"You can’t strike people because they’re prejudiced, or because you think they are. You’re stuck with them, and they’ll be passing judgment on your client — on your ideas and ideals that you are arguing for."
"Good lawyers don’t deplore their judges and jurors. Partly that’s because they don’t want to alienate the people who will be passing judgment on them. Deploring obviously turns off the deplored."
I wonder whether the professor has heard of litigants' right to an impartial court review.
And that that constitutional right must be secured with the right to be able to disqualify the judge for impropriety, bias or even an appearance of impropriety or bias.
And, to disqualify a judge, the judge must necessarily be criticized.
And, that it is the DUTY of the lawyer to secure his or her client's right to impartial judicial review.
And that the judge must recuse if he is not impartial, and the judge is not impartial if he feels he is "alienated" by the lawyer's criticism.
In other words, Professor Volokh recognizes that there is no such thing as presumption of integrity of judges and their presumptive ability to control themselves and not retaliate for personal reasons, specifically, because the lawyer criticized the judge.
And advises lawyers not to do their jobs and not to criticize judges under any circumstances - because that's not what "good lawyers" do.
So, "good lawyers" do not do their duty by their clients when their right to impartial judicial review is at stake.
Such a pronouncement says a lot - to consumers of legal services - about the state of the legal profession, and how law students are taught and prepared for the courtroom.
And such instruction does not inspire confidence in competence or integrity of lawyers, and in necessity of attorney regulation - the whole purpose of which is to protect consumers from incompetent and dishonest attorneys.