[I posted this in the forum and sent a message to to Stephen Shalom. I decided to put it in blog form so that more can see it and possibly respond.]
In Albert’s book Realizing Hope he mentions the difficulty of reforming the court system to compliment a Good Society. I was thinking specifically about judges and lawyers. I could imagine doing away with [the role of] judges but radically reforming the role of lawyers. [Since udges have strong lawyer backgrounds they could utlize their legal skills the same way I propose for lawyers.]
As I understand it, one big problem with lawyers today is they have an incentive to win court cases regardless of the truth, innocence or guilt of their clients. I wanted to think of a process by which lawyers are removed from a privatized system and whose incentives are to compile evidence and legal facts to present to jurors for deliberating the result of a case in an honest fashion that seeks truth and justice.
My thought was to reform lawyers into something like an Iteration Facilitation Board. As you know, in parecon the IFB facilitates planning between consumers and workers. In parpolity a Legal Facilitation Board (LFB for lack of a better name at this time) could facilitate between plaintiffs, defendants and jurors.
Since they do not represent anyone and have no incentive to "win" one problem is resolved. The other problem I thought of was, "What IS their incentive?" Any plaintiff or defendant could appeal a ruling, which could proceed to another jury body [and LFB] for review. If a particular legal LFB has too many successful appeals against them this could effect their jobs. So the incentive for the LFB is to provide as clear and accurate information as possible or stand to lose their jobs to others that could prove to be better qualified.
What do you think?