ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1879
Jan 22 10 8:26 AM
Interact
Posts: 74
Jan 22 10 8:49 AM
bumblebee wrote: This has nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever and is just a general question. Once you've been appointed to the bench, you stop practicing law. I also assumed that judges stopped providing free legal advice. Is it kosher for a sitting judge to be providing legal advice or endorsing a business that provides legal advice?
This has nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever and is just a general question.
Once you've been appointed to the bench, you stop practicing law. I also assumed that judges stopped providing free legal advice. Is it kosher for a sitting judge to be providing legal advice or endorsing a business that provides legal advice?
Posts: 4457
Posts: 579
Jan 22 10 8:52 AM
Posts: 1397
Jan 22 10 8:54 AM
Jan 22 10 8:56 AM
bumblebee wrote: Would you see a judge with a profile on a big firm website providing free legal information on that website and endorcing all the wonderful services that firm provides? Would it not seem odd for a judge to be endorcing any kind of business even if it's unrelated to the law?
Posts: 4344
Jan 22 10 8:57 AM
bumblebee wrote: I also assumed that judges stopped providing free legal advice.
Posts: 898
Jan 22 10 10:17 AM
Posts: 1487
Jan 22 10 12:41 PM
I haven't read [the hypothetical book], but the reality is that judges have been writing legal books for a long time. Watt and Fuerst are Ontario judges, and they've been editing the Tremeear's Code for years. Watt also publishes a book on evidence and one on Jury instructions, both of which are highly regarded. I'm assuming (having not read it) the "difference" in [the hypothetical book written by a hypothetical judge] is that he is writing it for the general public. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, and it's likely even a positive development, especially in the area of family law where (as I understand it), people are often quite content to represent themselves. The more interesting question is the issue of talking about the law to individual litigants on line. Clearly, there is no problem with Judges advising people about the law generally, as they, in fact, have an obligation to do this with self-represented litigants who appear before them. One could see this conduct as an extension of this duty. However, it is also equally clear that, by convention, judges do not routinely interact with either the bar or the general public in a professional capacity with any frequency, and never without set boundaries. For example, common "professional public appearances" of Canadian judges are more or less limited to giving lectures to lawyers and law students, and attending "official" social events, usually put on by the CBA or some other similar local group. Most groups of lawyers (defence, crown, I assume civil), will have VERY informal gatherings where they all go and get drunk together, and generally have a good time. In a criminal context, it would more or less be unheard of for a judge to go to something like this unless there was some kind of "official"-type sponsor of the event, and it was clear that "both sides" (i.e. defence and crown) would be well represented. This is the only context that I have ever seen a judge "let their hair down," so to speak. This begs the question: IF (and again, I emphasize IF), such conduct is inappropriate, how should members of the bar respond? Traditionally, it has fallen to the bar to "defend" judges and the justice system, as it was understood that they could not directly speak to the press on their own behalf. This likely comes up in the life of the defence lawyer and prosecutor more than other areas, as we do, more or less routinely, get calls from the media asking us to comment on one of our cases. In my line of work, it's well understood that you may not simply say something along the lines that "Well, Judge A is just a moron. Wait for the appeal." It's understood that you must present the justice system as a whole in a positive light, whatever your thoughts on an individual case might be, a tradition I strongly agree with. As such, what to do about a [hypothetical] Judge on-line in his or her professional capacity? What to do about a [hypothetical] Judge who is associated with a [hypothetical] web-site that provides links where you can buy his [hypothetical] book? IF (and again, I say IF) a lawyer wants to address this issue, how to go about it without breaching his/her obligation to "defend" the justice system?
Inquiring minds want to know. Edit: Ok, Rusty. You win.
Posts: 3316
Jan 22 10 12:48 PM
Hunter S Thompson wrote: bumblebee wrote: This has nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever and is just a general question. I'm assuming (having not read it) the "difference" in the Advice Scene Judge's book is that he is writing it for the general public. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, and it's likely even a positive development, especially in the area of family law where (as I understand it), people are often quite content to represent themselves.
bumblebee wrote: This has nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever and is just a general question.
I'm assuming (having not read it) the "difference" in the Advice Scene Judge's book is that he is writing it for the general public. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, and it's likely even a positive development, especially in the area of family law where (as I understand it), people are often quite content to represent themselves.
Jan 22 10 12:58 PM
Rusty Iron Ring wrote: Hunter S Thompson wrote: bumblebee wrote: This has nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever and is just a general question. I'm assuming (having not read it) the "difference" in the Advice Scene Judge's book is that he is writing it for the general public. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, and it's likely even a positive development, especially in the area of family law where (as I understand it), people are often quite content to represent themselves. I think you mean "the difference in the general hypothetical question having nothing to do with any specific incident whatsoever". It's ok. I also occasionally mis-type a word or two when I am perusing multiple legal websites to participate in democratizing the law. I think it's called a Freudian lawsuit. I mean slip.
Jan 22 10 2:19 PM
Judges should not lend their prestige to the promotion of other interests.
Jan 22 10 2:22 PM
Jan 22 10 2:24 PM
bumblebee wrote: Judges should not lend their prestige to the promotion of other interests. What do we think that means? Pretty vague.
Jan 22 10 2:30 PM
Jan 22 10 2:32 PM
Jan 22 10 2:47 PM
Jan 22 10 2:51 PM
Minister of Love wrote: We're skating a line here kids.........
Jan 22 10 5:03 PM
Posts: 3
Jan 22 10 8:41 PM
Share This