3 ms·

That's the nature of the adversarial system, and the argument (which I agree with) is that it's better to to avoid the idea that there is only one "truth", or a

That's the nature of the adversarial system, and the argument (which I agree with) is that it's better to to avoid the idea that there is only one "truth", or at least to defer winnowing down what constitutes "truth" until after all sides have made the case for their own "truth".

jacquesm 5y ago
I've seen enough lawsuits up close to know for a fact that the truth rarely comes out during a lawsuit. What does happen is that (1) either party's lawyer has incomplete understanding of the case, (2) either party runs out of money before the case concludes, (3) either party folds because the other party can afford to endlessly extend the case and (4) either party settles because the cost of the lawsuit exceeds the settlement. I've seen cases won that should have been lost and vice-versa if it depended on the truth. When you go to court it's alway a crap-shoot, no matter how sure you are of your case going in. This is something people with iron clad faith in the legal system should realize. Courts are at best an amplifier of who has the most money to throw at a particular lawsuit, unless both parties are equally matched and are willing to take it all the way to the highest court the courts are not a fair and level playing field. Rather the opposite.
- rectang 5y ago
  /me nodding vigorously in agreement The question in my mind is what a system would look like where lawyers were legally bound to serve "truth" in some way above and beyond their current ethical obligations. The question immediately arises, who is the arbiter of that "truth"? What got me on this question was this passage from the root: > If lawyers cared about the truth then there wouldn't be any lawsuits, just mediation and settlements out of court. But court system rot doesn't begin from the personal moral failings of individual lawyers (except insofar as they choose to participate). The litigants — primarily powerful commercial entities — create an inexorable demand for an unlevel playing field.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Agree that the litigants are a huge part of the problem, but an ethical lawyer would refuse to take an un-ethical case. But the reverse happens, un-ethical laywers goad their customers into suing because they can win the wrong case just as easily as they could lose a right one. For them it's always a plus.

jacquesm 5y ago

I've seen enough lawsuits up close to know for a fact that the truth rarely comes out during a lawsuit. What does happen is that (1) either party's lawyer has incomplete understanding of the case, (2) either party runs out of money before the case concludes, (3) either party folds because the other party can afford to endlessly extend the case and (4) either party settles because the cost of the lawsuit exceeds the settlement. I've seen cases won that should have been lost and vice-versa if it depended on the truth. When you go to court it's alway a crap-shoot, no matter how sure you are of your case going in. This is something people with iron clad faith in the legal system should realize. Courts are at best an amplifier of who has the most money to throw at a particular lawsuit, unless both parties are equally matched and are willing to take it all the way to the highest court the courts are not a fair and level playing field. Rather the opposite.

rectang 5y ago
/me nodding vigorously in agreement The question in my mind is what a system would look like where lawyers were legally bound to serve "truth" in some way above and beyond their current ethical obligations. The question immediately arises, who is the arbiter of that "truth"? What got me on this question was this passage from the root: > If lawyers cared about the truth then there wouldn't be any lawsuits, just mediation and settlements out of court. But court system rot doesn't begin from the personal moral failings of individual lawyers (except insofar as they choose to participate). The litigants — primarily powerful commercial entities — create an inexorable demand for an unlevel playing field.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Agree that the litigants are a huge part of the problem, but an ethical lawyer would refuse to take an un-ethical case. But the reverse happens, un-ethical laywers goad their customers into suing because they can win the wrong case just as easily as they could lose a right one. For them it's always a plus.