PRO SE PMA Forum - By using our website and services, you confirm your understanding of and agreement to our Terms of Service.

The Predictability of the Court System
Maintaining Legitimacy and Order in the Law

I've been thinking a lot about what makes our legal system work, and it really comes down to one core concept: legitimacy. The system maintains its legitimacy through a consistent pattern of conduct, which in turn provides predictability for everyone involved. The moment lawyers stop following the rules and their duty of candor, and judges stop adhering to case law, the entire system collapses. It loses its relevance, and the people who work within it would be out of a job. This fear of the unknown is the worst fear for those unfamiliar with the court system. However, once you understand how the system works, that fear of what might happen begins to fade. This predictability is what allows the public to have confidence that their grievances can be addressed through non-violent means. If people lose faith in the courts, disputes will devolve into "street justice"—chaotic, creative, and immediate. This is why the system must always appear legitimate and relevant to society.

The Foundations of Predictability
The predictable nature of the legal system is built on a series of established "paths of legitimacy". These paths are binding and hold the system together in a predictable direction. These include:
1. Rules of Court: These are the established guidelines that govern how court proceedings are conducted.
2. Duty of Candor: This requires lawyers to be honest and straightforward with the court.
3. Case Precedent (Stare Decisis): Judges are bound to follow the decisions of previous, similar cases.
4. Legal Jurisprudence: This refers to the theory or philosophy of law that guides legal reasoning and decision-making.
When these paths are followed, the system operates in a way that is acceptable to society, which is essential for it to maintain its legitimacy.

Accountability for Lawyers
Accountability is a key part of maintaining predictability. When lawyers deviate from the expected pattern of conduct, there's a mechanism in place to correct it. In Canada, for instance, a lawyer can be reprimanded or even disbarred by their law society. This is a form of self-preservation for the law society itself; by punishing "bad actors," it maintains its own reputation and legitimacy. This isn't a flaw in the system; it's a built-in feature. While there are rare instances where a lawyer might get away with terrible things, usually due to powerful connections, for 99% of lawyers, the system's self-correction mechanism works as intended. You can file a complaint with their law society to hold them accountable.

The Role of Judges and Judicial Correction
Judges are the second class of individuals who are held to a specific pattern of conduct. In Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council regulates the behavior of judges. There are two main ways a judge can be held accountable:
1. Appellate Review: If a judge's decision is "off the rails" and not in line with the rules, jurisprudence, or case law, a higher court, like the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, can correct the decision. This process allows society to have confidence that errors can be fixed.
2. Personal Conduct Complaints: The Canadian Judicial Council also investigates complaints about a judge's personal behavior. The council can reprimand the judge, reject the complaint, or, in extreme cases, request the judge to step down. The system has a self-correcting mechanism to hold judges accountable to the public's expectations.

The Rest of the Judicial Machinery
Beyond lawyers and judges, the entire judicial system—including court clerks, sheriffs, and schedulers—is compartmentalized, with each group having its own sphere of influence and expected conduct. If you have a complaint about a specific person, such as a police officer or a sheriff, there's a specific, established way to address it. The system is so segmented that complaints are handled according to a predefined set of expectations for each role. If there's no expected conduct, there can be no deviation from it. This compartmentalization is another way the system ensures predictability.

The Consequences of Losing Legitimacy
The ultimate goal of all these mechanisms is to ensure the legal system remains relevant and legitimate. A legitimate system allows people to resolve their conflicts peacefully through the courts. The moment people stop believing in this peaceful method, the system of "street justice" takes over. This is why the system must have these "guardrails" in place. When you understand that the system's legitimacy hinges on its predictable operation, you can see why it must follow the rules of court, jurisprudence, and case precedent. The occasional irregularities that happen outside this pattern are usually subject to a correction mechanism. Whether it's an appeal for a bad decision or a complaint to a professional council, these corrections maintain the system's legitimacy and predictability.

In conclusion, the predictability of the court system is not a coincidence; it's the very thing that gives us confidence and allows it to function. By adhering to a specific, predictable pattern of conduct, the system avoids chaos and provides a reliable framework for resolving disputes. Understanding this helps people relax and let the process, and the paperwork, do the work. The system's continued existence depends on its ability to maintain legitimacy by acting in a way that is consistent, accountable, and, above all, predictable.