Stare Decisis. Latin for “to stand by things decided.” It is a doctrine by which courts of law render decisions with due regard for those that came before. It is also why judicial opinions have been catalogued and reported in volumes upon volumes, annually, for hundreds of years. When a presiding court is confronted with litigation involving a particular set of facts, it need only look to earlier decisions involving the same or similar facts for guidance as to how to rule upon the issues at hand.

It plays an important, even vital role within the legal profession. It promotes stability and predictability, and enables practitioners to confidently advise their clients – even as to unfamiliar subjects. So long as an attorney is willing to educate herself or himself as to novel points of law, that unfamiliarity quickly fades. Stare Decisis levels the playing field for all those inclined to put forth the effort to review applicable legal precedent. When the doctrine prevails, law becomes science.

But what happens when the doctrine is ignored? What happens when controlling authority is rejected in favor of the arbitrary? Science becomes theater; a farce. The practice of law becomes something less than a profession. When a court rules a certain way simply because it wants to, rather than the way by which it is bound to rule by applicable precedent (or statutes), it creates confusion and breeds distrust of the judicial system.

As a litigant, the process can be particularly terrifying when it breaks down. Imagine being advised by your lawyer that you have a strong case and can expect a quick, decisive victory. After all, your facts may not be unique. There may have been many reported decisions involving similar facts, and these decisions provide a road map for your case. Maybe there are pertinent statutes which clearly support your position. But then the court starts ruling against you. The cases and statutes cited by your counsel and argued to the court are rejected or ignored, often without explanation. At that point, all of your attorney’s training, experience and expertise become meaningless; your lawyer becomes as much a victim of the court’s caprice as you. Your options are then limited to either continue paying attorneys’ fees to litigate a case that can’t be won (and then pay even more in appellate fees to seek a rarely-achieved reversal), or settle what very well may be a patently-defective claim for an unjustified amount that is nevertheless cheaper than what it would cost to continue litigating. Should we blame the lawyers who bring frivolous or vexatious claims, or should we instead blame the courts who allow these claims to flourish?

Not much can be done to prevent defective rulings at the time they are made, or to fix them afterwards. If a court is inclined to rule a certain way because it wants to, no amount of telling the court how it should rule because it is legally required to will matter. Appellate recourse may be available, but the significant, additional expense and inherently low probability of a successful appeal often insulate erroneous trial court rulings from reversal.

Ideally, bad rulings (and the flawed rationales behind them) could be discouraged before their rendition. If a disincentive could be offered to recalcitrant, jaded or biased judges for purposes of reducing the occurrence of unprincipled decisions, those litigants who seek to abuse the process of the court as well as those victimized by such abuse will find fewer opportunities to play these unfortunate roles. If a spotlight could be shined upon legal error, exposing it to objective analysis which reveals its flaws, the judges perpetuating such error can be identified as the source.

If you have ever been a litigant, or if you have ever represented one, you can appreciate the importance of a fair, impartial tribunal that respects the rule of law. But for those of you who may not be familiar with the realities of the legal profession, those who may believe that the judicial system seems to work exactly as it should and that those who complain about it are just sore losers, please check back soon. In the coming months, this section will be highlighting various court cases which will graphically illustrate the concerns discussed above. These cases will show that no matter how strong your case may be on paper, no matter how capable your attorney, judicial bias or ignorance can be an insurmountable barrier to victory.

Hence, Litiscape. If you encounter a legally-infirm court ruling or judgment, create a topic in our message forum and discuss it with experienced litigators. Highlight the errors that courts make, and the courts responsible. If the judges who refuse to abide by controlling statutes or precedent knew that their legally-indefensible decisions would be catalogued, dissected and exposed, they might be more inclined to adjudicate impartially and pursuant to law. If that happens even one time, Litiscape will have achieved its purpose.