The considerations and position seem different enough that judging should be considered a different skill than merely presenting argument and forecasting what a ruling judge will decide. It seems unlikely the skills of an adversarial trial lawyer would meld well into the role of judicial officer.
You outgun me here though - as a law student my knowledge of the practice of law is limited. It seems counter-intuitive that they skills would be the same even in the same arena. Exposure seems different than practice. While the reasoning may be similar, presenting an argument must be a very different talent than selecting which argument best fits the case facts and facing higher-court review.
There must also be some skill to managing a courtroom and docket that is different than lawyering. Again, I have limited knowledge of that arena.
There must be many judges in the US who have superior qualifications, who have both lawyering and judging experience.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 12:55 pm (UTC)The considerations and position seem different enough that judging should be considered a different skill than merely presenting argument and forecasting what a ruling judge will decide. It seems unlikely the skills of an adversarial trial lawyer would meld well into the role of judicial officer.
You outgun me here though - as a law student my knowledge of the practice of law is limited. It seems counter-intuitive that they skills would be the same even in the same arena. Exposure seems different than practice. While the reasoning may be similar, presenting an argument must be a very different talent than selecting which argument best fits the case facts and facing higher-court review.
There must also be some skill to managing a courtroom and docket that is different than lawyering. Again, I have limited knowledge of that arena.
There must be many judges in the US who have superior qualifications, who have both lawyering and judging experience.