3 ms·
This is also a failure to build. We just accept it as a given that courts take too long, judges are too lazy to get their opinions out in a timely manner and th
by baryphonic 7y ago
This is also a failure to build. We just accept it as a given that courts take too long, judges are too lazy to get their opinions out in a timely manner and the legal profession too often gets fat fees for slow-walking legal proceedings when technology exists to make expeditious dispute resolution much faster. For example, I can think of no reason why we can't mandate that discovery must use electronic format unless the information was never before recorded in an online electronic system. Given that I have never seen a functioning typewriter in a corporate office, I imagine that would smooth things a bit.
Also, just as a matter of how the US legal system works, the presumption is that someone is innocent until challenged, whether by the state or by a private party. A prospective business could not file a petition with a court asking if their conduct was legal or not, since it's not really a controversy. But businesses will always do loads of due diligence with lawyers beforehand, who should help identify areas of legal risk.
- Animats 7y agoRead "Why Courts Don't Work" by Richard Neeley, who used to be chief justice of the West Virginia supreme court. Courts don't work because a lot of people don't want them to work. If you could get a judgement in a week in a minor labor case, employers would have to obey labor law, for example.
- pmarca 7y agoSee also https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Matters-Rescuing-system-twenty-first/dp/0963865412/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=roberta+katz&qid=1587267484&sr=8-5 https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Matters-Rescuing-system-twent...
- watwut 7y ago> We just accept it as a given that courts take too long, judges are too lazy to get their opinions out in a timely manner Is it being lazy or rather having tons of work that needs to be done too?