How are people supposed to get justice if lawyers govern lawyers & judges govern judges? You can't sue them!
819167
That's right about the FIRST venue of complaint against an attorney or, presumably, a judge.  But that is in turn reviewable.  In the case of an attorney, a malpractice suit may be in order.  In the case of a judge, you need to contact the state government or the appeals court -- the next higher court of competent jurisdiction -- to file a complaint about a judge.  The response is judges, sure enough, but not necessarily biased in favor of the accused.  Indeed, they tend to be biased against the accused as putting all judges in a bad light.
404248
This is a really tough question. To answer it, it may be helpful to understand the express differences between the legal system and lawyers.\n\nThe legal system is well thought-out, well-designed, time-tested, and does its best to protect the innocent.\n\nLawyers, however, are posed with a very difficult question when they are in law school: Should a lawyer's ultimate loyalty be to justice or to the client?\n\nMost people would like to say the answer is "justice" but, technically, that is incorrect. Law students are instructed to serve justice, but are also instructed that their primary concern is the client. Their loyalty, even over justice, is to the client. This makes more sense that one would think: Clients couldn't expect to get competent service from a lawyer if the lawyer's ultimate loyalty was to justice and not the client. If the client was guilty, the lawyer would end up serving justice and not the client, and the client would lose their case no matter what. However, everyone is entitled to a fair trial and competent counsel under the Constitution. The only way for this to happen is if the lawyer's loyalty goes to the client no matter what, guilty or innocent.\n\nTo keep lawyers from going too far, though, all law students must take 2 courses and an exam (separate from the bar exam) on Professional Responsibility. In the course they are subject to learning a 2-inch-thick book of ABA Approved Professional Rules of Conduct to keep lawyers from manipulating the law in an unjust and dishonest way, while still maintaining ultimate loyalty to their client.
633508
Clever typo: The more money you got, the better lawyers you can get & thus possibly get a lesser charge in court.  At least that's what it appears like seeing the news & watching Law & Order episodes... (I don't have any personal experience to this).\n\nSome quotes to ponder:\nJustice is incidental to law and order.  ~John Edgar Hoover\n\nWhen you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.  ~Norm Crosby\n\nAlthough the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms.  They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice.  ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals\n\nThe more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws.  ~Tacitus, Annals
354749
The word is "appeal" if you're convicted. Then write a book about it. It happens a lot. The main thing judges say is "ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law." In front of a judge alone, you may be up the creek, but there's always a chance if you appeal to get a jury. Human Error is something jury's can relate to easily, we are all human after all.
599222
Here's another thing to think about...while some judges CAN be bought, they aren't even the real problem. The philosophy for being a judge is to have no political affiliate, to be fair and impartial, to listen to the merits of each case seperately and as presented. But some judges, especially a couple of new Supreme Court Justices, do not feel the need to represent the law, leaving their political views outside their courtrooms. Worse than one crooked judge in a million, is the zealot who believes it is his or her responsibility to "fix" what he or she believes is wrong in the world - and now has the power to do that! Scary stuff.
610326
Judges are not allowed to change the law.  They must hold to the laws as they were at the time.  Therefore, if there is a statute of limitations of 6 years, and this has past, then there is no legal standing for anyone to come after you for money.
1184579
Some days ago a Christian on Q/A explained to me that it is like you are condemmned by the court any some rich guy comes and pay the fine so that I have not to go to jail.\n\n\nI am still wondering why should i still have to go to jail after the rich guy paid my fine?
901238
Justice is reserved for those who acquire power in central or state government. It is for them who have lot of money white or black... no body can touch them... even if you are a gangster you can rule the land from behind the bars and enjoy the services of jail personnel as your bodyguards... \n\nForget about justice for common people.
298101
No, justice is only for those who can afford it.  Some want to say that's it's for the real poor also but public defenders are NOT the same has a hired/bought lawyer.  I thought America was for the people by the people but it just seems to me that America is for the politicians, lawyers and rich.  \n\nLet's say you go to court for a traffic  ticket.  Why is it a lawyer can get you a deal but you can't get the deal unless you pay for a lawyer?  I mean why can't I just talk to the judge?  Judges only want to hear from lawyers.  It's real odd to me that the guy ahead of me with the same type of ticket just got his knocked off his record by his lawyer but I go in front of the judge and I can't that same deal.  That's not justice.  That's a business.  You get what you pay for type of deal.  That is not what the judicial system is supposed to be for.\n\nTo be honest I have gone to law school and talked to plenty of legal people and I realize that it just about the numbers.  It's all about wins and losses NOT JUSTICE.
549881
1.  If you don't have an attorney, hire one.  It may be that you are doing something incorrectly and the judge can not under the law do what you want because you are not following some procedural rule.\n2.  If that's not the problem, every state has a formal judicial oversight  board/commission or something.  Usually its attached in some way to the state's highest court.  Go to your state's highest court's website and see if there is a link.\n3.   Alternative: Go to your state's Bar's web site see if there is a link, if not, contact the Bar's complaint line and the operator will be happy to refer you over to the judicial board.
1138655
I am not a lawyer.  I seem to remember hearing this:\n\n            The law is on the Old System.  Most lawyers now are\n            (functioning) on the New System.  That is why a lot of \n            lawyers appear to not be doing a very good job.\n\nThink about it or ask someone about it.  Find out what it takes to get on the System.  How does getting on the System affect one's thinking and reasoning pattern as well as an individual's conduct?\nI am not sure exactly where I heard the above remark, but I seem to recall hearing it from someone who would be some kind of legitimate authority on lawyers.\n\nOf course, it is bad to taint them all with the same brush.  Honest lawyers do exist, I am sure, and they have the potential to do a lot of good if they got to where they are in an upright way without different forms of theft.  However, I think that lawyers of this genre are few and far between, and they generally function from inside an arena of thieves.  They are very rare birds nowdays I think.  A definite need for honest lawyers exists today.\n\n"We're expected to give bad advice some of the time (to pay back the System)" - lawyer quotation I seem to vaguely recall overhearing.\n\nAlso, clients who put lawyers up to certain forms of behaviour can be just as callous (e.g. divorce and child custody suits when one spouse wants to get back at the other).
963861
Greg's answer is a good one. :) \n\nI would also add that since judges are put into place by the president and the legislature, they are (unlike politicians) not beholden to special interest groups or lobbyists, and they are not dependant on the people for their job. Because they are free of restrictions, they can uphold the constitution and rule of law without worrying for the safety of their jobs. This helps to further assure "liberty and justice for all". \n\nBTW, the president and legislature only put into place SUPREME COURT justices... Lower courts ARE sometimes elected by the people, depending on the state in which you live.
788066
google for your local bar association. they often have a list of judges you should NOT vote for based on a survey of attorneys. they are right most of the time!!
590793
Courts are not punished. There are times when their decisions are overturned. Sometimes a judge will be punished for breaking the law outside of their courtroom, but their decisions in the courtroom are not grounds for punishment. The term for this is Judicial immunity.
107336
every citizen is entitled to an attorny and one is appointed to them if they cant afford one.  But unfortunately, those that have money can get BETTER attorneys.  Thats just the way it works my friend.
336700
In the US, the one designed by and for the benefit of the attorneys who work it, has virtually NOTHING to do with justice.\n\nIt would be the same if we allowed used car sales men to develop an elaborate, contorted, "system" which you had to proceed through because it was the only way you could buy a car.  Besides taking ten years so they could justify their commission, your car would cost 100 times more than neccessary.\n\nIf I were a lawyer I would go back to bed and when I awoke from my nightmare, hopefully I would be engaged in an occupation that provided even a slight bit of dignity - sucking the d*cks of strangers in a New York City bus terminal bathroom for $0.25 donations would be a quantum leap in the right direction. \n\nLawyers are the scourge of the earth and lower than whale sh*t on the characterlogical evolutionary scale. They would represent a man who they personally caught raping their own daughter if they thought his check had at least a 50-50 chance of clearing the bank. \n\nJust ask:\n\nthe 50 self-serving pariahs that worked on OJ's behalf.\n\nthe scum who represent organized crime\n\nthe low lifes representing the tobaco industry\n\nthe seemingly 75 million bottom feeders who have accident injury "helplines"\n\nthe 100's of leeches who make up congress, 75% of which are attorneys\n\nor the truly elite of the entire pile of crap system, the ones who come up with an endless parade of specious arguments to keep murderers with arrest records longer than the Nile River alive, permitting them to live on death row for decades after their victims, who were raped, tortured, and/or butchered are long forgotten about. \n\nAs an annology - \n\nImagine walking through the most remote jungle on the planet.  You come across a village and in a corner of the village is a man in a cage.  Upon asking the chief of the village why the man was in the cage, the chief replied we think he committed a murder 20 years ago and we are still in the process of spending millions (yes millions) of dollars trying to determine if he is guilty.  You would be hard pressed not to think of them as the most ignorant, backward, incompetent, savages on the planet.\n\nReplace the cage with a prison in America and poof - you have the American criminal justice system.  Not caring about justice but about protracting cases to generate fees. \n\nWill one of you pompous, glorified, f*cking english majors, especially those who incorporate "Esquire" into your lame ass names, please enlighten the rest of us as to how that analogy is significantly different from the US "legal" system.\n\nThink about it - A trial attorney's primary responsibility is to keep his client out of court, but if he did that, he would go broke and end up stocking shelves at Walmart.\n\nDoes the US Supreme Court really have to waste their time and our tax dollars (as they are doing RIGHT NOW) deciding  on the inane concept and legal head scratcher of whether or not giving a shot as a part of administering lethal injection really constitute cruel and unusual punishment - GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK. \n\nHow about if we dare to use just a little LOGIC and say, if the inmate EVER agreed to and received an injection for medical or dental care - the point is mute.  It was fine with him then, it must be fine now.  Pull back the f*cking plunger on the syringe and get it over with.\n\nThe entire system is an insult to the intelligence of the American people and a crimminal offence against victims and their families.
815854
Of course I approve. If we didn't have lawyers then you could be arrested and tried for anything without a defense. Everyone is entitled to a defense. What if you were innocent? Your lawyer would be your best friend and only friend in some cases.