Revisioning of the Courts


Richard J Tilley 

Master of Liberal Arts, Johns Hopkins University 

Towards a Revisioning of the Courts: A Short Theory 


Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) 

Contact: rtilley4-AT-alumni-DOT-jh-DOT-edu 

About page

[Potential to be Updated and Clarified in the Future. All Drafts to be Noted and Retained.] 

Draft 1: Published Date: July 2, 2023 


Courtroom cases are decided by few too many decision-makers and juries that only theoretically have an invested interest in being present to lead to a true resolution of the matter at hand. Lawyers and judges are paid large salaries while juries are forced to make sacrifices by missing work and earning their normal pay. This makes no sense. What I suggest is a reification of the law by (re)addressing the structure of the court. 

Within this system that I propose, law schools may still exist, but they are not a direct conduit for placing oneself in the occupation of “lawyer” as this proposed system can offer others who by merit and work ethic prove their value within an agreed upon whole that they have mastered the law and are best to argue for or against a case in question or preside over it.  

What does this involve? What I am putting forward is a large system of networked employees that work to safeguard the law as it exists with checks and balances within their own integrated network structure. Please allow me to simplify my proposal. During any court case there will be a judge, a defending lawyer, a prosecuting lawyer, and in addition to that 30-35 presiding employees whose job is it to make sure that all safeguards, protections, and reifications of the law are maintained. They will occupy the space behind those centrally involved in the case, just as audiences of a court case are situated now. These 30-35 employees will take meticulous notes of all activity, everything that is said by the two lawyers and judge, and note any and all matters stated by witnesses, the accused, the accuser, while their constant notes are recorded, retained, and checked for quality assurances by another team that is designated to review their work.   

These 30-35 employees will be paid fairly, but what is most important is that no one, not even the lawyers or judges, will earn excessive salaries. Think of these ranges of positions as being between lower-middle class to middle-middle class. Aside from the quality assurance team, there is a separate department of authorities on the law that these employees can reach out to through computer terminals at their stations in real time who will advise on any complications, confusions, or subtle and unexpected instances that may arise at any point in the case. Those workers must be experts and remain authoritative, but not deciders in the ultimate outcome of the case.  

The employees will each be divided into teams in which each team has a team leader and manager working to guide, influence, or clarify any additional complications that may be more common and do not require the authoritative specialists mentioned above.  

Each response to inquiries from these teams to the authoritative specialists, as well as managers and team leaders, will be recorded and retained. These employees are ideally career employees that can work their way up to becoming a team leader, a manager, a quality assurance specialist, an authoritative specialist, a lawyer, or even a judge. Candidates for this position must have undergraduate degree that can be in Law but can also be in a range of humanities such as English (or, substitute language or literature), History, Conflict Resolution, Arts & Letters, Women’s and Gender Studies, and other appropriate humanities degrees and interdisciplinary degrees. Master’s degrees would be equally valued and while they may give an employee an advantage in moving up to another position, such a degree would still require that they start within the employee network as structured, starting within the teams.  

All employees would begin this career in paid training for a period of two to five months understanding the law as well as the structure of the entity of the courts revisioning I am proposing. This paid training would include trial runs in hypothetical scenarios, studies of previous cases, procedures for documenting and making recommendations to actual court sessions, with additional studies which of course must include history, before entering a real court case as part of a team. Continued training for the team members is ongoing throughout the duration of their employment and overseen by the managers and team leaders. This continued training must take place both together as collaborative teams as well as addressing individuals within the teams to their special requirements.  

What is most important here is where the recorded documentation and recommendations, supported by authoritative specialists, managers, team leaders, and quality assurance, would need to be reviewed and utilized by the two opposing lawyers before they are able to complete their argumentative sessions or final argument in a case. The judge will need to be aware and cross-check what documentation brought these revisions their handling of the case to be informed of the overall communications of the session. This will strip away illegitimate bias and partisanship from the role of judge and deter the detached-from-life self-interestedness of the lawyers in each hearing.