Why do young lawyers distrust judges?

As soon as some lawyers represent a case, they promise their clients that they are familiar with a certain judge and can guarantee that the case will win. In the client's view, what they want is to win the case, not to ask or ask the lawyer through what channels to ensure the case to win. In the view of some parties, one of the reasons for choosing a lawyer is the relationship with a court judge. On the contrary, lawyers and judges are encouraged to have good relations, but lawyers have different ways to do good relations, and to what extent. As it should be, lawyers trust the judiciary, and the parties hire lawyers to bring the case to court. We can find legal norms for all procedural provisions, and we will protect the fairness of entities when the procedures are legal. But why do some lawyers always boast to their clients that they are familiar with the judge? The subtext we hear here is that being familiar with the judge may guarantee the case to win, but it is far from knowing that the case to win is in the hands of the judge, which on the other hand leads to the lawyer versus the client. This also leads to a controversial topic-whether the lawyer dragged the judge into the water or the judge lured the lawyer into breaking the law. Here, I think the subtle relationship between lawyers and judges presents different faces in different cases, but there is one thing. First of all, the greedy party is definitely the culprit, because the greedy party will inevitably ask the other party to give money or other property, and the other party can conduct this transaction based on the convenience of work. This transaction between lawyers and judges is based on the needs of both parties. This relationship is not a one-time sale, but a long-term "sale" without being discovered. The extension from illegal behavior to criminal behavior is sometimes induced by an idea that should not flash, but lawyers and judges use their work convenience to gain fame and fortune for each other, but they have laid the foundation for the maintenance of this long-term cause. The judge can introduce the source of the case to the lawyer, and the judge can get a commission from the introduced source of the case. When the case reaches the court, the lawyer can use his familiarity with the judge to promote the case in favor of his agent, thus giving the judge a lawyer's fee. This way of using national judicial power to maximize personal interests often occurs in our judicial situation. As young lawyers, when they are not involved in litigation, most of them hold the idea of respecting or trusting the judiciary, but when they meet such judges, the professional ethics of young lawyers are facing postgraduate entrance examination. Except for some young lawyers, it is their duty to get on well with judges. Most of our young lawyers have the belief of maintaining social fairness and justice, but they have met judges who try to stifle their professional ideals. So what's the next step for this young lawyer, and where is the future? Older lawyers are familiar with judges, which is the result of accumulated professional experience, and they can even influence judges' judgments. As a young lawyer, unless you rely on the old lawyer's personal resources as a backer, it will certainly be difficult to get on well with the judge. If young lawyers can't influence the judge, of course, they won't vouch for the client, they will tell the client the legal risks truthfully, and they will handle the case in a way permitted by law. The intangible capital of young lawyers is not to be familiar with judges, but to be familiar with the law as soon as possible-young lawyers are better at learning and accepting new affairs than old lawyers, which is also a big advantage for them to make up for their own shortcomings. Young lawyers who are new to the proceedings should make joint efforts to safeguard judicial prestige and the correct implementation of the law. However, in the actual judicial situation, judges do not respect lawyers. When young lawyers try to reason with the judge, they think that the regulations are only enumerated regulations and there is no punishment mechanism. In other words, even if the court judge breaks the law, the lawyer can't do anything to the judge. The appeal judge is asking "Lao Zi to take care of his son", which is basically hopeless. This also involves the judge's own quality. We can't and can't ask all judges to be superior, just as all lawyers are not superior. They met some judges with low educational level. These young lawyers are often angry and want to beat the judge up. In the society of building a country ruled by law, the hands of legal persons are bound to be important news, so it is necessary for young lawyers to bear it. Otherwise, when the agent of this case meets this judge in the future, it will still embarrass you in the trial. After all, it was his own misfortune, so the young lawyer's anger subsided, but he was still very angry afterwards. Where can this fire be swallowed? He can only solve it by himself, because the law has no right to give a lawyer a statement. Although his right to investigate and collect evidence is clearly stipulated, it is obvious that he has been deprived of his right but has nowhere to complain. Mutual respect of the legal profession is the minimum professional requirement, but it is difficult to see respect for lawyers, let alone respect for clients. Therefore, young lawyers perceive from the judge's attitude towards lawyers that although they belong to the same legal profession, they belong to different groups, because the judge can ask the lawyer to make more trips and provide some evidence in the file, because the judge will interrupt the lawyer's speech at will in court, because the judge will interrupt the lawyer's speech at will. Because of the judge's bad attitude towards lawyers, young lawyers who entered the lawsuit gradually lost trust in the judge, and the case they were sure of winning reached the court, and the young lawyers had no idea, because the right to win the case was really in the hands of the judge, not the law. As a result, young lawyers are skeptical about the judge, and even a simple case can't guarantee the result. What our judges may want is this chaotic judicial effect. The more difficult it is for lawyers to figure out the results, the more room for judges to operate. The real judicial ideal should be: no matter how the judge finally decides, I believe he will not make an arbitrary judgment. As a lawyer, he should be fully prepared. For each case, he should make good preparations before the trial and design various coping strategies and different litigation skills. What lawyers can do is to maximize the interests of clients from the legal level, but it is taboo to have conflicts with judges in court. As a judge, he also expects to be respected by others, and the consequence of respect is to cooperate with each other tacitly and handle the case well. If the lawyer is not satisfied with the judge's behavior in court, he can point out after the court that he can't directly question the judge in court. If he doesn't respect the judge, he will eventually suffer, which will not only affect the efficiency of handling cases, but also affect his mood in court. Therefore, judges in small places have their own style of doing things. However, they are handling cases at the level permitted by law and must not make illegal judgments. If they make an illegal judgment, it is by no means a question that lawyers ask in court, but they need to be investigated for administrative responsibility or criminal responsibility. The reality of the judicial situation is: lawyers can't guarantee how the judge will sentence, lawyers are worried that the judge will make arbitrary and wrong judgments, and lawyers have made full preparations for the case before the trial. However, lawyers spend too little time in the trial, and lawyers expect to be respected by judges. At least, they want to make lawyers feel that they have passed the national judicial examination, but only one has chosen the career of judge and the other has entered the legal profession, but this is only the unilateral wish of lawyers. The judge's disrespect for the lawyer led to the quarrel between the young lawyer and the judge in the trial, which simply led to the lawyer's greater dissatisfaction with the judge. The consequence of this "debate" between the two sides is that lawyers have lost trust in judges and thus in the judiciary. The road for young lawyers is difficult, but sometimes it is forced by some judges. But the judge will say that young lawyers don't understand the rules and regulations, and that we know the law and obey the law, and your court has a bad attitude. Although there is no legal provision, judges cannot do without lawyers. The judge will say that the bad attitude of the court is caused by bureaucracy and has nothing to do with the court itself. What else will young lawyers say?