The Bar feedback raises two interesting and separate questions:

1. What would be the best mechanism to ensure public review and accountability of the judiciary? Even assuming that the Bar review is conducted in a methodical manner, it still raises a question as to whether it is the Bar that should review the Bench. Beyond the questions of biases and corruption (which are not obsolete), I would say there's a problem with a review coming from an inner group of "repeat players" in the judicial game, but it is still a valuable tool. A friend of mine thinks perhaps an independent board would be a better accountability mechanism; I really don't know which is better.

2. Even acknowledging that a Bar report is not a perfect tool for review, why is the judiciary so vocal in asking that it not be published? Does freedom of speech stop at the judiciary? On one hand, there are good reasons why the judiciary should not be democratic or elected according to "vox populi"; many civil rights would not be in existence if we didn't have the courts to count on. On the other hand, doesn't this vocal dissent make the judiciary appear panicked and highlight its impaired ability to handle any kind of criticism?