One of the more interesting aspects of law and justice that I have observed on the legal landscape is that the fox is in charge of the chicken coop. The preponderance of lawyers in government results in laws that suit lawyers and the judges (who are also lawyers) who rule on laws. Curiously, while they occasionally may be involved with prosecuting conflict of interest cases, they don't seem to be aware of their own conflicted system. Or is it that they don't care? Some try to justify the preponderance of lawyers in Congress as appropriate since these are people who are making laws. Using that logic, anyone in state and city councils or on homeowner association boards should be a lawyer, because only lawyers can properly have insights and make laws. Does that half-baked train of thought have your approval? A downside to a government full of lawyers is that they come from the privileged class. And what would you think their agenda might be when it involves the wealthy vs. the poor? Another criticism about lawyers is that they have a disincentive (conflict of interest) when it comes to settling cases in an expeditious manner. That is especially prevalent in family disputes where each side may want to punish their opponent as much as possible. Rather than forcefully suggesting mediation or binding arbitration, lawyers may be inclined to let clients unnecessarily run up their legal bills. And of course this behavior can be manifested at the corporate level as well.