Ehh, I went to law school and spent some time in biglaw, and interned for a state court judge in CA, did internships, etc--I want to agree with much of what you

Ehh, I went to law school and spent some time in biglaw, and interned for a state court judge in CA, did internships, etc--I want to agree with much of what you say, but you're being too cynical I think. > Trust me on this, "justice" is somewhere down its list of priorities; it cares more for tradition, ritual, and form. I think is somewhat true, and is a generally applicable criticism of law and lawyers. I don't think values like justice are far down their list of priorities, but I think tradition etc. are just given too much weight. Lawyers constitute a tribe and collective which takes itself too seriously, at the end of the day, and don't value self-correction and improvement enough. There are plenty of noble-minded judges. The reason why litigation becomes expensive, and thus poses fairness issues, is a multi-faceted problem that boils down to a lot of boring things. Most people in law haven't had what I would consider a real job, and the culture of law is too obsequious and deferential for people to understand that the way lawyers have been doing things is usually stupid. They don't have a culture of thinking about how they work, and their personality types are very geared towards external validation, which means they will do things very stupidly if they get accolades and very meager financial bonuses for it, and they mistake such things as markers of actual progress and productivity. I could go on, and I reckon you have more experience in law than I do (I have been a software engineer for longer than I worked at law firm), but I think at the end of the day, I would remind you and others reading of the adage that one should not jump too quickly to ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.