Interessante artigo do Roberto Macedo no Estadão. Ele cita livro de Doris M. Provine, que estuda cuidadosamente o assunto nos EUA:
"Must judges be trained as lawyers in order to be effective in office, or can nonlawyers serve equally well? This question has long provoked controversy among lawyers, judges, legislators, and the public. In her empirical study of the place of the nonlawyer judge in the American legal system, Doris Marie Provine concludes that, despite the opposition of the legal profession to nonlawyer judges, they are as competent as lawyers in carrying out judicial duties in courts of limited jurisdiction.
Provine presents a persuasive argument that the case against nonlawyer judges has been weighted in favor of the professional interests of lawyers, not public concerns. Her examination reveals as much about the presuppositions of legal professionals as it does about the competency of nonlawyer judges to old judicial office."
Curioso é o argumento de Provine de que o caso contra juízes "não-advogados" diz mais respeito aos interesses profissionais de advogados do que aos interesses do público em geral. Estendendo o problema ao Brasil, não seria o caso do sistema de proteção à concorrência (CADE, SDE e SEAE) começar a questionar certos monopólios profissionais?