[rplaw]

Originally Posted by IVC

And that means what? Statistics doesn't work that way, not even remotely. Your statement implies that you believe the distribution of court case outcomes is a uniform distribution and that consequences of loses and wins are a trivial symmetric matrix.

We need just one win. That's all. Much like succeeding in business is about persisting through all the adversities until success.

The problem with litigation is that one side loses. That's a 50/50 distribution of outcomes.

It becomes unequal when you start to look at which side wins more often. From my experience, if you're going to trial in any litigation matter, your case has a major flaw you aren't recognizing or you're hoping the jury doesn't see it. This is often the underlying cause of a "loss" at trial.

My experience also tells me that the courts put their finger on the scale of justice quite frequently. Some judges do that so often that they have developed a callus from their actions which often causes a reduced sensitivity leading to a heavier hand on the outcome.

Civil litigation plaintiff's attorneys who become judges often let matters drag on through trial that properly should have been dismissed as lacking merit because the plaintiff's lawyers are known to them and that's how they did it when they themselves were PI lawyers.

Criminal judges who are ex-District Attorneys give favoritism to DA's at the expense of fairness to defendants. This has led to "testilying" and all sorts of other methods of ensuring that the accused goes to jail no matter what.

Appellate justices are similar versions of the above since they all got their start just like the above except they're protected from the consequences of their calluses and favorable leanings.