The paper by Marc Galanter considers some four important elements within the legal system. However, among the four elements, there are two outstanding elements which include the haves, as well as the have-nots. These individuals are referred to as the one shotters as well as the repeat players. The important elements include the courts, rules, parties along with the lawyers. The one shotters plus the repeat players are divisions of the parties. The one shotter describe a person that deals with the legal system less frequently thus they possess fewer resources.
The one shotters closely behave like the have-nots within the legal system. The repeat players will, alternatively have had a repeated litigation, thus more experience within the system. Repeat players have the tendency of being organizations or institutions, which are relatively wealthy, and they enjoy layers of benefits (Abel 55). However, the haves or the repeat players have different classes or exist in different categories. Nonetheless, the benefits that are enjoyed at different levels by the haves within the legal system often reinforce and overlap thus shielding each other. The one shotters have a limited ability in playing the litigation game as compared to the haves who can play these games differently. The ability to play the litigation games differently provides a substantial advantage to the repeat players because they have interacted with the system and understand it better than the have-nots.
There are some alternatives within the official systems. The alternatives include the inaction and “lumping it.” The alternative is suitable for individuals who lack information and access within the legal system. It also works well for individuals who perceive that the costs of the litigation system are high, or the gain of utilizing the approach is very high. Costs increase due to the absence of information and skills in the litigation system. For example, lack of proper representation by lawyers or the use of lowly experienced lawyers due to the costs associated with hiring experienced lawyers (Abel 48). Costs also increase due to the risks involved. The other alternatives offered in the case of litigation include withdrawal or exiting from the situation and resorting to other unofficial control systems that may exist. In this regard, the application only applies for the appended systems of settlement that mainly merge the official systems of litigation. Therefore, the have-nots seeking better administration of justice without necessarily using the litigation process offered should resort to the appended settlement systems that offer equal solutions to the administration of justice.
In the reforms, only four types exist. These methods in reform include the improvement on institutional facilities, rule change, reorganization of parties and the improvement of litigation services with reference to the quality and quantity within the system. The reorganization of have-not parties is imperative to the creation of coherent groups that can conduct their activities within a coordinated manner (Fowler 99). The coordination of activities should take place in a manner that the strategic position is improved. The change at the parties’ level is the most effective change in bringing change within the other levels described in the litigation system. However, the haves will continue to maintain their advantage in the progress towards attaining better litigation and legal systems. Alternatively, changing the legal services and improving the quality as well as quantity will also be effective in bringing legal system changes.
The case for repeat players appears clearer on the issue that they develop some advanced intelligence, and they can process the pros. For example, they can structure the different transition processes in the record of the litigation process (Fowler 78). Additionally, due to the long-term position within the litigation process, the enables them to become more proficient with the process. Furthermore, the ability to access specialists within the litigation process and institutions are factors that increase their ability to understand the system and receive higher quality services from the system. Clearly, from the arguments posed in the literature, the repeat players have economies of scale because they build some informal relationships with the insiders within the legal systems and are able to enjoy lower costs of accessing justice. The politics of the law are clear in the dynamics that create a significant gap between the haves as well as the have-nots as seen in the readings. The one shotter does not have a reputation that they seek to maintain, and this means that they have a difficult time in the bargaining process. Furthermore, the one shotter does not commit him or herself in the bargaining process because they have a difficult time in convincing the other parties of their reputation as they are one-time players.
Repeat players depict the image of a wealthy and seasoned gambler who can play the odds in the litigation process. The size of their resources is the main issue at stake within the litigation process (Carp 47). The repeat players seek to maximize their gains over the long series of cases even when it involves having the risk of a maximum loss in some of the cases. When the cases involve large amounts of cash or other life altering issues, they may bear significant importance to the one shotters. However, in any case, the one shotters are relatively well positioned to play and not only has to benefit from the immediate gained but also change the rules. Changing of the rules comes into play in the case of lobbying for new systems. The one shotter has an inevitable situation where they are only interested in the intangible outcomes of the particular case within which they are involved and not the legal precedent that is set down from that case for the future cases. On a similar note, the repeat player by virtue of the experience as well as expertise has a higher likelihood of knowing the important rules thus making these rules worth fighting for and maintaining.
The repeat player has a likelihood of having a lawyer on their side. The lawyers may seem as equalizing agents, but this does not present a real case. Lawyers and law firms that service the repeat players have long-term relations with the clients, and they understand them better (Abel 35). Furthermore, they can engage the specialized services for repeat players than the one shotters. The relations with the one shotters appear as “episodic” or situational in one perspective. However, a significant difference between one shotter and the repeat players is the access to resources and understanding of the legal system. In this regard, the access to specialized services and knowledge on the litigation system bring the differences in both.
Works Cited
Abel, Richard L. The Law & Society Reader. New York, NY: New York UP, 1995. Print.
Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. Judicial Process in America. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2014. Print.
Fowler, Michael Ross. With Justice for All. Ventura, CA: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Print.
