Becoming a big time lawyer / judge

[Probe]

Hey guys.

This post is more directed towards those who are currently undertaking a law degree or have completed a law degree. (LLB, JD)

I was looking towards Law as a career for an intangible amount of time now and was talking to my dad who works at University as a lecturer in a different department, but still had a lot to say about doing Law.

Firstly, he said, and I tend to agree with, that law is becoming a general degree. Simply law on it's own does not have a large intake of students anymore, in 2009 3 people entered the Undergraduate law program at Monash. For those who are doing a law degree do you feel a similar thing? I'm in year 12, and I'm not going to pretend that "Oh I want to be a lawyer, I've been to court once and it's what I love."

Secondly, and more importantly, I wanted to know about career prospects in the elite law hierachy. Even in my textbooks it comes up abundantly that judges are generally males from wealthy backgrounds, private school educated, with substantial connections, etc. How much does this matter to become say, a Supreme Court judge etc? I know about having to be a fairly successful barrister for an extensive amount of time, the government having to recommend you to the Governor General, etc.
It's not simply my dad, there are others from whom I have heard not only do you have to have outstanding Law School results, but also be a person with "status". I do not come from a family like this. Of course there are other options with a law degree, working at the UN, finance litigation, so much. But, becoming a judge seems so difficult if you're not from a "rich" family. How true is this? So often I have seen "Ivy League Law Degree Needed" type notions in articles and so fourth. Also, lol, I look up the judges in the High Court in Australia, Supreme Court judges in Victoria. All from private schools. Central and prominent ones at that.

Lastly, I would like to ask if wanting to become a judge, do you have to be a successful barrister in the Criminal area of law or simply in law. I don't see Lawyers who have done a Biomedicine/Law degree and dealt with biomedical research patent lawsuits and intellectual property lawsuits to be invited to sit on the judging bench.

Thanks to anyone who replies, I certainly will appriciate it.

[Duck]

Dear lord are you looking too far ahead. In answer to your question about 'status', we do not live in a fuedal system. The wealth of one's family is not considered in the appointment of judges.

[Probe]

Dear lord are you looking too far ahead. In answer to your question about 'status', we do not live in a fuedal system. The wealth of one's family is not considered in the appointment of judges.

Not the wealth per se, but more the connections, status from certain schools etc. I've heard it from a few people and they all say the same thing: so do the textbooks :/

[ninwa]

Firstly, he said, and I tend to agree with, that law is becoming a general degree. Simply law on it's own does not have a large intake of students anymore, in 2009 3 people entered the Undergraduate law program at Monash. For those who are doing a law degree do you feel a similar thing?

Yup I see it as a complement to my arts degree and something which will hopefully give me a slight advantage in my career of choice (a very very competitive industry).

Secondly, and more importantly, I wanted to know about career prospects in the elite law hierachy. Even in my textbooks it comes up abundantly that judges are generally males from wealthy backgrounds, private school educated, with substantial connections, etc. How much does this matter to become say, a Supreme Court judge etc? I know about having to be a fairly successful barrister for an extensive amount of time, the government having to recommend you to the Governor General, etc.
It's not simply my dad, there are others from whom I have heard not only do you have to have outstanding Law School results, but also be a person with "status". I do not come from a family like this. Of course there are other options with a law degree, working at the UN, finance litigation, so much. But, becoming a judge seems so difficult if you're not from a "rich" family. How true is this? So often I have seen "Ivy League Law Degree Needed" type notions in articles and so fourth. Also, lol, I look up the judges in the High Court in Australia, Supreme Court judges in Victoria. All from private schools. Central and prominent ones at that.

Okay what textbook is this?!
Can you quote your sources please? Sounds a bit like scaremongering to me.

I would suggest there are several reasons for there being more males than females on courts (actually I don't know what the statistics are for mag's court / county court, I'm thinking only of Supreme and High):

- Judges are appointed for "life" (up to I believe 70 years of age) unless they do something really really bad. So a lot of the judges today are remnants of the patriarchal mentality from the (not so distant) past. However, that is gradually changing. For example, three out of seven current High Court justices are female.

- I'm not sure where you got your "all from private schools" info from. I just did a 5-minute search on some of the more well-known High Court justices: Justice Crennan (a woman) went to a Catholic school; Justice Gaudron (also a woman and held in high esteem by the legal community) came from working class parents in rural NSW; Justice Kirby, one of the most revered and respected justices of the High Court, went to a (selective) public school; current Chief Justice French went to a Catholic school.

- Not sure what you mean by "status" either; I don't think today's legal system is that antiquated. Otherwise, openly homosexual judges like Justice Kirby and current Justice Bell would surely not have made the cut.

- Speaking of status, current High Court Justice Kiefel not only went to a public school, but dropped out after completing Year 10 (at age 15).

- I also personally know a judge; her parents had the social and economic status of owning a small clothes shop. She was appointed purely on her merits as a brilliant, respected barrister. (Yes I would hazard a guess that 99.5% of judges were barristers, not solicitors, and often also QCs or as they call them now, SCs)

- I think you get my point

Lastly, I would like to ask if wanting to become a judge, do you have to be a successful barrister in the Criminal area of law or simply in law. I don't see Lawyers who have done a Biomedicine/Law degree and dealt with biomedical research patent lawsuits and intellectual property lawsuits to be invited to sit on the judging bench.

Simply in law; criminal law is but one tiny area of law (and apparently one of the most looked-down-upon one). Did you mean private/public law? It doesn't really make a difference as long as you're brilliant.

[Probe]

Firstly, he said, and I tend to agree with, that law is becoming a general degree. Simply law on it's own does not have a large intake of students anymore, in 2009 3 people entered the Undergraduate law program at Monash. For those who are doing a law degree do you feel a similar thing?

Yup I see it as a complement to my arts degree and something which will hopefully give me a slight advantage in my career of choice (a very very competitive industry).

Secondly, and more importantly, I wanted to know about career prospects in the elite law hierachy. Even in my textbooks it comes up abundantly that judges are generally males from wealthy backgrounds, private school educated, with substantial connections, etc. How much does this matter to become say, a Supreme Court judge etc? I know about having to be a fairly successful barrister for an extensive amount of time, the government having to recommend you to the Governor General, etc.
It's not simply my dad, there are others from whom I have heard not only do you have to have outstanding Law School results, but also be a person with "status". I do not come from a family like this. Of course there are other options with a law degree, working at the UN, finance litigation, so much. But, becoming a judge seems so difficult if you're not from a "rich" family. How true is this? So often I have seen "Ivy League Law Degree Needed" type notions in articles and so fourth. Also, lol, I look up the judges in the High Court in Australia, Supreme Court judges in Victoria. All from private schools. Central and prominent ones at that.

Okay what textbook is this?!
Can you quote your sources please? Sounds a bit like scaremongering to me.

I would suggest there are several reasons for there being more males than females on courts (actually I don't know what the statistics are for mag's court / county court, I'm thinking only of Supreme and High):

- Judges are appointed for "life" (up to I believe 70 years of age) unless they do something really really bad. So a lot of the judges today are remnants of the patriarchal mentality from the (not so distant) past. However, that is gradually changing. For example, three out of seven current High Court justices are female.

- I'm not sure where you got your "all from private schools" info from. I just did a 5-minute search on some of the more well-known High Court justices: Justice Crennan (a woman) went to a Catholic school; Justice Gaudron (also a woman and held in high esteem by the legal community) came from working class parents in rural NSW; Justice Kirby, one of the most revered and respected justices of the High Court, went to a (selective) public school; current Chief Justice French went to a Catholic school.

- Not sure what you mean by "status" either; I don't think today's legal system is that antiquated. Otherwise, openly homosexual judges like Justice Kirby and current Justice Bell would surely not have made the cut.

- Speaking of status, current High Court Justice Kiefel not only went to a public school, but dropped out after completing Year 10 (at age 15).

- I also personally know a judge; her parents had the social and economic status of owning a small clothes shop. She was appointed purely on her merits as a brilliant, respected barrister. (Yes I would hazard a guess that 99.5% of judges were barristers, not solicitors, and often also QCs or as they call them now, SCs)

- I think you get my point

Lastly, I would like to ask if wanting to become a judge, do you have to be a successful barrister in the Criminal area of law or simply in law. I don't see Lawyers who have done a Biomedicine/Law degree and dealt with biomedical research patent lawsuits and intellectual property lawsuits to be invited to sit on the judging bench.

Simply in law; criminal law is but one tiny area of law (and apparently one of the most looked-down-upon one). Did you mean private/public law? It doesn't really make a difference as long as you're brilliant.

Oh okay good. Nah I just wanted to make sure others can make it as judges. I'm actually happy to see everything you said.
So you're saying as long as you are a brilliant lawyer (well, barrister) in your respective field, you can be invited to be a judge?
All the textbooks and stuff added to my hype.

Page 37 of The Leading Edge (Legal Studies) has:
"Since judges are unelected officials, usually male, private-school educated and from upper-middle class backgrounds..."

On page 78 of legal notes there is a mention about it, too.

[Probe]

Oh and also, can you tell me how a judge would lose his job? Over and over our textbooks say they can't lose their jobs, except in exceptional circumstances, but never gives examples of any.

[ninwa]

Sounds like some author didn't do their research (or the textbook could just be out of date?)

Yes you just have to be a brilliant barrister. That makes it sound a lot easier than it actually is, btw - it takes many, many years of hard work. That may be another reason women are underrepresented in judicial roles - some just don't want that kind of responsibility, especially when they have children etc.

I wouldn't worry about it, especially this far in advance. Affirmative action is only going to become more and more fashionable anyway.

Re: firing judges...

(ii)  shall not be removed except by the Governor‑General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s72.html

i.e. very onerous requirement, which is probably why it's very rare.
Misbehaviour I would guess includes things like criminal convictions.
Incapacity - for example, justice gets in car accident and is brain damaged.

[Glockmeister]

Sounds like some author didn't do their research (or the textbook could just be out of date?)

Yes you just have to be a brilliant barrister. That makes it sound a lot easier than it actually is, btw - it takes many, many years of hard work. That may be another reason women are underrepresented in judicial roles - some just don't want that kind of responsibility, especially when they have children etc.

I wouldn't worry about it, especially this far in advance. Affirmative action is only going to become more and more fashionable anyway.

Re: firing judges...

(ii)  shall not be removed except by the Governor‑General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s72.html

i.e. very onerous requirement, which is probably why it's very rare.
Misbehaviour I would guess includes things like criminal convictions.
Incapacity - for example, justice gets in car accident and is brain damaged.

Case in point: Marcus Einfeld

[ninwa]

Marcus Einfeld was not a judge when he was convicted and therefore not subject to this process. He was merely struck off the roll of barristers by the NSW Court of Appeal. A much less rigorous process.

I can't actually think of anyone who has been dismissed this way.

[Glockmeister]

Marcus Einfeld was not a judge when he was convicted and therefore not subject to this process. He was merely struck off the roll of barristers by the NSW Court of Appeal. A much less rigorous process.

I can't actually think of anyone who has been dismissed this way.

Good point. I suppose the closest I can think of then would be Lionel Murphy.

[Eriny]

With law being quite a general degree - yes, I think that's the case. Lots of people who never want to be lawyers seem to do it. Also, having a working knowledge of the legal system can be useful for a lot of non-law careers. And of course, the more popular a degree gets, the more pressure there is to go further with it. I'm not sure how many people get masters in law, I'm sure ninwa would be in a better position to comment on it, but it could potentially be useful depending on your area of interest.

Additionally, even if judges go to fancy schools and such like, it doesn't mean that a regular public school person could never be one. If you go into law, it seems likely to me that you'd make most of your law contacts in uni anyway (unless you have family contacts). Women and minorities ordinarily do have to work a lot harder than upper-middle class white men, but it doesn't mean that it can't happen. And indeed, as ninwa pointed out, there are already cases where it has.