Slashdot Mirror
Conflicted Judges Are Classier With English Accents
An anonymous reader writes "Remember The Right Honourable Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Retired Lord Justice, who staged a temporary comeback on the bench of the England and Wales Court of Appeals last fall? He's the one who required Apple to publicly retract its claims that Samsung copied the iPad and imposed sanctions on Cupertino when he concluded Tim Cook's lawyers hadn't fully complied. He has now made worldwide headline news again because he signed up as a Samsung expert witness at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Samsung says he was hired by its law firm, not the company, but the ITC filing says 'Sir Robin Jacob working on behalf of Samsung.' His clerk issued a statement according to which Sir Robin had no idea of Samsung's desire to hire him before January — two months after he gave Apple a blast. Leading legal blogs agree that there is no evidence any law was violated, but they suspect that 'the general issue of what engagements retired judges are permitted to accept will be very much up for discussion' and that this was 'a less than savvy public relations move by Samsung' because it casts doubt on the widely-noticed ruling in its favor. As one of them puts it, in the U.K. you 'never know if the judge might be looking for a new job,' so you better 'make sure [you] have fat rolls of cash spilling out of [your] pockets' in front of a U.K. judge."
Perhaps the judge's expertise is due to the fact that he spent months listening to both sides of the matter, sifting through conflicting evidence and judging the validity of the positions to come up with an unbiased conclusion. There would be no better expert on the case than the judge that heard it. He would be the best person to explain why he made the decision that he did and be the best one to convince others of his logic. It is not necessarily a judge giving a decision so he can get a future job. This is another instance of appearance of conflict being more important that actual conflict.
Casting doubt is not an issue. If another judge reviewed the ruling and found fault then there would be an issue. Every ruling should be able to be reviewed at any time without the review causing issues. The whole "There is a review there must be something wrong" is stupid. Wait for the review to be over and then make a judgement. Many reviews are done to remove appearances of conflict and prove that no conflict existed.
Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.
How many bloody murders are screamed by Slashdot, and how many petitions are generated at Whitehouse.gov by outraged neckbeards, demanding that Pres. Obama become a dictator, step in, and have her thrown in Gitmo, because she was clearly prejudiced, and Apple used its money to buy a friendly ruling against poor little innocent, beleaguered Samsung?
Repeat after me: It does not matter what company does it - if it's fucking bad behavior, it's bad behavior and deserves to be criticized. You lot need to stop making excuses for your teams. If Samsung does it and it's bad, it deserves criticism. If Apple does it and it's bad, it deserves criticism.
Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.
Funny you should mention that. Judge Koh actually did do work for Apple before she became a judge. Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
This former judge appears to be breaking the rules. The terms and conditions of service have an absolute prohibition on returning to practice:
Prohibition on Practice: A Salaried Employment Judge shall not practise as a barrister or solicitor or be indirectly concerned in any such practice (s.75 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990). The Lord Chancellor also regards a judicial office as a lifetime appointment. Any offer of appointment is therefore made on the understanding that appointees will not return to practice.
plus a prohibition on any activity that might appear to raise a conflict of interest.
Outside activities and interests: An Employment Judge should not in any capacity engage in any activity which might undermine, or be reasonably thought to undermine, his or her judicial independence or impartiality.
Note that the appointment is for life, so he is still covered by the second rule.
Other the the word 'judge', what the fuck does the headline have to do with the summary? Is slashdot trying to get some sort of record for worst 'journalism' ever?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You are misunderstanding. The second one is about judges still acting as judges, which he isn't. He retired.
And the first doesn't apply either because he isn't practicing as a barrister or solicitor either. He was hired to advise a law firm as an expert. That
just isn't the same thing.
It is simply untrue that he retired two months ago. He retired in 2011 - he had to make an application to retire and have that application accepted. He was then _asked_ to return to the bench for the Samsung case because of his expertise, because retired judges can be asked to do that in their field of expertise.
So his retirement didn't happen in some convenient window between ruling for Samsung and then working for Samsung at all, which upsets your conspiracy theory interpretation apple cart a bit, does it not?
Which is not to mention that he's not in Samsung's employ at all, but has been contracted by their law firm. To provide advice. In a case in an unrelated area. In a different legal jurisdiction. At an ordinary consulting rate.
This is a lot of shit designed to attract this kind of aspersion on a judge's character, all kicked off by a dubious post by Florian fucking Mueller for Christ's sake. The summary has conflated a bunch of articles, some evenhanded and some not, into an allegation that Jacob is a 'conflicted judge', and that his expert consulting work for a law firm hired by Samsung is some sort of kickback.
Can we not try to actually understand the situation before we assume that it's simple, lazy corruption?
Captcha: retrofit.