The problems are systemic and require changes to the system, not substitution of different people in the existing system. As conservative Republicans have recently discovered about Congress and the Presidency.

And by "system" I mean popular culture at least as much as I mean law and procedure.

I think part of the problem is a selection effect. The press love to report on spectacular, high-stakes cases, usually involving a popular criminal defendant or an "evil" corporation being civilly sued. Both the cases and the reporting are highly distorted and unrepresentative.

Problem is, they affect how the public view law in general, and thereby have a destructive feedback effect. (I was going to say "negative feedback effect," but it's technically positive feedback with a very negative outcome.)

This is not to say that the system has not been distorted in many ways that can sometimes detract from the ideal pursued, of course.

For great justice!

UPDATE (James Joyner): And, presumably, we would have Association for Justice members on both sides of many if not most civil suits. So . . . both sides in each case are fighting for �justice.�

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the ideal situation? That both sides are fighting for "justice" for their client? Isn't that the whole point of it all? What am I missing?

Until they need one, of course...