Judicial Appointments: Are We Capturing Interest from the Bar?

As of March 1, 2026, there are seven judicial vacancies in the British Columbia Supreme Court, according to the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs Canada.

In its 2024 Annual Report, the Supreme Court of British Columbia reported that the Court continued to struggle with having two few judges to meet the high demand for trials and long chambers. That year, 19.1% of all long chambers applications and 116 trials were bumped. The 2025 Annual Report has not yet been published.

I have taken this opportunity to canvas my colleagues about factors they consider important when deciding whether a judicial appointment is suitable for them. I interviewed eight lawyers, with years of call ranging from 2015 to 1982, including those in private and public practice, and those who work for non-profit organizations.

The Appeal of Public Service

When asked about their interest in a judicial appointment, members of the bar most often cited the opportunity to improve society as a motivating factor.

Linda Yang, a senior associate at Fulton & Company LLP, shared her enthusiasm about being able to “contribute to society in a very real way.”

The recurring theme is the ability to uphold the rule of law, serve the public, and bring care and craft to the decision-making process. Appointment to the bench is an opportunity for lawyers to address gaps in the areas of law they identify in their practice.

Matthew Ostrow, partner at Clark Wilson, summed this up, saying: “what’s appealing about the bench is the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the development of the law.”

Fears and Challenges

While members of the bar enjoy the intellectual rigour and public service aspects of a judicial appointment, they also shared factors that lead to their hesitation. Their reservations include:

1. The time and consideration required to understand and prepare a competitive application are significant, such as committing to extensive volunteer work within the community given existing constraints of already over-extended work and family obligations. However, one lawyer commented that there is value in reviewing a judicial application to reflect on one’s journey in the law.
2. While some commented on the appeal of engaging in intellectually rigorous and challenging work, others expressed a lack of interest or confidence in adjudicating on issues outside their preferred and/or specialized areas of practice. One lawyer raised the concern that the role of being an adjudicator may be more isolating than practice.
3. Given the current demand for judicial resources, most lawyers work the same, if not more, once they are appointed to the bench.
4. It would be challenging to adjust to a public-facing role, including to face criticisms of decisions in the media. Further, the reality of being subject to an exact ethical standard on a daily basis comes with the corresponding necessity to limit, change or moderate their social contacts, presence on social media and expression of personal views and opinions.
   
   Ms. Yang, while finding it meaningful to help resolve conflict, also reflected on whether she has “the stomach for the public-facing aspect of the role, especially when one’s decisions might be criticized or misstated in the public forum.”
5. Quality of life may be affected by the loss of autonomy (including having no control over one's calendar), the demanding workload, the required travel and the potential need to relocate to accept an appointment.
   
   Kaitlyn Meyer, partner at Allen McMillan, shared, “one of the best parts of my current role is the flexibility that comes with running a boutique firm with two other partners. This is especially helpful when my kids are young. Becoming a judge would be a dramatic shift in terms of in-person work, types of cases, and the amount of autonomy I have over my day to day.”

Compensation

Although some lawyers mentioned that the pension and long-term stability are meaningful factors on the issue of compensation, more commented on the fact that a judicial role would very likely mean a reduced income, especially for those in private practice.

This informal survey does not conclude that judicial compensation is not sufficient to attract talent. Rather, it does confirm that in the current context, the level of judicial compensation is not a primary motivating factor that encourages interest in an appointment to the bench.

The Decision to Apply

For members of the bar who are interested in a judicial appointment, the strongest motivators are their commitment to upholding the rule of law and to serving the community. In doing so, they may work more, be paid less, lose control over their schedule and be required to navigate public discourse about their judicial roles and decisions rendered.

Given the personal sacrifices that accompany a judicial appointment, lawyers who are interested may only decide to move forward with an application when they are prepared and ready to accept the commitments required of them.

While there has been public debate regarding the issue of judicial remuneration in recent years, it may be important to consider the quality of life challenges that are giving lawyers pause when deciding whether they wish to proceed with an application.