Injustice Watch has a Judicial Primary Guide

Injustice Watch has announced its own 2020 Judicial Primary Guide. That's a link to the guide in the preceding sentence. When you go look at it, be sure to note the explanatory key:

Hmmmm. Former prosecutors -- not just current ASA's, mind you, but anyone who ever served as a prosecutor at any stage of their career -- are signified by handcuffs. Current or former public defenders, on the other hand, are signified by a neutral little briefcase.

I am not now, and never have been, an Assistant State's Attorney. So I am not complaining about the symbols on that basis.

But I have represented unpopular clients in my day. I hope that I have, at all times, zealously pursued and protected my clients' legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while remaining courteous, professional, and civil to all. Sure, I have liked some clients better than others -- the ones that have paid their bills, for example, will always hold a special place in my mercenary heart. Unless we have nothing but concrete between our ears, we lawyers learn from our cases, and from our clients, and we are shaped by them. But we do not become our clients. Even when we like our clients.

For the better part of my first two decades in practice, I worked for a firm that only represented insurance companies. Talk about your unpopular clients....

And if Allstate sneezed, we all caught pneumonia. In the last 20-some years I have also represented a number of other insurers. But that did not prevent me from vigorously and, I hope, effectively representing policyholders when I had those opportunities. And, today, if a commercial featuring Dennis Haysbert or Dennis Quaid comes on the TV, I do not lapse into some sort of reverie.

Why should it be presumed that former prosecutors can not also grow and evolve as they take the next step in their careers, whether it be a seat on the bench or a move into private practice? Here's a Captain Obvious newsflash for the folks at Injustice Watch: When they leave the State's Attorney's Office, most former prosecutors move into criminal defense work.

There are numerous recorded instances, of course, of some former prosecutors remaining staunchly pro-prosecution (or reverting to a staunchly pro-prosecution bias) after ascending to the bench. But that is a problem concerning the individual judge's present, not his or her past. A person who can not move from an adversarial role into a neutral one is going to have problems as a judge. No matter what they did before becoming a judge. And, unfortunately, even with bar evaluations and screenings and investigations, we can't know for certain how someone will behave in a black robe until they have had the opportunity to wear one for real. In this election, as in every one of them that I can recall, there are some current ASA's hoping to move directly to the bench. But does that necessarily mean that all of these folks, if elected, will be unable to shed their adversarial role for the neutral role of a judge?

It does not.

A couple of election cycles ago, one judicial candidate was blistered simply because that candidate had worked for a firm that represented the employer side in labor disputes. At one point, and in some circles still, public defenders have been slammed as being soft on crime. Now, in different circles, prosecutors are the red-headed stepchildren. None of this is right, or fair.

Perry Mason got to pick only innocent clients. He had the distinct advantage of being fictional. In the real world, the rest of us have to do what we can to feed our families. Even when that means representing unpopular clients. To the best of our ability.

Judicial candidates should be assessed on who they are, not who they've represented.