I definately noticed that effect in Houston - lots of local boys that went to South Texas and got their jobs through their family and school networks. And there definately were some lousy judges and magistrates in Houston...
Now, now.......it's best to look at the facts before legal folklore sets in some ideas in your mind that at a minimum are obsolete.
Texas, Louisiana and a few other states have partisan election of judges. Anyone with a law degree and a war chest can fund a campaign. Spend enough money and you too can become a judge.
What does this mean in practice?
It means that potential state court judges are, firstly, political animals. Secondly, since judicial salaries suck, it means that many judges are (1) already rich or (2) capable of raising lots of dough. If they are not already rich [this rich group encompasses mostly plaintiffs' lawyers, who are not Good Ol' Boys--GOBs--trust me on this], then the funding of a trial court judicial election requires that the candidate kowtow to those with lots of money, mainly plaintiffs' lawyers.
This in my estimation results in what we see in Louisiana and presumably Texas, namely, a generally low quality trial court system in which the trial judges are beholden to the plaintiffs' bar.
Since taking campaign funds from business, industry, and insurance interests is often the kiss of death for a lawyer running for a trial court judgeship, these interests operate at a higher level, i.e., they support like-minded mid-level appellate and Supreme Court candidates, who tend to have a lot more influence in legal matters, anyway. The plaintiffs' bar is also extremely active in these campaigns. Some sort of decent equilibrium is reached this way, IMO.
GOBs? Race? Gender?
Gimme me a break. Only in a John Grisham novel.
It's a high-stakes political and financial game in which many competing interests are at play in the states in which partisan judicial elections take place. Take a look at the efforts to reform the system in Texas, and you'll see how complex the game really is. In other words, dumb brothers-in-law don't stand a chance. I'm sure the same financial and political interests are at play, too, in merit selection states, but I would guess that they are played out a little differently--I really can't say, though.
ajs.org
And, by the way, there are virtually no class, gender, or race restrictions anymore. If you're sharp, personable, hardworking, trustworthy, humble at the beginning of your career when you've got the most to learn, you could be a transgendered purple Mongolian, and you'll do well in any setting.
Another observation that may surprise you: the best lawyers are found in the cities where the best lifestyles exist. I find that the best in San Francisco, San Diego, New Orleans and other places where the lifestyle is good are really stellar, really a cut above most others [I'd except NYC from this since it is sui generis, though I've had the pleasure of kicking some NYC lawyers' butts in the past, pompous SOBs]. I think it has to do with the desirability of the particular city as a place to live and the competition it creates among those who want to make it. I'm thinking now about the guy from Jackson Hole, too, Spence, though some folks like him are so good that they can do what very few of us can, i.e, live anywhere without the need to develop a local base.
A long-winded way of saying--don't fall for stereotypes or unproven folklore at this stage of your career; it is the absolute first lesson a good lawyer needs to learn. And don't set any false impediments in your way, either. |
