I'll give you an example. There are often times during litigation when you're trying to press the other side in some manner, either on a legal issue, or on discovery issue where you're trying to uncover information, etc.. Now normally, you'd think that the right thing to do is to push as hard as you can, and win every battle that you can. If the judge rules in your favor on those issues, that's great.
Except sometimes it isn't. Good lawyers will be aware of when they have taken an issue and pushed it to the point where it may become an issue for appeal. A classic example of this is what has happened with Trump. The prosecutors pushed for all sorts of very favorable rulings in that case, which the judge almost always granted. That was instrumental in getting them a conviction.
The problem is that some of those rulings were so excessive that they may well result in a reversal at some level. If that happens, Democrat lawyers will scream that it was unfair, and Republican lawyers will say it was fully justified. And if it doesn't, the reactions will flip. But the reality is whether or not those Democratic prosecutors were right to push that hard on all these issues won't be known until the appeal is final - 3-4 years after that case began.
So I don't see a way to come up with meaningful mile markers along the way that tell you for certain whether or not your approach is correct. Ultimately, it's just a lot of very nuanced judgment calls being made by people who hopefully have a great deal of experience.
Let me think on this. I think the immediate issue is that you are relying on the judgement calls of inherently fallible people, sometimes with motivations that go beyond the courtroom: Judges, Juries, all of them.
Perhaps I am in a profession which, easily as technical (or more so) than yours, gives me the luxury of hard evidence of success. A web server either works or it doesn’t. An API either enforces CORS policy and accepts JWT tokens or it doesn’t. It either returns results correctly or it doesn’t.
I still feel your profession could benefit from some of the Agile processes, particularly collaboration. That being said, let us return to the original discussion: Could Matt Gaetz function as an effective champion against the malicious prosecution (lawfare) evidenced in the last four years? I think he could. He could serve in the role as my Associate Director does, who doesn’t know much code. My Associate Director hired well, and Matt could certainly to that, appointing one of your experienced lawyers as the Project Manager, who reports the progress to Matt. Matt would rely on the judgement calls of his immediate underling, while stressing the desired outcome: Reversal of Lawfare, creation of hard steps to avoid its repetition, and disassembling current Malicious Prosecution efforts.
I’m starting to sense that your profession is far more similar to sales, than computers.
Sales cannot benefit from all of Agile, but it can benefit from some of it.
I actually considered law as a profession, and have been told by other lawyers that I would actually be good at it. However, I’m kinda glad I chose the path I chose. Could I have made more money? Sure. I get far more job satisfaction in on my path, though.
If Artificial Intelligence advances sufficiently, it could serve as a GENUINELY impartial judge.
Then your profession could evolve to something a lot less iffy, a lot less ‘judgement call-y’.
I’m actually enjoying this exchange of thoughts about our respective professions. I sense you are, too. 😊😊