In New York State - the jurisdiction of my permanent residence and of my primary legal qualification - the automatic exemption from jury duty for lawyers and judges was eliminated more than a decade ago.

Without fail, every time I am called for jury duty, I spend a week sitting in a central jury room in Kings County but am never selected to sit on a jury.

While I have been called as part of a group from central jury as a prospective juror, I am summarily excused once it is discovered that I am a lawyer.

My father, a retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, has had identical experiences when called for jury duty.

And it should be no surprise that lawyers and judges never actually sit on juries.

What trial lawyer in his right mind would want a judge or another lawyer on a jury, second-guessing the court's rulings or its disposition of evidentiary objections from counsel?

But calling lawyers and judges for jury duty serves one purpose.

It wastes the lawyers' and judges' time without valid excuse.

Several times my clients unnecessarily have had to postpone their affairs for a week while I 'served' jury duty.

My father kept a jury of 12 sequestered on a murder case for a week while he too 'served'.

It is obvious that there is no real benefit from this change and the arguments in its favour are unpersuasive.

Lawyers and judges are not, in and of themselves, ethnic, social, cultural or religious minorities - and their inclusion in the jury pool will not advance a wider cross-section of society.

Moreover, commercial lawyers will gain nothing getting a taste of the criminal justice system - it simply teaches them nothing about their practice.

Jonathan Fuchs, attorney, New York, US