Back
Redefining : Legal Experts Argue Outweighs Practice Duration
The traditional metric of counting years of legal practice as the primary qualification for judicial appointment is coming under sharp scrutiny. A growing chorus of legal commentators and judicial observers is urging a fundamental rethink—arguing that the best judges are not necessarily those with the longest resumes, but those driven by an intrinsic love for the work of judging itself. This shift in perspective carries profound implications for how the judiciary recruits, evaluates, and retains its members.
For decades, judicial selection committees across jurisdictions have leaned heavily on a simple benchmark: the number of years a lawyer has practiced. It is a quantifiable, seemingly objective measure that offers a proxy for experience and maturity. Yet, as the recent commentary highlights, this focus may be leading the profession to ask the wrong question. The ideal candidate for the bench, the argument goes, is not the one who has simply logged the most hours in court or amassed the highest billable totals. Instead, it is the individual who brings a deep-seated commitment to the calling of justice—someone who could have pursued any number of lucrative or prestigious careers, yet chooses to serve on the bench.
"The best potential judge, therefore, may not be the university gold medallist. Rather, she is someone who could have done so many other things with her life, but still chooses to judge,"
the source asserts. This distinction is central to rethinking
. It is not about disparaging academic excellence or professional achievement; it is about recognizing that a judiciary animated by passion and purpose serves the public better than one that is merely competent.
Rethinking the Metric of Experience
The current reliance on years of practice as a gatekeeping criterion has several unintended consequences. First, it tends to favor lawyers who have remained in conventional litigation roles for extended periods, potentially sidelining those with diverse backgrounds—such as legal aid attorneys, public defenders, or academics—who may bring fresh perspectives to the bench. Second, it can create a perverse incentive for aspiring judges to delay their applications until they have crossed an arbitrary threshold, rather than encouraging early recruitment of talented individuals who have already demonstrated .
Moreover, the "numbers-of-years" approach can obscure what truly matters: the ability to listen, to empathize, to discern facts, and to apply the law with wisdom and fairness. As the source notes, there is a distinct difference between being attracted to judicial service because it offers stability and being drawn to it out of a genuine love for the work.
"A great judiciary needs something more and beyond. It needs a motivated task force of people attracted to the love of the work itself. The
, or more appropriately put, the
."
This concept of "justicing" encompasses the day-to-day grind of deciding bail applications, granting injunctions, and presiding over trials. It is the recognition that each case, no matter how small, has a direct impact on real human lives. The source emphasizes the unique role of trial court judges:
"The person who actually wants to sit in a trial court because this is where human stories unravel, facts are actually found and discovered, witnesses are heard, parties are (and feel) seen, liberty is first lost or protected and law meets a flesh-and-blood human being rather than mere abstract legal doctrine."
The Allure of the Trial Court
For the vast majority of the population, a trial court judge is the first and last judge they will ever personally interact with. This makes the trial bench the most visible and impactful level of the judiciary. Yet, trial courts often struggle to attract the best candidates, partly because the work is demanding, less prestigious than appellate service, and carries lower compensation relative to private practice. The commentary suggests that the solution lies not in raising pay alone, but in actively seeking out those who are thrilled by the weight of that responsibility.
"There's enormous meaning to this. People who are thrilled by this fact exist, in greater numbers than we think. The problem is that we do very little to find them. And, more importantly, when they look at the institution, they may not always like what they see."
This is a stark warning for judicial selection bodies. The institutional culture of the judiciary must be attractive to potential candidates. If the bench is perceived as overly bureaucratic, resistant to innovation, or lacking in support for new judges, even the most passionate lawyers may be deterred. Creating a welcoming environment that values the mission of judging is as important as the initial screening process.
Implications for the Justice System
Redefining along these lines could have far-reaching effects. First, it might encourage a more holistic assessment of candidates, incorporating behavioral interviews, psychometric testing, and assessments of . Some jurisdictions have already moved toward "competency-based" selection that evaluates decision-making, communication skills, and empathy. Second, it could lead to earlier recruitment, perhaps targeting lawyers with five to ten years of practice who have demonstrated a clear commitment to public service rather than waiting for the fifteen or twenty-year mark.
Furthermore, this shift would align the judiciary more closely with the ideals of . A judge who genuinely cares about the impact of their rulings on ordinary people is more likely to be patient, compassionate, and procedurally fair. This, in turn, builds in the legal system—a commodity that is increasingly fragile.
The legal profession must also grapple with how to identify and nurture the early in a lawyer's career. Law schools can play a role by offering more experiential learning in trial courts, and bar associations can create mentorship programs that expose young lawyers to the rewards of judicial service.
Conclusion
As the debate over judicial selection continues, the central insight from this commentary should not be ignored. The number of years a lawyer has practiced is an easy metric, but it is not necessarily the right one. The quest for a great judiciary should begin with a different question: not
"How long have you practiced?"
but
"Why do you want to judge?"
For legal professionals and policymakers alike, the challenge is to design a system that can reliably identify and elevate those whose answer to that question is rooted in a genuine passion for justice.
The future of the judiciary depends not on accumulating years, but on selecting the right people—those who, given many other paths, still choose to serve. In doing so, the legal community can ensure that the bench is filled not just with experienced lawyers, but with dedicated justicers.
