Jian Ghomeshi is not out of the woods yet. He still faces another criminal trial for sexual assault later this year.

But his acquittal last week on four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking to overcome resistance marked a major legal victory.

Last night, his lawyer, Marie Henein, granted an interview to CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge. She made the case that those charged with criminal offences are permanently changed by the experience, even if they're found not guilty.

Henein also talked about how difficult it is for an accused person who's facing the overwhelming power of the state.

Today, the Toronto-based Canadaland website reported that the judge who delivered the Ghomeshi verdict, William Horkins, has a son with a professional connection to a sibling of Henein.

Horkins' son Chris is an associate at the law firm Cassels Brock, working in the advocacy group with about 39 other lawyers.

According to Canadaland, a Cassels Brock partner with this advocacy group is Peter Henein, the brother of Ghomeshi's lawyer. Peter Henein, Chris Horkins, and a third Cassels Brock lawyer attended a conference in New Orleans last year, Canadaland reported.

The Canadaland revelation has generated discussion over Twitter (as does almost anything Ghomeshi-related, these days). But no evidence has been presented that this in any way could have influenced the judge. Nor is there any evidence that the defence tried to get Ghomeshi in front of Horkins.

Lawyers are officers of the court and in that role there are certain duties, including acting with integrity and professionalism.

I'm under the impression that it's difficult for criminal-defence lawyers to engage in "judge shopping", which involves trying to get a client before a sympathetic judge.

In fact, this view was borne out in a 2002 Supreme Court of Canada ruling dismissing an appeal by former Nova Scotia premier Gerald Regan on sex charges.

At the heart of the case was whether the Crown tried to influence the outcome by timing the charges to avoid having Regan appear before a sympathetic judge.

The majority in this Supreme Court of Canada case ruled: "only the Crown has the power to influence which judge will hear its case by manipulating the timing of the laying of the charge".

"Even if this advantage was not ultimately exploited, it must be reasserted that judge shopping is unacceptable both because of its unfairness to the accused, and because it tarnishes the reputation of the justice system," the majority declared. "Furthermore, it should not infect the investigative process by involving police in a conspiracy to manipulate the process."

Regan was represented at the Supreme Court of Canada by the law firm of Greenspan, Henein & White, where Marie Henein worked at the time.

Judge shopping by the Crown was also condemned in a 2001 B.C. Supreme Court ruling involving former premier Glen Clark and Dimitrios Pilarinos.

However, an article on the Canadian Justice Review Board website asserted that defence lawyers in Ontario have engaged in judge shopping to avoid having a "victim surcharge" imposed on their poor clients. The article offered no explanation about how this could have occurred.

It's worth repeating: there's zero evidence that any judge shopping occurred before the Ghomeshi trial.