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
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.