# What kind of judges do we want? (_An earlier Portuguese [version](https://exame.com/colunistas/instituto-millenium/que-juizes-queremos-reflexoes-sobre-o-exame-nacional-da-magistratura/) of this text appeared on October 24, 2023, in Instituto Millenium’s column for Exame magazine_) Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, newly appointed [[Brazilian Judiciary|President of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the National Council of Justice (CNJ)]], recently announced the creation of the National Judiciary Examination. This examination was described as a mandatory, pre-certification process for candidates applying to judicial selection exams across Brazil. It is envisioned as a unifying mechanism for the preliminary selection of judges, while subsequent selection exams will continue to be autonomously conducted by individual courts. At first glance, this initiative seems like a step toward optimizing judicial selection processes. It could serve as a filter to save resources and streamline subsequent selection stages by narrowing the candidate pool to a pre-screened group. [As I discussed previously](obsidian://open?vault=leiterafaelo.website&file=blog%2Fposts%2F2023-10-06%20Challenges%20of%20Brazil%E2%80%99s%20'Unified%20Civil%20Service%20Exam'), this appears to be a sound approach, balancing efficiency with precision and centralization with decentralization. However, it is crucial to examine the foundations of Barroso’s proposal. The idea has been put forward without prior public dialogue or robust studies, making this the opportune moment to refine the proposal. The way we select judges profoundly affects the dynamics of our democracy and should therefore be approached with great care. Given the [[Court Administration|expanding powers and responsibilities of the judiciary]], determining who becomes a judge has become a strategic issue. Available information suggests that the examination's implementation would coincide with efforts to enhance racial and ethnic diversity within the judiciary, such as scholarship programs to prepare Black and mixed-race candidates. While equity in racial representation is commendable, diversity in the judiciary (and public service at large) must extend beyond race. It should prioritize cognitive diversity, ensuring the recruitment of judges with varied professional and life experiences and a diverse range of skills and attitudes. In Brazil, many judges begin their judicial careers at a young age and remain in the profession for their entire careers. This limits the diversity of experiences that could enrich judicial performance. For instance, a judge with prior experience in the private sector, civil society organizations, public agencies, or multilateral institutions might bring a more nuanced perspective to the cases they adjudicate. Imagine the value added if a judge had firsthand experience working with public policies before taking the bench. Such practical knowledge could lead to more informed decisions on complex issues like resource allocation. In recent years, Brazil has strengthened a meritocratic system of access to public service through objective, impersonal selection exams. This is a significant achievement deserving recognition. However, while these exams have advanced professional recruitment, we still face the challenge of reconciling meritocracy with other core public management values. The growing emphasis on diversity has questioned traditional notions of merit. However, it is equally critical to consider factors like motivation, vocation, political neutrality, and especially the alignment between candidates’ skills and the demands of public service. How the National Judiciary Examination can address these issues remains uncertain based on currently available details. Looking beyond Brazil, international experiences offer multiple perspectives to enrich this debate. Holistic evaluation mechanisms for judicial candidates are adopted in advanced democracies and could serve as valuable references. In the [Netherlands](https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Judicial-reform-2015-compleet.pdf), judicial selection involves intelligence tests assessing abstract thinking, verbal analogies, and linguistic competence with high predictive validity. Communicative, social, and professional skills are also assessed through interviews, but the most valuable tool is a one-day assessment that evaluates a wide range of skills through group activities and simulations. Tests are also conducted to identify problematic personality traits, such as addictions or psychiatric disorders, as well as integrity tests based on moral dilemmas rather than interviews, which might elicit socially desirable responses. Consider Norway and Denmark, where the judiciary includes positions known as "_[Dommerfullmektig](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dommerfullmektig)_." In these Nordic countries, young lawyers are temporarily recruited to serve as judges under the supervision of experienced judges. This innovative approach aims to attract new talent with diverse skills while offering professionals practical experience to assess whether they wish to pursue a judicial career. France provides yet another model with a diversified approach to judicial recruitment. Multiple entry paths exist, with different types of public examinations tailored to various candidate profiles, from recent graduates to seasoned professionals in the private sector or other public service careers. In addition to public exams, the French system allows lateral entry into the judiciary. One example is the _détachement judiciaire,_ which permits public servants and university faculty to serve in the judiciary for a non-renewable five-year term, enriching decision-making with expertise from various fields. Another promising strategy would involve "secondment" mechanisms, temporarily assigning judges to other organizations domestically or abroad to gain new insights and perspectives. Imagine judges temporarily serving in the judiciaries of countries with innovative legal approaches, then returning to implement those innovations in Brazil. With the growing influence of algorithms and AI in decision-making, programs assigning judges to startups, tech companies, think tanks, and other cutting-edge institutions would hold great value. An alternative approach could emphasize the continuous training of sitting judges by integrating external collaborators. The CNJ could establish a Judicial Transformation Fellowship, bringing technologists and service designers into the courts to improve judicial administration, transparency, and access to justice. This strategy could insert professionals in advanced career stages into "temporary missions" within the judiciary, enhancing the quality of justice in Brazil. [Evidence suggests](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.13446) that professionalizing public service positively influences institutions: integrating new talent into the judiciary fosters capacity building and the improvement of existing professionals. Analyzing global judicial recruitment practices reveals the importance of diversifying approaches. Strong institutions are forged from a wealth of experiences and perspectives. Whether through temporary measures like _Dommerfullmektig_ or more flexible systems like those in France, diversifying recruitment approaches is not just desirable - it is essential. The careful selection of judges is fundamental to the integrity of justice. Minister Barroso’s proposal, under his leadership of the STF and CNJ, introduces fresh perspectives. However, while the National Judiciary Examination is a welcome innovation, it should be seen as a complement rather than the sole solution in the ongoing debate about improving Brazil’s judiciary. Other equally valuable suggestions deserve consideration in an open dialogue about the ideal profile of judges for Brazil’s future. Only through thorough and participatory analysis can we build a judiciary that is not only fair but also plural, dynamic and innovative.