The more judges know about the law, the more they need the presence of lawyers.

Just take a relatively easy to understand example.

After the introduction of the General Principles of Civil Law, the statute of limitations was extended from two years to three years, which most people may know, but non-lawyers may not understand when the statute of limitations how to start, what the circumstances of the interruption, suspension, of course, for this type of problem, the judge is bound to be very clear, because the judge is the case of the judge, but the statute of limitations of the starting point, the interruption, the suspension of the judge will not be to the parties to the lawsuit on the The issue of the statute of limitations for any explanation, because the supreme people's court on the trial of civil cases on the application of the statute of limitations system of several issues of the provisions of article 3 clearly stipulates that: "the parties did not raise the statute of limitations defense.The People's Court should not interpret the issue of the statute of limitations and apply the provisions of the statute of limitations on its own initiative to make decisions." To be clear, if you as a defendant in a case, the actual plaintiff on a right to recover the statute of limitations has expired, but as long as you do not raise the defense of the statute of limitations, the court will not take the initiative to explain to you, and will not take the initiative to apply to the statute of limitations related laws and regulations, of course, you will likely lose the advantage of the lawsuit.

Cite this example, just to illustrate, although the judge knows the law, but also need the presence of lawyers, the purpose is to restore the truth of a certain event within the law, of course, the role of lawyers is also reflected in many aspects, will not go into detail, and finally want to say, although the more the judge understands the law, but the more the need for the presence of lawyers. Find a reliable lawyer is very important.

Judges are in the hall above, lawyers are traveling between the state of affairs. Judges take the silver drought and flood, lawyers take the money for running errands. The judge is using the balance, the lawyer is only for one side, can not do without the other.

When I first came to the Court, there were not too many court cases, but the handling of cases was not too easy. On the one hand, the Court wanted a mediation rate, and on the other hand, an enforcement rate.

For the basic courts, the filing of a case, the trial and the execution of the case are all the business of the court.

And at the time, the courts were ex officio. The judge was the main focus. The parties to a petition, the rest is the judge's business, go around to investigate and obtain evidence, for example, divorce cases, filed, the first to go to the parties' homes to inventory the property, to convene the right and left neighbors to listen to the parties to the marital situation, go to the school to ask for advice on child support.

When the court is in session, mostly the court's investigative and interrogation transcripts are produced, and the facts of a case are basically clear.

It is then a matter of mediation by all means until the mediation is successful. Only in a few cases, where mediation is not possible before the expiry of the trial, is judgment rendered.

Subsequently, the courts underwent judicial reforms, changing from ex officio, with its sweeping judiciary, to clientelism.

The focus of partyism lies in the fact that whoever claims to provide evidence. Unless there are some of their own capacity range can not prove, can apply to the court to investigate the evidence, the rest are their own evidence, the court is only as the intermediate referee, the evidence provided by the parties to certify the authenticity of its true or false.

Given that the client has little knowledge of the law and will not or improperly adduce evidence that will affect the facts of the case, the role of the lawyer becomes apparent.

Lawyers can help the parties to analyze the circumstances of the case and the pros and cons of the case, can help analyze the circumstances of the case and point out the way, so that the parties to make clear their position in the litigation, thus laying a good foundation for the lawful exercise of rights.

An attorney can help a client investigate evidence and obtain relevant evidentiary material in the client's favor.

Lawyers appear in court to participate in litigation, with their own proficiency in legal strengths on behalf of the parties to exercise litigation behavior, in the trial can also seize the key, to the point, so that the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to be effectively safeguarded.

Haha what a naive question, it's the same as not needing a doctor as long as you have good medicine. I have seen many times the court judge because the opposite party does not have a lawyer are angry. There is a scene how many years I always remember, a female judge huffed and said do not understand to pay for a lawyer to go, do not treat me as free to make.

No lawyer, the first will increase the judge's workload, the parties do not understand a lot of the judge to explain over and over again, the second will reduce the pressure on the judge, some of the law judge said is right, but the parties always suspect that the judge received the opposite benefit, a lawyer to explain will be much better. Third, the lawyer will drill holes in the law, but the facts will rarely take the initiative to lie, a case judgment is not the most fatal selection of the applicable law is wrong, but the cat identified as a dog this factual error.

The judge decides the case is based on legal facts, because the judge is not a party to the dispute, the real situation of the case the judge does not know, can only be based on the evidence submitted by the parties to judge, that is, to restore out the legal factual situation, the legal facts are not equal to the objective facts, maybe you do say are true, but there is no evidence to support, the judge is not likely to rule in your favor. Therefore, the party's evidence is very important, which evidence needs to be submitted, which evidence of proof, which evidence of their own favor, all need a legally experienced person to operate, so the need for lawyers.

Furthermore, some cases are more complicated, the application of the law is more controversial, the need for the judge's discretion, so that a high level of lawyers, can put forward arguments in favor of their own side, to influence the judge to persuade the judge, so that the judge to support their own point of view, if the ordinary parties may not be able to put forward such a legal point of view, the scales may be tilted to the other side there. This is a bit like combat. Litigation requires skill, which is the raison d'être of lawyers.

Judges must know the law very well! Especially today's "post" judges, who are the "cream of the crop" in terms of the law! That said, lawyers are also very important in litigation!

Judges are like referees on a basketball court! Enforce the law fairly and impartially! A lawyer is a player or coach on one side of the game! A referee on the court will never be involved in one or both sides of the game! They don't coach the game! Whoever commits a foul just blows the whistle and enforces the law!

A lawyer is a coach or player hired by a party to a lawsuit! He guides or helps the party in the litigation! Increases the chances of winning the lawsuit! A lawyer serves only the client who hired him! He is a vastly different being from a judge in a lawsuit!

The judge stands in the middle of both sides of the lawsuit! Based on facts, based on law! Judge fairly!

Attorneys take one side of a lawsuit, gather evidence for their clients, and argue their case! Serving the client with specialized knowledge!

So, no matter how good the judge is! Doesn't stop a lawyer from standing firmly on his client's side! To "kick ass" in litigation! Showing off!

A lawyer's job is to present your best face to the judge. If you are convinced that you are such a beauty that the judge is bound to fall in love with you at first sight, even if you are in court in your pajamas, then don't lawyer up.

Even if you are a beautiful woman, should you dress up before going out? It's a problem.

In fact, the process of justice is ultimately a process of subjective judgment, and there is no justice in this world that is very objective and is placed there without argument.

The people's wish is kind, hoping that there will be a Baotian to take care of everything, in fact, all justice is obtained only at a price.

Since judges know the law well, what is the need for lawyers to exist?

This is a question that is indeed being asked by a number of friends.

First, according to the law, the duty of the judge is to adjudicate in the middle, and the judge shall not be involved on his own initiative in claims that have not been raised by the parties.

For example, in a loan dispute between a certain A v. a certain B, the plaintiff, a certain A, demanded that the defendant, a certain B, pay back the money, and a certain B did not show up in court in order to avoid collection of the debt. Based on the plaintiff's evidence, the judge knows that the dispute, has exceeded the statute of limitations.

According to the provisions of Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Statute of Limitations System to the Trial of Civil Cases, if the parties have not raised the defense of the statute of limitations, the people's court shall not interpret the issue of the statute of limitations and take the initiative in applying the statute of limitations in the decision. In this case, the judge knew that the case had already exceeded the statute of limitations, but could only decide in absentia that the plaintiff, Mr. A, had lost the case on the basis of the evidence he had provided.

Secondly, the handling of litigation requires a lot of investigation and evidence collection work, and if all such work is done by judges, it will further aggravate the contradiction between the number of cases and the number of people and increase the burden on taxpayers, whereas if it is done by lawyers, it can free up the judges' energies to deal with more cases.

To a traffic accident tort liability disputes, for example, the plaintiff and defendant need to prepare the evidence, there are medical bills, hospitalization records, forensic information, evidence of lost wages, evidence of dependents and so on dozens of hundreds of pieces of evidence, if you do not use lawyers to get the evidence, relying solely on the judge to get the evidence, it is estimated that the case trial time to be extended by more than three times, a more serious problem is that the judge for the plaintiff and the defendant to get the evidence for both sides, it is difficult to ensure that the completely Objective and fair. If both parties have hired lawyers, the lawyers of each party around the party's claim to collect evidence, will undoubtedly greatly improve the efficiency, speed up, quality assurance. The judge's duty is to examine the objectivity, reasonableness and legality of the evidence in accordance with the evidence adduced and examined by both parties, and to invoke the provisions of the law to make an intermediate decision in accordance with the law.

The reason you would say that is because you don't have a clear picture of what role the judge plays throughout the course of a case, and once you have a clear picture of the judge's role, you won't say that, and you'll know why lawyers are needed.

Judges, in our country's courts are known as trial officers. In a criminal case, for example, the suspect can appoint his own defender (lawyer), the Public Prosecution Office has its own public prosecutor (prosecutor), and the court has a trial officer (judge). All three exist in their own way. The public prosecutor files an indictment with the court for the suspect's crime, the suspect appoints a defender to defend him or her, and the judge tries the case after hearing the public prosecutor's opinion and the defender's opinion. To cite a very simple example, the prosecution materials of the public prosecution authorities are basically provided by the investigating authorities (generally the public security authorities) in our country. In our country, there are some wrongful convictions, and many cases have been vindicated in recent years.

There was a popular saying in the political and legal circles that "public security is the cook, the procuratorate is the caterer, and the court is the diner". What does it mean? That is, this "meal" in the end what to eat, is decided by the public security organs, but also the public security organs to do out, "meal" is ready, by the Procuratorate served to the court, the court as long as responsible for eating on it. Very often, no matter whether the "meal" is delicious or difficult to eat, it is necessary to eat the "meal". So what role do lawyers play in this process? It can be said that the lawyer is to give this "meal" to pick faults. A "meal" only can withstand the lawyer to pick faults, can be a good "meal". This is also the reason why many case officers do not see lawyers, because they know that lawyers come just to find trouble. In fact, some people do not know, they are not only the case, or other people's lives, but also their own lives.

If you all find it helpful, please give it a like!

Click on the avatar to follow me for more law related answers and articles, there's always something similar to your situation!

I am Wuji, your legal advisor.

For criminal cases, the public security organs investigate, the procuratorial organs prosecute and the courts try, and all three parties have legal expertise. For the defendant, most people do not know the law, and even most of them are legally illiterate. In this case from the point of view of legal expertise, the defendant is in a disadvantaged party, if a lawyer, then the situation is different, the lawyer has a wealth of legal expertise, and these departments can fight against the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to be truly realized.

Secondly,Lawyers can supervise the work of the public security organs and procuratorial organs to prevent violations of the lawful rights and interests of the accused in the collection of evidence and law enforcement procedures, to avoid the occurrence of wrongful convictions and to effectively safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the accused or criminal suspects.

Finally,Lawyers can make a defense of innocence or misdemeanor for the defendant at the trial stage, which plays an indispensable role in the correct implementation of the law and the protection of the defendant's legitimate rights and interests during the trial.

In civil cases, lawyers can help the parties who do not know the law to collect and organize the evidence materials in their favor, maximize the parties to fight for the legal rights and interests of the parties to be better achieved.