Take away the robe and they’re just as  likely to get beaten as anyone else.  But when they sit on the bench, literally or figuratively, they are quite special.  We call them “your honor.” Their jokes are significantly funnier than they were before they were judge. We listen to what they say and avoid saying anything in response that will piss them off.  Not that the occasional snarky thought doesn’t go through our mind.

But what about when the judge uses his robe for his own collateral benefit?

At Defending People, Houston criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett was the target of Judge Ruben Guerrero, who had a lawyer threaten Bennett for creating the domain JudgeRubenGuerrero.com, which is slightly less than helpful in the judge’s re-election campaign. 

Ethical proscriptions compel lawyer to be honest and help educate the public about the law, which should certainly cover Bennett’s effort to let people know that he doesn’t think they should vote for Ruben Guerrero because he’s not a very good judge.

Guerrero is unfair to the defense.

“Guerrero never awed attorneys with his legal brilliance on the bench.”

Ruben Guerrero thinks that prosecutors represent complaining witnesses.

On the other hand, Judge Guerrero’s lawyer argued that Bennett, by putting up a website that exhorts voters to “Unelect Judge Guerrero,” has appropriated the Judge’s name.

Appropriation falls under the category of invasion of privacy and protects the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his identity.

This, of course, raises the question of what “commercial use” Judge Guerrero plans for his identity. 

Standing up to a sitting judge’s threat isn’t something most lawyers would do. But most lawyers aren’t Bennett, and so he responded to the take-down letter’s threat in the best criminal defense lawyer fashion.

[P]lease describe what you consider “the necessary legal action.” I’m a criminal-defense trial lawyer; I need things spelled out. 

And maybe in the exercise of judicial discretion, Judge Ruben Guerrero has not been heard from since.  This doesn’t mean that he won’t use his office to try to smack Bennett should Ruben be re-elected and Bennett come before him, but under the circumstances, between the smarter move of recusal or the stupider move of pay-back followed by well-founded judicial complaint, perhaps Judge Guerrero’s lawyer has advised him that the better move is to protect his brand on his own end rather then swing his robe in Bennett’s direction.

But then, are there no benefits to being a sitting judge beyond having lawyers laugh at your jokes?  A brouhaha has occurred, reflected in a  Daily News editorial questioning whether judicial license plates in New York serve to let judges break the law with impunity.

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct is seeking public comment on whether judges should get the perks of license plates that advertise their positions on the bench or park-where-you-want placards.

You can imagine the responses New Yorkers will provide, ll of which will boil down, minus expletives, to: No way, no how.

The commission was prompted to make inquiry by the case of an upstate part-time town justice who arranged to fix a ticket she had gotten, as well as a ticket issued to the wife of another justice.

While “ticket fixing” by judges for friends, kids and themselves has always been available, provided the judge is inclined to break the law for his own benefit. But that’s an entirely different issue than whether judicial plates give judge’s a free ride.

Further, the commission asserted, “judicial license plates distort the normal process of enforcing traffic laws and the delicate position faced by law enforcement officers when they stop a vehicle with judicial plates.”

Meaning cop sees that speeding driver is a judge and so goes easy. Meaning judge gets an unwarranted break without having to say anything.

The plate does the identifying. The plate does the talking. The plate amounts to a moving violation of judicial ethics.

Perhaps, but judicial plates allow judges to park in reserved spots around the courthouse, which seems like a perk they certainly deserve given the crappy pay they receive and the expectation that they be on the bench to do their job.  Placards could perform a similar purpose, but they’re much easier to fake.

Yet the core of the complaint is that cops won’t ticket someone with judicial plates. Of course, the worst kept secret on the road is cops won’t ticket fellow cops or their family members and close friends, which is why they hand out their union cards. If we’re going to start worrying about who’s cheating the law, judges are hardly the problem when compared to a police officer’s 18-year-old son.

Rather than give judges a free pass, I suspect that judicial plates make them a target for criticism, if not from the cops, then from the public. Given the ubiquitous cellphone video cameras, judges have to be on their best behavior when driving so that some citizen doesn’t video their wild driving and put it on Youtube or a website about judges behaving badly.  If I had judicial plates, I wouldn’t do a thing to open myself to criticism because I couldn’t hide my wrong from the public.

The  New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is  seeking input on whether judicial plates are a license to break the law.  It strikes me that they would do better to not only require judges to use judicial plates, but to include on the plates a “How’s my driving?” phone number to call if a person empowered to send people to prison for violating the law can’t manage to adhere to the law himself.

As for cops giving judges a free pass, spare me. The hypocrisy inherent in that argument is to ridiculous for words. I would suggest a similar “how’s my driving” on all cop cars, but that would just mean they were put on the list for a bravery citation, which they would trot out the next time they testified to prove to the jury what fabulously trustworthy police officers they are. 

And for those who worry that judges are getting away with something, there is always the Queen’s DA’s refusal to do anything about the blow to Judge Raffeale’s throat or Bennett’s website to remind them that not even judges can avoid the consequences of the law.  Not all the time, anyway.