to land such a sweet gig.
Agreed. Too many young, wet-behind-the-ears lawyers are chasing the same kind of clients these days. I know a lot of young lawyers, esp. those in solo practice, who are really struggling to pay their bills (including massive student-loan debt).
Also agreed, all in all.
Reasonable doubt for a reasonable price!
I haven’t seen that kind of thing too much in my career, but it all depends on where you end up practicing. Small-town judges do have considerable sway, and some of them enjoy it a bit too much. When I was a Legal Aid staff lawyer, one of the low-population rural counties in our service area had the same guy serving simultaneously as the sole Common Pleas, juvenile, probate and domestic relations judge (in most jurisdictions of any size, that would be four different people). If you got on his bad side, you were screwed.
All true, and, as I said, my father was never upset about his relatively low (compared to a Wall Street lawyers with far less experience, or no experience at all) compensation. He really did think it was funny.
Aso to the light workload, I think he would argue that. But he was a judge in the Southern District of New York, which is pretty busy. Staff? I don’t know for sure. I remember a secretary, a couple of clerks (maybe more – maybe it was two when he became a senior judge?), a courtroom deputy.
That said, sure, his workload was lighter than that of a mid-level associate at Cravath or Simpson Thacher – they’re expected to work 12 hours a day, six days a week, and be on call around the clock, every day.