Just as an incompetent doctor with guts remains an incompetent doctor or an incompetent plumber with guts remains an incompetent plumber, so it is with an incompetent attorney with guts.
Our legal system is a cesspool of strutting peacocks more interested in patting themselves on the back for their brilliance than finding out what is the actual truth and seeking actual justice. Orly may be a poor attorney, but why must it require a good one to get justice? Why is our system more concerned with process and procedure than results?
An example of what I am talking about is the "exclusionary rule". One would be hard pressed to find a stupider and more counterproductive legal concept. Here we have a methodology that insures the maximum amount of injustice possible.
If a cop illegally searches and finds evidence of a crime, it cannot be admitted at trial. The court will cover it's eyes to the truth because it doesn't like how the facts were obtained. Not only does the Criminal get away with the crime, but the Cop gets away with the crime of illegal search! What ought to happen is evidence should be ALWAYS ADMITTED, no matter how it is obtained, but if evidence should be obtained illegally, those who committed the illegal act should be punished for committing THAT crime. How better to discourage violations of civil rights than by punishing those who commit them? It is the theory of deterrence upon which the REST of the Criminal Justice system operates, why should it not operate with the same consistency regarding crimes by the police?
My friend, I could go on and on about what is faulty with our legal system, but I think you either get the idea, or you don't, and either way it is not worth our time to beat it further. I think it is a tragedy that our system is so convoluted that it is an actual crap shoot as to whether or not it serves the cause of justice.