Lawyers Fight Back

In the war between unpopular professions, Sisyphus, who it turns out is a lawyer, fired back at the Statesman’s attack on the Bar Association rating, writing:

In urging voters to ignore the results of the survey the Statesman implies that the attorneys so responding might be other than honest with “axes to grind”. In so doing they further imply that a profession, which is based upon its credibility in court, has none here when it comes to giving an assessment of the candidates. In fact there are two sides to every argument in court. One side will always lose. So, of the respondents to the survey, its reasonable to assume that half should have an axe to grind with regard to each candidate, maybe more so if they are motivated by revenge rather than professionalism. But the survey results don’t bear this out. Judge Bradbury consistently ranks a point lower on each category.

And while we are taking pot shots at professions, it’s a shame that the fourth estate has denigrated from its vital role of providing valuable data to the public in an election. They actually urge voters to rely on less information rather than digging to provide more information on these two candidates. Many of the platitudes Judge Bradbury relies on to get elected are politically appealing, but also can be achieved through advocacy in the Judicial Council, the Legislature or as a Judge of the Second Judicial District. It does not require ascendancy to the Idaho Supreme Court in order to attain these goals, nor are they likely to be achieved by merely voting for the guy, and actually constitute very little of the official functions of a Judge. Perhaps a little analysis in this regard would serve Idaho better than dissing the entire Idaho legal profession.

Sisyphus is 100% right here and I appreciate the attorney’s perspective. Personally, I have to hope Kevin Richert responds as the battle between trial lawyers and journalists is intriguing to say the least.