Conflicted Judges Are Classier With English Accents 74
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."
so you can't get a job after retirement? (Score:3, Informative)
looks bad but in reality a judge like this will probably preside over cases with most companies in a given countries and lots of other large organizations. even if you institute a 2-3 year rule of not taking a job with a party to a lawsuit you preside over that is a lot of potential work and probably infringes on non-compete laws
Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (Score:4, Informative)
lucy koh didn't award a cent. in fact she reduced an award that a jury of 12 people awarded apple
if you're a corporate lawyer or judge presiding over corporate law lawsuits then you deal with so many companies that it would be impossible for you to get a job in your area if you had rules like this
Re:delicately speaking.... (Score:4, Informative)
This former judge appears to be breaking the rules. The terms and conditions of service [judiciary.gov.uk] 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.
Re:delicately speaking.... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (Score:5, Informative)
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.