England and Wales about bad ones, an observation that
serves as a justification for writing this particular book. He also notes that
there are “quite a few” books about bad judges in the U.S. I would qualify that remark by
saying that there are “some books” in the U.S. about bad judges (e.g. The
Benchwarmers by Joseph Goulden, 1974), but the number of books about good and
great U.S judges far outnumber bad judge books.
There
would be much effort and not much to be gained by going into detail about the
anecdotes about the ten U.K. judges selected by Barrister Williams for
comment. The real usefulness of the anecdotes, as noted above, is that they
allow the reader to develop at least some sense of the traits of bad judges,
and consequently a sense of the traits that make a judge good.
Traits
of a good judge that can be derived from reading the book are:
The
good judge should be patient.
The good judge should be even tempered and
avoid intemperance and arrogance.
The good judge should be a good listener.
The good judge must allow latitude for
counsel in the interrogation process and not interfere with the counsel’s questioning
unless it is overbearing (applicable to common law legal systems).
The good judge should be learned in the law
and approach his or her judicial duties with appropriate seriousness and
solemnity.
The good judge should possess a strong
sense of integrity, honesty and trustworthiness.
The good judge should demonstrate courtesy
in communications with other judges, lawyers, and litigants.
The
author suggests in the book that probably the most common traits that determine
if a particular judge is good or bad are arrogance and impatience. As a former
practicing trial lawyer, I can fully agree with that observation. Most of the bad
judges with whom I came into contact in my practice displayed those unfortunate
characteristics.
There
are some valuable issues and principles that the author emphasizes in Bad
Judges, apart from identifying traits of a bad judge and qualities of a
good one. The
first issue relates to the matter of what can be done to insure the selection
and retention of judges who will turn out to be good ones rather than bad
ones. A passage from the Prologue of the book about the fact that now most
U.K. judges are good judges states:
The position here today is no doubt the
result of our modern, and on the whole very sensible and worth-while
practice of appointing “new” permanent judges only after they
have attended judicial training, have sat as a judge in a
part-time, temporary post before appointment, and have performed in that
capacity well enough to justify long-term judicial office.
This
comment points to the inadequacy in many legal systems of the method of
selecting judges and of determining whether specific judicial candidates have
the traits to be a good judge. Many states in the United States are burdened
with this particular inadequacy, particularly those that are elected. The
above quote suggests a recipe to correct this inadequacy.
Another
valuable insight is included in part of one of the sentences in the Epilogue of
the book: “[T]he quality of the judiciary, and the degree of public confidence
in it, must be among the most crucial features of a modern democracy.”
A
final observation, contained in the last sentence in the book, is an important
one: “There is of course no ground for complacency [in assuring that judges are
impartial and good]. In our area of inquiry, as in so many others, the price of
justice is eternal vigilance. Bad judges, however few there may be, will always
be a stain on the public perception of Justice.”
International
Judicial Monitor