Without any listed criteria explaining what constitutes "qualified" or "unqualified", this whole thing is nothing but a complete joke and an insight into our flawed judicial system...culminating in our bought and paid for Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The common person doesn't stand a chance.

What's a guy got to do to get a little McJustice around here?

The reported results of this poll seem like a silly exercise in futility. I hope the purpose is not to "instruct" the general public on how to vote. I always seem to have trust issues when talking to or about lawyers. The survey(poll) is like asking a room full of Republicans to vote for their favorite Democrat. The results would be dubious at best. Why do we so commonly insist that these offices are truly "non-partisan?" Not much in Wisconsin politics these days is really non-partisan any more, just witness behaviors in our Supreme Court. How should a thoughtful public vote?

A poll of a hundred is meaningless. If they won't agree to be interviewed and explain their views, then it's not worth reporting. I'd like more information on their background, including their religion, their education, their experience, and their thoughts on judicial philosophy.

The vote by the RCBA means nothing. Just a popularity contest. What does mean something is the lack of any attorneys from Beloit running for judge. What happened to all of the attorneys from Bel-wah?

I would have to agree with GoodAmerican; it's unseemly for a candidate to comment here, and set in contrast to the Gazette's letters to the editor policy. That said, it would be difficult to ban anonymous comments supporting a candidate on the basis of a suspected identity, but overt statements here may not be the best idea.
.
As the voters are free to ignore the bar's informal poll, I don't see the problem with that, though.

dutch said, "The bar survey is a tool for voters."
-
dutch, I think voters have been given more "tools" than they want by Walker.

GoodAmerican - please accept my appology for misrepresenting your remarks. That was not my intent. I feel it is good for a candidate to respond to comments. Sadly, Mr McDonald has not responded with much specificity other than to imply prejudice against him by others. In my view that just doesn't wash.

Rich...nowhere did I say he doesn't have the right. I do, though, feel that this is an improper forum for camapigning, which is what his comments have the feel of. You don't have to agree, but please don't misrepresent what I said.

One "good old boy" I have witnessed first hand is on the Janesville City Council. Tom McDonald and Russ Steeber.

McDonald certainly has every right to respond in these forums. There is nothing unethical about that. He has established a record on the council of being intolerent of some people who express views other than his own. I am worried about his having built in prejudices. We don't want that in a judge. In his case it raises a real question about his maturity.

I also agree I see confict with David Oleary as DA and Harry as Judge. would they ever put them in same court room. If not there still could be influence.
Which Oleary usually gets people off from crimes they commited?

IF a headline(bashing one) such as this is put inthe Gazette I see no reason why he cannot defend himslef on here. I also agree the headline was in poor taste.(as usual for the Gazette)

Tom McDonald has my vote and he will make a great judge just as he has been a great councilman. He has the will, Experience and knowledge. Age should NOT be a factor.

One thing that is at least a little bit troublesome to me is Mr. McDonald's use of this comment forum as a free campaign tool. I guess it beats having to spend money on a camapign, but to me, at least, it raises ethical questions.

Harry O'Leary has my vote!

janesvilletaxpayer,

Should physicians sit on medical boards or boards of review in judgement of other physicians Or is this an old boys club as well?

As Dutch wrote, no one is saying Mr McDonald is a bad guy-simply his peers whether they've had direct or indirect interaction (or no interaction)with Tom McDonald believe he is not qualified-as compared to the current list of candidates.

McDonlad is a young guy-its up to him to demonstrate why his relative lack of legal experience compared to the other candidates is and advantage-if he can do this and demonstrate that his temperament and judgement is at least equivalent to the others he has a puncher chance.

That being said, the city of Janesville is better because young men like Tom McDonald chose to be involved.

Well, call me superficial but I prefer not to have a McJudge handing out McSentences. I can say, however, that I would vote for and support mister Jack Hoag whom I believe to be a truly decent person to start with. That's all I've got to say.

"In 15 or 20 years that view may change" (experience of Tom McDonald). Give us a break "dutch." This is the epitome of the good old boys network which is present. To qualify to be a judge, an attorney needs 5 years experience. Not 15 or 20. The poll is a joke and people know it. Asking lawyers who they want for judge is like asking members of Wall St who they want as their regulators. Of course they are going to select their buddies. Lack of independence at its finest.

One interesting thing about the survey is that it reflects the opinions of so many people who have never worked with me. Due to the nature of my practice over the past five years, very few Rock County attorneys have ever worked with me in legal matters. In my trial work I am typically dealing with lawyers from Madison or Milwaukee who are hired by insurance companies. Most if not all of the “unqualified’ opinions about me are tied to age and a perceived lack of experience; opinions offered by people who have not worked with me. As I said earlier, age is always the challenge that a younger person faces when trying to break stereotypes in running for an elected office.

Lemke10 - That's exactly what I was thinking. Also, sorry to hear about your bad deal. How wrong was that?!?!

As a member of the RCBA, I am troubled by some of these comments concerning the bar survey.

First, the survey was not done to embarrass any candidate or show support for any candidate. The survey was performed because the Rock County Bar By laws require such a survey any time there is a judicial election.

Second, Tom McDonald was deemed unqualified by the vast majority of those who responded. Does that mean Tom is a bad lawyer? No. Does it mean Tom is not respected or liked by local bar members? No. Does it mean Tom is not an intelligent guy? No. What it means is the vast majority of bar members, young, old, male, female,do not feel Tom is experienced enough to be a Judge. In 15 or 20 years that view may change.

Regarding comments that the old boy's network is responsible for Tom's results or Tod Daniel's results, Please. I wish someone would pont out who the "old guard" or 'old boy's" network is in the bar. It doesn't exist.

The bar survey is a tool for voters. It reflects the collective thoughts of local lawyers who deal with each other daily over a period of years. Ignore it if you like. But don't presume the survey reflects some conspiracy to torpedo Mc Donald or Daniel. It doesn't.

Vote for Barb McCrory. She's been judging for ten years, and called the most qualified by her peers. So simple!

The bar on Tuesday will host a candidate forum. The event is not open to the public. Because they would not want real questions to throw them off.
.
Welcome to the Janesville Good Ole' Boy club. The Bar in Janesville is wrought with pathetic loser attorneys, with very low slimy standards. Janesville where you can sue a doctor for your own failure to follow medical direction and win, and can't sue a doctor who is related to a Judge, even if they kill you.
.
I encourage everyone to vote for McDonald to stop this inept system from continuing.

Lemeke,

How do you objectively measure common sense? Absent an objective tool you have to take into consideration the totality of the candidate-including professional reputation.

As it is this article doesnt do Tom McDonald any favors. However, those on the periphery may assume, that simply because McDonald is an unpaid member of the City Council which gives him political visibility and local name recognition-that that electing him to circuit Judge is fine-afterall he has demonstrated his commitment to the citizens of Janesville as a council member and he is an attorney and a bar member. His peers, individuals who also practice law, think differently.

We were just in court and having lawyers that were to worried about who's up for election gave us a not so fair outcome. Nobody wanted to upset anyone who could potentially vote them "Unqualified". I say we vote "Other" and get someone who wants to work for their clients and does not care who pisses who off. Guardian's included.

Lawyers telling you what other Lawyers would "make a better judge." Isn't that more of an "I'm going to tell you who I'd rather deal with to make my job easier" type of issue? Is it too late to take Brewster's advice and vote "none of the above?" You have to be rather shallow minded if you think only a lawyer can do a Judge's job. Most of the stuff they do is common sense; they just choose to use fancy words with a lot of paperwork to make themselves seem important. Now I'd like to back my opinion up with some facts.

My parents started a divorce in 2005; I was 18 at the times w/ 3 younger siblings. Our father was not permitted placement or visitation rights because of child abuse, which was fine by all of us kids. However the Judge at the time, a now retired Judge Rothe, decided on property distribution and gave about 1/2 of the toys in the house to our child abusing father who 7 years later still never earned placement or visitation rights. Being the jerk our father is for telling the truth about the abuse, he took the toys and has never given them back. Does this sound like someone who should be making decisions on people's life? A high school student could have made a more just decision.

There is a well known shoplifter in the southern Wisconsin area that has quite a rap sheet on Wisconsin Circuit Court. He is 29 and has 80 entries ranging from traffic tickets to several grades of felonies. In many of the cases he was charges with the crime and only paid a fine or restitution even when he pleaded guilty of removable theft greater than $2500 which is a felony. 80 entries, many of them guilty pleas, and he is still on the street to commit more crimes. Who are these criminal judges protecting, us honest citizens or the criminals? It might be your right to vote, but it's also your right to choose not to. How about we vote in someone with a degree in common sense and not a law degree for a change?

Seeing as how the two candidates I think are qualified and best suited match with what the attorneys believe. That says a lot. Now my only decision is to chose between the two.

While the results of the poll are subjective it is important to consider the totality of the vote. 7 deem Mr McDonal Qualified and 62 unqualified-this tells me that irrespective of age that his professional peers believe the judicial temperament, imparitiality, legal ability, diligence, and reverence for the law is far below his competitors for this position.

Its an informal poll so take the results through a filter. It would be more helpful to the public at large if the RCBA chose to rate candidates as exceptionally well qualified, very well qualified, qualified, or unqualified. Professional experience, ability, resource management, in addition to judicial temperament and professional reputation are all important when considering who is best qualified to sit on the bench.

"Did you know that the youngest Wisconsin Supreme Court justice was 33 years old?" - Actually he was 28 (Charles Larrabee) and it was 1848, a little bit different time than today. 28 was middle age back then. Also, he had been practicing law for 7 years by then and had served as a delegate to the 1848 State Constitution convention.
From the campaign facebook page "Only candidate who will have been to law school and received a formal legal education in the past 20 years by the time the new judge will take office on August 1, 2012. " So the rest have at least 20 years law experience? Compared to 5 years?
Sorry, but "unqualified" to sit as a judge sounds about right to me.

I'm relieved that the Bar Association has seen fit to tell me how to vote. I will know enough, now, to vote the opposite. Thanks for the update.

It will be necessary to see some details on each candidates legal temperment before making a decision. The superfical articles so far have shed little light on that. That said, I can't help but smile a bit over this article. It was Tom McDonald who tried to stop my appointment to a city committee. He said I was unqualified during an open City Council session. His lashing out like that was rather unusual. I made it anyway and feel I have done a good job. Perhaps he was holding my age (65) against me.

If in fact Haakenson or Daniels get voted in then its the same old good ole boys in Janesville...now I am not saying thats bad...just what it is. I think we need a little more progressive goverment in Janesville, what worked before is nolonger possible and we need to progress. I think Bates was a great hire...now who can sit with him on the bench. I think its here, just need to hear more from them.

tmcdonald. I am torn here. I do agree the the old fellows have more life experiences and seen more than you have but I also agree those just out of school may have some fresher ideas. I think of this when I see a young Dr. It freaks me out a bit but like somebody said all those old Dr were young once too and sometimes older people get complacent(sp).
Give us your best ideas an we will see how it goes.
PLEASE canidates keep the BS about others out of it and tell me what are you going to do for us the people.

This headline is in poor taste. How about "McCrory On Top In Judges' Poll" or "Rock County Bar Conducts Poll" instead? Gandalf just proved the point that it is easy to sway readers with a negative headline. That is unfair.

So the Gazette doesn't like McDonald, eh? A purely subjective poll, and it makes the front page. Nice...this isn't news, this is trash talking.

This poll is nothing more than a good old boys club popularity contest. Atty. McDonald, my husband and I have watched you on City Council over the past fours years. We deem you qualified and you have our votes.

For those of you who feel it's too much work to do your own research into candidates for an elected office, then you can choose to take your cue from professional, political, union and trade groups. But the idea of a group of 100 people labeling people as qualified or unqualified to hold an elected office is elitist, at best, to me. All of the candidates meet the legal qualifications for being a judge. Good luck to all of the candidates.

I am leaning toward Tod Daniel. He seems to be an independent and logical thinker who is not afraid to tell it like it is.

I am going to vote for McCrory but not because of the BAR poll, although I basically agree with it.

"That's got to be a little embarassing! Maybe Mr. McDonald needs a little more experience before running for judge."

If Obama can be elected anyone can.....

I am not surprised by the results of the poll because age is the challenge that a younger person faces when trying to break sterotypes in running for office. While there will always be people who say someone is too young and unqualified for an elected leadership position, fortunately most people recognize the need for younger people and young professionals to be involved in the community, in organizations, and in government. For more information about my qualifications, here is a link to my facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tom-McDona...
-
Did you know that the youngest Wisconsin Supreme Court justice was 33 years old? Did you know that we have had judges right here in Rock County who began in their 30s?

That's got to be a little embarassing! Maybe Mr. McDonald needs a little more experience before running for judge.

The only purpose with this membership poll is a negative one. Way to trash your own comrades Rock County Bar Association! Lindau, you should be ashamed of leading such an effort!

Ahhh...dollar menu tonight...thanks.....

My vote will be for Mike Haakenson.