Judges
Judges attain their positions through a wide variety of methods that differ significantly by country, legal tradition (common law, civil, religious, or mixed), and sometimes by the level of the court (local, regional, supreme/constitutional). Below is an overview of the most common systems used around the world.
- Career Judiciary (Civil-Law Tradition)
This is the dominant model in most of continental Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Turkey), Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and many former French and Spanish colonies.
Candidates typically graduate from law school and then pass a highly competitive national or regional judicial entrance examination.
Successful candidates enter a judicial academy or receive specialized training (often 1–3 years).
They begin their careers as junior judges or investigating magistrates and are promoted over decades based on performance evaluations, seniority, and sometimes exams.
Higher-court judges (courts of appeal, supreme courts, constitutional courts) are usually chosen from the most experienced career judges by a judicial council, the minister of justice, or parliament.
Judges are considered civil servants with lifetime tenure (until mandatory retirement, usually 65–75) and are expected to be politically neutral.
- Appointment by the Executive or Legislature (Common in Common-Law and Some Mixed Systems)
Used in many English-speaking countries and former British colonies.
United States (federal and most state judges)
Federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (lifetime appointment). In about 39 states, supreme court and major trial court judges are popularly elected (either partisan or non-partisan elections).
In the remaining states, governors appoint judges from a shortlist prepared by a non-partisan nominating commission (“merit selection” or Missouri Plan), often followed by retention elections.
Canada
Federal and provincial superior court judges are appointed by the federal or provincial cabinets from experienced lawyers (minimum 10 years at the bar).
United Kingdom (England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland has a slightly different system)
Most judges are now appointed by an independent Judicial Appointments Commission from practicing barristers/solicitors with sufficient experience.
The most senior judges (Supreme Court, Lord Chief Justice, Heads of Division) are recommended by a special selection commission and formally appointed by the monarch on advice of the Prime Minister.
Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Ireland
Judges are appointed by the executive (governor-general, president, or cabinet) on the advice of the attorney-general or judicial service commission, almost always from senior practicing lawyers.
- Election of Judges
Primarily a distinctive feature of the United States and a few other places.
In 22 U.S. states, supreme court justices run in partisan elections; in others non-partisan.
Many trial judges are also elected.
Switzerland: most cantonal judges and even some federal judges are elected by the cantonal or federal parliament (often with strong party influence).
Bolivia and some Japanese prefectural summary court judges are elected.
Historically, some Eastern European countries experimented with elected judges after 1989, but most have abandoned the practice.
- Selection by Judicial Councils or Independent Commissions
Increasingly popular reform model (to reduce political influence).
France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Romania, and most Latin American countries now have powerful National Councils of the Judiciary or Magistracy (composed of judges, lawyers, academics) that propose or appoint judges.
The council may be fully independent or have members appointed by parliament, the executive, and the judiciary in varying proportions.
- Constitutional and Supreme Court Judges – Special Procedures
Almost every country has a distinct, more political process for the highest courts:
Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Spain: constitutional court judges are elected by parliament (often requiring supermajorities) or split between chambers and political bodies.
France: members of the Constitutional Council are appointed by the President of the Republic, the presidents of the two parliamentary chambers, and former presidents have ex-officio seats.
Brazil: Supreme Federal Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; one-third must come from career judges, one-third from prosecutors, one-third from practicing lawyers.
- Religious and Traditional Courts
Islamic law (Sharia) courts in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan (under Taliban), parts of Nigeria, Malaysia, etc.: judges (qadis) are usually appointed by the religious or royal authority after religious training.
Some customary or tribal courts in Africa, Pacific islands, and indigenous communities in Latin America: leaders or elders may be recognized or appointed by the community or state.
- Hybrid and Transitional Systems
Countries that have moved from socialist to democratic systems (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Baltic states, many Balkan countries) often combine career judiciaries for lower courts with parliamentary election or mixed appointment for constitutional courts.
In summary, the two broadest global patterns are:
the European/Asian/Latin American “career judiciary” model (enter young after exams, rise through ranks),
the Anglo-American “appointment from experienced lawyers” model (often with political input or elections).
Most modern democracies have introduced independent judicial councils or commissions in recent decades to try to insulate judicial selection from raw partisan politics, with varying degrees of success.
Only ~15–20 countries have any form of popular election for judges.
The United States is the extreme outlier: 87% of state judges face some form of election (partisan, non-partisan, or retention).
Japan: Supreme Court justices face retention referendum (but always retained).
Switzerland: Cantonal judges often elected by parliament or popularly in a few cantons.
Bolivia: High court judges elected by popular vote since 2009 (unique in the world).
Prosecutors
Prosecutors (also called public prosecutors, state prosecutors, crown prosecutors, district attorneys, or procurators depending on the country) play the central role in representing the state or the public interest in criminal cases. The way they attain their positions varies enormously across the world, reflecting different legal traditions—primarily the common law system (Anglo-American) versus the civil law/inquisitorial system (continental Europe, Latin America, East Asia, etc.), as well as federal versus unitary states and political cultures. Below is a comprehensive overview in written form, grouped by major legal traditions and regions.
Common Law Countries (Anglo-American tradition)
In most common law jurisdictions, prosecutors are either elected or politically appointed rather than entering through a neutral career judiciary/prosecution service.
United States
The vast majority of prosecutors who handle felony cases are locally elected. In 45 of the 50 states, the chief prosecutor for each county or prosecutorial district (usually called the District Attorney or State’s Attorney) is directly elected by popular vote, typically in partisan elections, for a fixed term (usually 4 years). Voters choose them in the same way they choose sheriffs or judges in many states. In a few states (Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia), the chief prosecutors are appointed by the governor or attorney general. Federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys) are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice) is also a presidential cabinet appointee. Assistant district attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys are hired as regular employees by the elected or appointed chief.
The United States is almost unique in treating prosecutors as politically accountable executive officials. Approximately 85% of prosecutors are elected.
England and Wales
Prosecutors belong to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), a national, non-ministerial public body created in 1986. The head of the CPS, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), is appointed by the Attorney General (a political appointee). Individual Crown Prosecutors are career civil servants recruited through open competitive examinations and interview processes; most are qualified barristers or solicitors with several years of post-qualification experience. They are not elected and are expected to be politically neutral.
Canada
Federal and provincial Crown counsel are appointed. The Attorney General of Canada and provincial Attorneys General (who are elected politicians and cabinet ministers) oversee prosecution services, but day-to-day prosecutors are hired through merit-based competitions as public servants and enjoy considerable independence.
Australia
Each state and territory has its own Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP is usually appointed by the state Attorney-General for a fixed (often 7–10 year) non-renewable term after a merit-based selection process. Individual prosecutors are career public servants recruited competitively.
New Zealand and Ireland
Similar to England: career prosecutors in a Crown Prosecution office, appointed through merit, not elected.
Civil Law / Inquisitorial Systems (most of continental Europe, Latin America, East Asia, etc.)
In civil law countries, prosecutors are typically career magistrates or judicial officials who belong to a professional prosecution service that is parallel to the judiciary. They are almost never elected and rarely directly appointed by politicians.
France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal and most civil-law European countries
Prosecutors (procureurs, pubblici ministeri, ministerio público, etc.) are career magistrates. Candidates must graduate in law, pass a highly competitive national entrance examination (concours), and then attend a national judicial/prosecutorial training school (e.g., École Nationale de la Magistrature in France) for 2–3 years. After training, new magistrates may be assigned either as investigating judges, trial judges, or prosecutors. Promotions are handled by an independent or semi-independent judicial council. The Minister of Justice has hierarchical authority over prosecutors but cannot usually pick individuals personally.
Germany
Prosecutors (Staatsanwälte) are career civil servants within the justice ministry of each Land (state). Candidates must complete full legal education (two state examinations), then apply and be appointed as civil servants. They are not judges, but enjoy similar status and independence guarantees. The head prosecutor of each office is appointed by the state Minister of Justice.
Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and most Central/Eastern European post-communist countries
Similar career prosecution service. Entry is by competitive examination and/or interview after legal education; independence varies (in some countries the Minister of Justice or Prosecutor General retains significant influence over appointments and discipline).
Russia and most former Soviet states
Prosecutors belong to a highly hierarchical, centralized Procuracy. Entry is through university law degree plus competitive appointment. The Prosecutor General is appointed by the President with consent of the upper house; lower prosecutors are appointed through the hierarchy.
China
People’s Procurators are appointed through the civil-service examination system and party vetting. The chief procurator of each level is elected by the corresponding People’s Congress, but in practice nominated by the Communist Party.
Japan and South Korea
Prosecutors are elite career officials. In Japan, candidates must pass one of the world’s most difficult legal examinations, then undergo training at the Legal Training and Research Institute; graduates may choose to become judges, prosecutors, or private attorneys. Prosecutors are appointed by the cabinet from this pool and enjoy very high status and independence.
Turkey
Prosecutors are career judicial officers who enter through a competitive examination and training similar to judges, but recent reforms have increased political influence over appointments.
Latin America
Most countries follow the civil-law model with career prosecutors (ministerio pĂşblico or fiscalĂa), but the degree of independence varies widely:
Mexico, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, etc. (post-2000s reforms)
Many have moved toward more autonomous Public Prosecutor’s Offices (FiscalĂa General) with the chief prosecutor elected by a supermajority in the legislature or appointed for a long non-renewable term to reduce political interference.
Brazil
Federal and state prosecutors (Ministério Público) enter through extremely competitive public examinations and enjoy life tenure and strong constitutional independence.
Argentina
Prosecutors are career officials, but the Attorney General (Procurador General) is appointed by the President with Senate approval.
Other Systems
Scotland
Unique hybrid: the Lord Advocate (head of the prosecution service) is a political appointee of the Scottish Government, but individual procurators fiscal are career civil servants.
Israel
State attorneys are career civil servants recruited competitively; the Attorney General is appointed by the government on recommendation of a professional committee.
India
Public prosecutors are appointed by state governments, often from panels of private advocates or from a cadre of assistant public prosecutors recruited through examinations.
Islamic law countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran)
Prosecutors are usually appointed by the executive or religious authorities and are part of the ministry of justice or a religious judiciary.
In summary, the world is roughly divided between (1) common-law countries where local prosecutors are frequently elected (especially the United States) or politically appointed, and (2) civil-law countries where prosecutors are almost always career magistrates or civil servants who enter through competitive examinations and enjoy varying degrees of independence from the political branches. Hybrid and transitional systems exist in many places, especially in Latin America and post-communist states that have tried to strengthen prosecutorial independence in recent decades.
Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys
Appointed defense attorneys—those who represent criminal defendants who cannot afford a private lawyer—are commonly known as public defenders, court-appointed counsel, legal aid lawyers, or duty counsel, depending on the country. The methods by which they obtain their positions and are assigned to cases vary enormously across jurisdictions. Below is an overview of the main systems used around the world.
In countries with a dedicated public defender system (the most structured and professionalized model), a government-funded public defender office employs full-time salaried lawyers whose sole or primary job is to represent indigent defendants. This is the dominant model in:
Most of the United States (all 50 states now have some form of public defender office, though 80–90 % of cases in rural areas still rely on appointed private attorneys)
Brazil (Defensoria PĂşblica, a constitutionally independent institution with career public defenders recruited through highly competitive public examinations)
Canada (each province funds legal aid agencies such as Legal Aid Ontario or the Commission des services juridiques in Quebec that employ staff lawyers and also contract with private bar members)
South Africa (Legal Aid South Africa employs salaried public defenders and also uses “judicare” private attorneys)
Taiwan (the Legal Aid Foundation and public defender offices in each district court)
Parts of Australia (Legal Aid Commissions in each state/territory employ staff lawyers)
Scotland (Scottish Legal Aid Board employs public defenders in several Public Defence Solicitors’ Offices)
Some European countries on a limited or experimental basis (e.g., Finland, the Netherlands, and Poland have public defender offices in certain cities)
Entry into these offices almost always requires passing the normal bar admission process and then applying or taking a separate civil-service or public examination, followed by interviews and background checks.
Many countries instead (or additionally) use an appointed private attorney system, in which judges or court administrators maintain lists of private practitioners who are willing to accept court appointments for indigent defendants. The private lawyer is then paid by the state, usually at a statutory or regulated hourly or flat-fee rate that is almost universally lower than normal private rates. This model predominates in:
Most continental European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, etc.) – lawyers voluntarily register on duty rosters (“ex officio” or “oficio” appointments); younger lawyers are often required to accept a certain number of appointments as a professional obligation
England and Wales (until recently the main system; now supplemented by the Public Defender Service)
Most U.S. rural counties and some states that lack full-time public defender offices
Japan (under the court-appointed counsel system run by the Japan Legal Support Center and local bar associations)
India (legal aid panels maintained by state legal services authorities and district committees)
Most Latin American countries that do not have strong public defender institutions (Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Peru, etc.)
Most African and Asian countries that provide any indigent defense at all
Attorneys typically get on these lists by applying to the court, the local bar association, or a legal aid authority, meeting minimum experience requirements (often 3–7 years of criminal practice), completing training, and agreeing to the payment rates.
A hybrid model combining salaried public defenders with appointed private counsel is increasingly common. For example:
Many U.S. states use public defender offices in urban areas but appointed private counsel in rural areas
Ontario and British Columbia in Canada use staff lawyers for the bulk of cases but issue “certificates” to private bar members for conflicts or overload
New Zealand uses both Public Defence Service salaried lawyers and private providers on roster
In some jurisdictions, especially post-Soviet and some developing countries, the local bar association itself assigns cases on a rota basis to all its members, sometimes with little or no extra compensation (e.g., Russia, Ukraine, Georgia until recent reforms, many francophone African countries).
A few countries still rely heavily on law students, paralegals, or university legal clinics supervised by professors (Chile until the 2000s, South Korea for minor cases, many Central American countries).
Compensation varies dramatically:
Salaried public defenders receive normal civil-service or professional salaries plus benefits
Appointed private counsel are paid hourly (US$50–180/hour in the U.S., €50–120 in Europe), flat fees per case (often very low in the U.S. and developing countries), or sometimes nothing at all (in some countries it is considered a pro bono professional duty)
In summary, there is no single worldwide model. The most professionalized and independent systems tend to be salaried public defender offices recruited through open competition, while the majority of countries still rely primarily on private attorneys who volunteer or are required to accept appointments from court or bar lists for modest or token compensation.