I have a feeling Mark Bennett and I do not agree on very much.
It doesn’t matter. We can agree on some things.
First let me clear something up. I have expressed myself poorly and created confusion. Bennett rightly points out a major flaw in the idea that a strike targeting a specific judge, by boycotting that judge’s court, is a bad idea.
But that is not the idea here.
The idea here, rather, is that a strike, while targeting a specific judge, will be in all courtrooms in a given area. All of them. This minimizes the danger to any particular defendant or attorney while simultaneously creating a larger problem for the system. And it potentially makes the targeted judge a liability system-wide.
I have corrected the first post, which seems really old now, accordingly.
Like any strike, its success depends upon a large number of attorneys climbing aboard. If only a few actually participate those few are likely to experience great difficulties and personalized retaliation. If many participate, retaliation against everyone will be impossible, and the strikers will have gained the upper hand.
So in the end, it all depends upon widespread participation.
Once again, there is a quarrel with the feasibility, the practicality of striking. There is no disagreement about the merit of the objective.
Perhaps, in the wake of Judge Keller’s “exoneration”, someone has a better idea. I’d like to hear one. In the meantime, I’m just suggesting what Indian lawyers have done with some success.
Finally, regardless of what Mr. Bennett and I might otherwise disagree on, I noted with great admiration a recent post of his on a very troubled lawyer. At the end of it, he offered his phone number for any lawyer, anywhere, to call him if they were experiencing those kinds of difficulties.
That makes his posts more than just rant or gesture, and in my opinion marks Mr. Bennett as a great soul.