Do you advance from being a great lawyer to being a judge, or is it a separate type of legal education? Also, do judges make more than really great lawyers?
- Depends on the jurisdiction and on the level of the judge. In civil law jurisdictions many judges start their career path early in their legal education. In common law countries, judges are appointed from amongst lawyers. How this is done so varies considerably. There may be exams, direct executive appointment or a separate appointments commission or popular elections.
2)If I interpret really great lawyers to mean successful and highly earning lawyers then no. The most successful lawyers especially Trial Lawyers will routinely make more in one case than a judge makes in a year.
In America, some judges are elected, some appointed by the government of the day. The election of judges is not well regarded in other English derived countries, because the fear is that the need for reelection forces judges to make populist decisions, not necessarily those consistent with the law.
In most other countries of English descent, judges are appointed from among the ranks of senior lawyers, usually the senior Bar, by the government of the day (typically the Attorney-General). But this process is open to criticism that appointments can be politically motivated, and historically there are clear examples of this. This is why in the US high level judges have to go through the scrutiny of Senate hearings or something similar as a check on the mere appointment of political hacks.
Once appointed, judges earn a very good salary, but it is usually not as much as they earned in the profession. It is, I am told, a less stressful life to be a judge, and the income, while less than a senior practitioner can typically earn, is stable and protected through periods of ill-health, etc. And typically judges can’t easily be sacked, so job security is quite an attractive aspect of the job, along with the prestige.
In my state, judges are elected in non-partisan elections.
Officially, Judges are elected by the voters.
In actuality, they are generally appointed by the Governor to fill a vacancy, and then are re-elected (usually without opposition) as an incumbent. Most states have age limits, so judges have to retire at certain ages. But it is common for judges from one political party to resign/retire before the end of their term, if the governor is of the same political party, thus giving the governor the opportunity to appoint their replacement. This is especially common in periods between an election and the swearing-in of a new governor (like right now) – even more so if the new governor is of the other political party. For example, here in Minnesota the current Republican governor will be replaced by the newly elected Democratic Farmer-Labor governor next year. So a lot of Republican judges who are near retirement age will resign soon, so that the lame duck republican governor can appoint replacements for them before the new Democratic governor takes office.
And Judges do NOT make more than great lawyers, but far less. The salary of Judges is set by the Legislature, and is one of the higher government employees. but not high in comparison to the fees earned by lawyers in private practice. {So in Iowa, where 3 Supreme Court Judges were voted out of office because they ruled in favor of marriage equality – all 3 of them are likely to be quickly hired by big Iowa law firms, at salaries considerably higher than their government salaries! TO say nothing of their pensions. So in effect, all 3 of them are getting a raise.)
In many commonwealth countries, a High Court Judgeship is something a government offers to lawyers it likes or as a way to get rid of a political opponent. It is quite a reward in the governments arsenal. It is true that most appointments are on merit but that is the case.
Are judges allowed to practice in Iowa and or in US jurisdictions generally after the end of their time on the bench? That seems like a big potential for conflict of interest.
Here in NC it’s common for a judge to go back to being a lawyer after their time on the bench. (assuming they don’t retire) We have a few former NC Supreme court judges who work as lawyers. Sometimes they will go back and try cases before the Supreme Court.
To be a Justice of the Peace (possibly) requires no formal legal training whatsoever, you just have to get elected. In some states they have little to no real power, but in others have almost completely unchecked and unregulated authority.
Where?
In Canada, the Governor General (i.e. the federal Cabinet) appoints the judges of the provincial superior courts and provincial courts of appeal, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Appointments are until age 75. The federal government also pays all of their salaries, as required by the Constitution
The provincial governments appoint the judges of the Provincial Courts, which are the first level trial court for most criminal matters and small claims in civil matters. Appointments are until a certain age, which varies from Province to Province, but typically around age 65-70.
For both federal and provincial appointments, there is normally a screening process that involves a committee of practising lawyers, representatives from community groups, and so on.
As other posters from commonwealth countries have stated, some appointments are criticised as being politically motivated, but in my experience, the people appointed normally have good merit claims to the appointment.
Here in Pennsylvania all judges, from District Magistrate to Supreme Court Justice, are elected in partisan elections for 10 year terms (I think magistrates may have shorter terms). Each party (Democrat, Republican, & occasionally one of the minor parties noboday cares about) nominate a candidate in a primary election who campaigns in the general just like any other politician.
The only difference this that appellet judges (Supreme Court, Superior Court, & Commonwealth Court) never actually run for reelection; it’s just a Yes/No retention vote. I think trial court (county Court of Common Pleas) judges choose whether they want a retention vote or normal election. If a judge resigns/dies/looses a retention vote/is removed by the General Assembly the Governor appoints a new one with the approval of the Senate who serves until the next scheduled election.
Just to drive this point home, the annual salary of a fourth or fifth year associate (not partner, associate) at a top New York City firm can be considerably higher than that of the Chief Justice of the United States.
In case anyone is curious as to judges’ salaries:
From here:
I suspect John Roberts took a one of the hugest pay cuts in history when he became a Judge. He was an Appellate lawyer, these guts literally earn top dollar.
Yes, they are allowed to practice. Here in Minnesota, the former Chief Justice of the Mn Supreme Court, who was on the panel overseeing the Franken-Coleman Senate recount in 2008-2009, retired from the Supreme Court. Now he has been hired as the lawyer for the Republicans in this years Mn Governor recount.
This option is one of the de facto perks of many judgeships, and probably a non-trivial part of what allows the gov’t to keep the salaries for judges comparatively lower than for private practitioners.
For federal judges in the United States, who are nominated by the President, the route to a judgeship can take a few paths. Some are drawn from academia, some from practice at big firms (usually combined with significant activities in bar associations or advocacy groups), and some are merely practitioners who have been active and effective supporters/fundraisers of the President and his party at the state and national level. As a matter of tradition if not law, the Senators for the state in which a court sits will be given input into who is nominated so that they can steer it toward their friends/political allies (this is limited influence; if both Senators from a State are Dems and the President is a Republican, it’s not like they can force him to nominate a liberal, more that they will be consulted and given deference as to which (probably Republican) candidate the President ultimately names).
My contribution to this thread is the “Beyond the Fringe” bit about becoming a judge.
Not really though some initial orientation/training (I’m thinking a period of days/weeks) is provided for incoming federal judges by the Federal Judicial Center, the educational arm of the court system, and there is ongoing education/training/seminars that the Center provides too. I’ve heard the orientation informally referred to as “judge school” but it’s not that extensive/structured from what I’ve heard described.
Seems to be a big conflict of interest, not the Minnesota example specifically, but generally. Once you have been a judge you not only have worked with all other judges but also the Court staff. Big potential for conflict of interest.