Replies

You have to pass the bar exams to represent clients in court.

That is what needs to be changed. There is no need to make going to a court a tedious process. Anyone should be able to represent anyone else as long as they have an agreement and the filing process should be simple: you should have a form to state your complaint, a page where they ask for facts and evidence with ability to attach additional pages and that should be it.

Precedents should be the judge's job and should be optional for the person filing the complaint.

Why should filing complaint in a court not be similar to filing a complaint at the DoJ's office?

In reality, judges are corrupt and when people go to courts expecting justice, the judges come up with frivolous technicalities to not take up the case on its merit. Many times, these are appealable but the plaintiff gives up because of the amount of money already lost.

Lawyers for their part ARE BAD for the most part. When a plaintiff files a case, the plaintiff learns the process and is the one who is usually the most well versed in facts, law and the precedents.

The whole system is set up to benefit lawyers and to some extent the judges.

Precedents should be the judge's job and should be optional for the person filing the complaint.

So the plaintiff should be able to choose which law applies to his case? I'd hate to be a defendant in that system.

In reality, judges are corrupt and when people go to courts expecting justice, the judges come up with frivolous technicalities to not take up the case on its merit.

Have any real-life examples? After all, a lot of people say little things like the 4th Amendment are "frivolous technicalities".

Many times, these are appealable but the plaintiff gives up because of the amount of money already lost.

So you think the system is skewed against plaintiffs? That sure makes the whole push for tort reform a head-scratcher.