It’s not the fault of the “adversarial system.” Implemented honestly, the adversarial system of justice is designed to present opposing arguments to determine which one is just or the most just. For this kind of system to work best the parties have to stick to the facts, to the truth, and make arguments in good faith, and the judge and jury (if there is a jury) have to do their best to be free of bias and let the facts and law dictate their decisions. If any one of participants in an adversarial system of justice (litigants, lawyers, jury, judge) fails to perform his/her role correctly, the adversarial system is at risk of failing the cause of justice.
So a lawyer working in an adversarial system, who dwells just on the facts that support his client’s side of the argument, who disregards facts that are clearly true but not advantageous to his case, and who engages in sophistry in making his arguments is not most likely to achieve justice. Sadly, few (and a growing fewer) attorneys these days are concerned with achieving justice. They’re in the practice of law to make money, and if that means whoring themselves out to occlude the truth and make arguments for those willing to pay for such arguments, then that’s the job they do.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277