The judge is presumed to be impartial, and simply having known or worked with someone doesn't necessarily upset that rule. It should disclosed, of course, and ideally, the other side should waive objections if any.
Likewise former law clerks argue in front of their judges all the time. I've done it myself. My judge, normally a sweetie, gave me hell (and voted against me). Granted the case was a losing case. In another case, the plaintiffs made a point of hiring the judge's former law partner as lead counsel in a hopeless matter. The judge gave her former partner merry hell and bounced the complaint so hard it almost went through the floor.
The real problem in state court is with elected judges who depend on campaign contributions from the bar, as well as political pressure from interest groups and the electorate. I've been a defense lawyer, and on this side on the table it's common knowledge that there are any number of counties where the judge might as well be a member of the plaintiffs' bar. That is why we spend too much time litigating in certain counties in OK, LA, MI, TX, and downstate Illinois.
Federal judges a may have the opposite problem -- they don't have to worry about re-election and campaign contributions, but the federal bench is disproportionately made up of partners in defense law firm and former prosecutors -- people who are likely to favor civil defendants and disfavor criminal defendants. And generally do.
--- Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> here's another way.
>
> >"Giving money to a judge's campaign means you're
> >less likely to get screwed
. A $1,000
> >contribution isn't going to buy special
> >treatment. It's just a hedge against bad things
> happening."
>
>
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-vegas8jun08,1,1998678.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-vegas8jun08,1,1998678.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
>
> From the Los Angeles Times
>
> JUICE VS. JUSTICE | A TIMES INVESTIGATION
>
> In Las Vegas, They're Playing With a Stacked
> Judicial Deck
>
> Some judges routinely rule in cases involving
> friends, former clients and business associates
> -- and in favor of lawyers who fill their campaign
> coffers.
> By Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel
> Times Staff Writers
>
> June 8, 2006
>
> LAS VEGAS When Judge Gene T. Porter last ran
> for reelection, a group of Las Vegas lawyers
> sponsored a fundraiser for him at Big Bear in
> California. Even by Las Vegas standards, it was
> brazen. Some of the sponsors had cases before
> him. One case was set for a crucial hearing in four
> days.
>
> "A Lavish Buffet Dinner will be catered By Big
> Bear's Premier Restaurant," invitations to
> Porter's fundraiser said. "There will be Food,
> Fun, Libations
a 7:30 p.m. Sunset Cruise on the
> Big Bear Queen
a Zoo Tour for the Little Ones."
> Porter, 49, a Nevada state judge, attended. The
> evening blossomed into a festival of champagne,
> lobster and money. Organizers said guests
> contributed nearly $30,000, dropping much of it into
> a crystal punch bowl.
>
> Some lawyers considered it protection against ill
> fortune. Robert D. Vannah, a sponsor of the
> fundraiser whose firm had the hearing scheduled
> in Porter's courtroom in four days, would later
> explain his donation this way: "Giving money to a
> judge's campaign means you're less likely to get
> screwed
. A $1,000 contribution isn't going to
> buy special treatment. It's just a hedge against bad
> things happening."
>
> [ .....]
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com