FrederickWilmot‐Smith, Equal Justice: Fair Legal Systems in an Unfair World, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2019, 272pp, hb £31.95

Abstract

Equal Justice: Fair Legal Systems in an Unfair World begins with a reference to Socrates who went to his death in the belief of the integrity of legal procedures carried out by legal institutions as opposed to a belief in the integrity of and obedience to the laws that condemned him (1). Legal institutions and access to them form the heart of this book. Laws are not its concern; access to them is. It speaks of the need for a 'just justice system'providing equal access for all citizens, primarily through an exploration of the impact of wealth in creating injustices, and the resulting barriers to such access. It is not an ideal form of justice that is sought, but one which reduces injustice. Equal Justice offers a timely and fresh take on injustices in the legal system.For Wilmot-Smith, economic disparity is a root cause of injustice. Wealth's power needs to be neutralised. Seeing legal resources as a public good, he posits that the distribution of legal resources should occur in a way that allocates the benefits and burdens of the legal system fairly across the citizenry -not a condition in evidence currently. A fair distribution procedure through state intervention is necessary. This involves two aspects of system design which are considered in Equal Justice: the equal distribution of legal resources and the primacy of the public forum for claims resolution.Controversial positions are taken in Equal Justice. It proposes the state should intervene in the market distribution of legal resources. It challenges the efficacy of private dispute resolution processes (primarily arbitration), arguing the state should not support such processes. It advocates for general taxation to fund its proposals. While the proposals set out in the book may challenge the institutional establishment, the points advanced are made in a way that broadens perspectives on justice deficiencies of the legal system. Bringing the impact of wealth into the conversation yields timely and astute comments on the (in)ability of citizens to take their disputes to a forum which will dispense justice. Arguments are made in a deceptively simplistic manner. Discussion is couched in philosophical terms. This philosophical approach to injustices of the legal system makes the book unique and a significant addition to scholarship.The chapters systematically build the argument. Chapters 1 and 2 set the stage. The nature of the legal system, its purpose and relationship to justice are explored. The right to equal liberty must mean equal protection of those liberties through a just legal system (36). Equal justice, it is argued, requires sharing the institutional benefits and burdens equally among citizens which depends on an equal distribution of legal resources (25)(26) 33). Market distribution of legal resources and wealth's contribution to its unequal distribution are explored in