
Despite Exposés Hundreds of Judges Preside in New York Without Law Degrees - frgtpsswrdlame
https://www.propublica.org/article/hundreds-of-judges-new-york-preside-without-law-degrees
======
andrewl
I know it's at least partially caused by the fact that it's not news when
something good is happening, but it often seems to me there's more going wrong
in this country than going right:

 _Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck
drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal
principles. Some never got through high school, and at least one went no
further than grade school._

 _But serious things happen in these little rooms all over New York State.
People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from
their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants
have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot
pay a fine. Frightened women have been denied protection from abuse._

 _The examination found overwhelming evidence that decade after decade and up
to this day, people have often been denied fundamental legal rights.
Defendants have been jailed illegally. Others have been subjected to racial
and sexual bigotry so explicit it seems to come from some other place and
time. People have been denied the right to a trial, an impartial judge and the
presumption of innocence..._

~~~
pcunite
Certain media outlets only purpose is to make you feel specific things to
bring about change, namely certain rights protected by the Constitution, by
wearing you down to the point you'll give in to their ideology.

If I report every day about grisly bears hacking Subway sandwich shops, you'll
soon be shouting _won 't somebody do something about this?_ Yes, someone will
step forward and take care of that nasty propaganda ... uhhh .. I mean problem
(even though its not a real threat).

------
pcunite
In what way will a law degree prevent the following (quoted from the article):

 _he engaged in repeated, undignified and discourteous conduct toward a woman
with whom he had been involved romantically_

 _it was revealed that he’d been accepting his six-figure salary despite never
reporting to work for several years because of a health issue_

Corruption is corruption. Don't need schooling for that.

~~~
ortusdux
Some states require judges to be in good standing with the Bar. The NY state
Bar's rules of professional conduct list is exhaustive.

[http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/jointappellate/ny-rules-
prof-c...](http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/jointappellate/ny-rules-prof-
conduct-1200.pdf)

------
rayiner
There is in general no requirement for judges to have a law degree. Indeed,
it's not required for lawyers in states that still have apprenciteships
(Virginia , Vermont, Washington, California). New York doesn't require a law
degree either, though it does require one year of law school in addition to
apprenticeship. Indeed, for most of the history of the republic, no formal
education has been required to be a lawyer.

~~~
sillypuddy
It's not required to have gone to law school or have passed the bar to be on
the supreme court either.

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi2](https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi2)

~~~
KekDemaga
As it should be, if this was the case a number of private institutions would
have the ability to decide who gets to be on the supreme court or not.

------
dghf
Lay judges (that is, with no legal qualifications), known as justices of the
peace or magistrates, are the norm in the lowest level of courts in England
and Wales (and, with some differences, in Scotland). They receive training and
are always assisted by a legally qualified clerk to advise on points of law
and to make sure that proper procedures are observed. In England and Wales
they always sit as a bench of three; in Scotland, it's more common for them to
sit alone.

~~~
cafard
A few states of the US still have justices of the peace. A relative who is a
lawyer says that the old joke was that "JP" stood for "judgment for the
prosecution".

------
Geekette
This is mindblowing because I'd always assumed that judges everywhere started
as experienced lawyers. For contrast, I checked the Canadian judicial system
and judges at all levels of court must be lawyers with at least five years
experience. In practice, it turns out that most have 10+ years at time of
appointment[1].

[1] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/choosing-judges-in-
canada-1.86...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/choosing-judges-in-
canada-1.866668)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think the idea that only certified experts are allowed to do certain
functions of government is a very dangerous idea. That quickly leads to
aristocracy and away from democracy. You are basically saying that unless you
have a particular certificate, a branch of government is closed to you.

That is why one of the most important things we should be teaching in our
schools are the liberal arts especially logic and rhetoric.

Ideally every citizen should be able to take relevant information and apply it
to the problem at hand. We already do this with judges. We don't require them
to be a programmer to judge a software patent case, or a physician to preside
over a medical maplpractice case. In the same way, there is no reason why a
non-lawyer judge assisted by trained law clerks could not determine the
relevant law and apply it to the case at hand. Indeed, in the future, machine
learning will make the clerk's job even less relevant and a person with good
thinking and logic but without a law degree would do just as well as a lawyer
in being a judge.

~~~
erroneousfunk
Okay, let's say you're a judge and you get a commercial real estate case in
Boston Massachusetts, in which the defendant broke their lease early and is
refusing to pay a pro-rated lease break fee in their contract on the grounds
that it's unreasonable and violates established precedent. The plaintiff
argues that the defendant signed the contract, knew what they were getting
into, and needs to pay the fee.

You discover that the plaintiff has not made any effort to find new tenants
and has not listed the building as being available, and has not fulfilled
their "duty to mitigate."

You discover that some portion of the defendants precedent is based on
residential, not commercial cases.

What other questions do you ask? Should the landlord be allowed to charge any
lease break fee, or write any penalties into the contract that they want? What
if the lease is a 5 year term, the lessee broke the lease in the first 6
months, the lease break fee is the remainder of the 5 year term, and the
landlord found a new tenant within a month of the old one leaving?

These are the sorts of cases that judges rule on all the time. There may be no
clear "right and wrong" where you can sort of go "Oh yeah, clearly, that's
illegal and the harm lies here, and your evidence sucks, and so my ruling is
this" The cases may involve layers upon layers of state and local laws, and
precedent going decades back -- for good reason.

I would argue that someone who wasn't trained in "the law" wouldn't be able to
_consistently_ ask the right questions and evaluate each party's argument
appropriately. Do residential landlord/tenant laws apply to commercial cases?
Does the landlord have a duty to mitigate in this situation? How many rights
are people allowed to "sign away" in a contract, and which rights are
protected? Is the harm to the tenant weighed appropriately against the harm to
the landlord within the boundaries established by law?

I consider myself to be a pretty logical and rigorous thinker, but I certainly
wouldn't be confident in my ability to correctly and efficiently handle cases
like this, and ask the right questions, day in and day out. Sure, maybe spend
a week of research and get back to you, but if you're seeing multiple cases a
day? Forget about it.

------
misticdeveloper
Appointed judges in Canada have worked out very well.

But they have to be appointed by a sane, non-partisan committee. US political
hackery would probably make this untenable so maybe elected judges are the
best options for them. Hmmm.

------
grandinj
Ah, the theory that passing through a higher educational level will somehow
increase the righteousness of people. Has that ever been true?

~~~
cafard
Well, it might acquaint you with the rules of the law. Or it might not--a
lawyer friend long ago talked about a judge in his city whose weak grasp of
the rules of evidence allowed counsel to use hearsay evidence, etc.

