I don't know if that's quite achievable.
Or even desirable.
We could get most of the way there simply by removing or reducing fees, fines, and penalties for infractions and non-violent misdemeanors. Most of those are simply crutch revenue-generators for county and municipal governments thanks to decades of stripping progressive taxation, grist to the for-profit private incarceration/convict labor mill, and frankly either way punishment for simply being poor. Something like 70% of the prison population vanishes overnight if we decriminalize and expunge non-violent and generally victimless "public order" crime.
That all but eliminates excessive case load on prosecutors'
and defenders' offices,
then we could start talking funding and resource disparities, regulating prosecutorial discretion, and limitations on plea bargaining. Thus, allowing the justice system to focus upon violent misdemeanors and felony offenses -- what it was supposed to from the beginning, at least until Jim Crow, the proliferation of for-profit convict labor, and the rise of the modern carceral state.
When we start talking about civil court, the first thing that needs to happen is a federal anti-SLAPP statute. Then, strict limitations on forum shopping, abolition of forced arbitration agreements, and restoration of class rights for purposes of certification and when acting as plaintiffs. Following that, maximums on punitive damages awarded by clients and mandatory minimums on forms of injunctive relief with stricter penalties for failing to meet court-mandated standards and orders.
Why yes, I am thinking specifically about the environmental law racket with that statement, thanks for asking.
And of course, stricter standards for malicious and punitive abuse of procedure by litigants, with tighter deadlines and constrained capacity to delay proceedings. Something as simply as making "delay and dump during discovery" grounds for summary judgment or dismissal with prejudice, would go a long way towards a more equitable civil court.
There are legal scholars of all stripes and ideologies, publishing their ideas either online or in law review articles. The fact that you don't see your idea being pushed has nothing to do with "class interests." It's because your idea is not compatible with reality.
This is the result of cross-talking and conflating two different issues. Class interest enters talk about the justice system for the reasons I stated.
But as far as the legal profession itself,
and its connections to and interdependence to political systems, the vested interest of those in it lie with maintenance of the status quo. Class interest enters the equation because most attorneys, especially those in more prestigious fields -- and those typically pursued by those looking to enter electoral politics -- are on the better-paid end of the spectrum. Voters love a prosecutor, and a prosecutor elected to public office is never going to act against their own vested interests given a choice in the matter.
I don't really feel as if I need to name drop Kamala Harris here, but I'll do it for posterity's sake.
Yes, there will always be a need for lawyers. However, the state of western liberal democracy is such that lawyers don't just argue law, they're the only ones who
write it, and in circumstances under which legal positivism is the dominant theory of law -- meaning underlying principles of justice, legislative intent, and voters' will play woefully small and easily-subverted role in law-making.
