Legal reform is often undertaken with noble intentions and has the potential to make people’s lives better. Yet, if not carried out thoughtfully and with care, it can also do the opposite. These pitfalls include projects that are simply technical in nature: codification, or the technocratic work of jurists, and which have little or no effect on society at large. They can also involve structural change that, wittingly or not, gives some groups in society a hook or formal excuse to advance their own interests at the expense of others.
For example, suppose that Congress decides it would like a Court that reflects its political objectives. So it adds seats, and fills them with judges whose judicial philosophies seem to best match Congress’s preferences. This may have an immediate impact by reducing the number of cases in which the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution seems to differ from the current majority view. But the underlying interpretive dispute will still remain unresolved.
Similarly, if some people are not happy with the way that the current rules of their community govern land use, they might form a Work Group to try and improve those laws by studying other communities’ practices and considering different ways to do things. The Work Group then prepares proposals for new legislation, and tries to communicate with and educate those most affected by the proposed law changes. Ideally, the work group can reach consensus on its final draft, and the bills it recommends will then be viewed favorably by legislators and enacted into law.