In a recent radio interview, Imran Khan, a Pakistani opposition leader, explained why the Taliban is making headway in certain parts of Pakistan.  The Taliban's religious courts offer a prospect of order at the grassroots that the more modern Pakistani legal system cannot achieve. Pakistan's courts are modeled on the West, dominated by lawyers and riddled with procedures that require citizens to buy legal representation.  Lawyers are hired by those with money to find loopholes in the law and create advantages for moneyed interests.  In contrast, under the Taliban's brand of Sharia, a strict code of business and social rules is enforced by religious authorities.  The religious rules hearken back to a cyclical way of life that has existed for centuries.

             To western sensibilities, Sharia is highly oppressive and disregarding of basic human rights.  But even western psychologists acknowledge that security and predictability are more essential to human society than freedom or liberty.  In a time of war or social chaos (or perceived social chaos), people will flock to something they understand to be God's ordained system of law and order--a restoration of "how it used to be."

            We have seen fear push people into totalitarianism throughout history in many countries of the world.  It happened in the ancestral lands of many immigrant Americans and our constitution was designed to prevent such a consolidation of power from happening on our soil. American lovers of freedom believe that we live in a country of laws, a country where the rights of citizens are protected by a legal system that is accessible to all and blind to wealth and privilege. This faith in the rule of law is rapidly eroding, however, as the stress of financial collapse and two foreign wars tests the practical functioning of the system.

            Within the vast demographic known as the American middle class, the perception is growing that our legal system of courts, legislatures and government executives is a captured servant to the wealthy and powerful.  Every day, I get inquiries from ordinary consumers who have been bilked, small vendors who have been stiffed, homeowners who have been scammed.  People sign away their rights whenever they apply for a home mortgage or a credit card.  Contracts for everything from financial services to cell phones are slanted toward corporate interests. All too often, after extending my sympathy for their troubles, I have to tell people that the cost of my representation is out of proportion to what they could recover. 

            Remedies that cost more than the expected recovery are not remedies at all. Transaction costs must be justified by the value of the transaction.  Courts, especially, offer dispute resolution at a price only corporations can afford.  In effect, the taxpayers are supporting court systems that require a minimum of $50,000-$100,000 in legal fees for any party that continues through to trial.

            There is no easy fix for the courts.  But trial by jury is not necessary to decide most disagreements.  Judges are aware that ordinary taxpayers should be able to look to the legal system to find fair referees and alternative processes.  But the most cost-effective legal procedure is still the reasoned negotiations between well-informed counsel.  Those of us who came up when the bar was a smaller, congenial group of professionals still remember when lawyers understood that part of their job is to be peacemakers.

            As the first responders to conflict and dispute, lawyers must avoid fanning the flames of anger and resentment.  Lawyers can provide rational analysis of the issues and should be frank with clients when the law favors the other side. The laws that apply to the regular dealings between people have been settled for hundreds of years. Most "legal" disputes come out of differing versions of the underlying facts or one person's inability (or unwillingness) to keep his word.

            People get their money's worth from legal advice only if they work hard at telling the lawyers the whole story and then open their minds to seeing their situation in light of the wisdom that the law reveals after hundreds of years of similar disputes.