There is nothing unbiased about having a judicial philosophy. "Bias" means you unfairly favor one party in a particular case over the other. Lack of bias does not require that you approach each case as a tabula rasa.

For example, I imagine lots of people on this website would be happy if a judge took an expansive view of the 4th amendment and asserted that was important for courts to strengthen 4th amendment protections. And that would be totally okay.

In the theoretical world where ethics is as it is on the bar exam: Maybe? Hard to say, you'd probably need a bit more facts. i'm sure with enough data from speeches he has given, yes.

However, In the real world, where manufacturing evidence against people gets you nothing, or repeatedly encouraging clients to lie under oath, and helping them, gets you suspended for 9 months (http://overlawyered.com/2013/05/n-y-p-i-lawyers-are-suspende...), no, it would not make any difference.

(I agree, btw, that maryland would have disbarred those guys. I'm licensed there, and it's one of the few states that takes ethical obligations seriously)