question: Why does a law/similiar ruling basically not exist unless the lawyer brings it up?
comment: 1. What you're describing typically doesn't happen in real life but happens a lot in fictional media. Additionally, in a jury trial a judge wouldn't be the one "letting them off the hook" - the jury is. 2. The job of a judge isn't to make arguments for or against the defendant. This would be bad, and systems of "justice" wherein a government official determines guilt or innocence entirely on their own tend to be not so good for anybody but the government. 3. Law is a HUGE MASSIVE SUBJECT. There's a reason why lawyers get paid so much - not only for the experience, but for the time that goes into researching cases and forming arguments. Just like you don't know literally everything there is to know about your favorite subjects and might occasionally need to look something up, or might ook something up and realize something you thought you remembered was incorrect, this happens to lawyers too.
passages: According to an article in the Florida State University Law Review, some states have abandoned the "Anders" procedure for other means to review appellate cases where the attorney claims no non-frivolous grounds.
   Some federal courts of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue orally (even so nonargument disposition is still possible), and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a rule that all persons arguing orally must be attorneys, although the Supreme Court claims it was simply codifying a "long-standing practice of the court." The last non-attorney to argue orally before the Supreme Court was Sam Sloan in 1978.
   Cross examination within the adversary process is adequate to help legal decision makers arrive at efficient ends to disputes. "We recognize that, in practice, a gatekeeping role for the judge, no matter how flexible, inevitably on occasion will prevent the jury from learning of authentic insights and innovations. That, nevertheless, is the balance that is struck by Rules of Evidence designed not for the exhaustive search for cosmic understanding but for the particularized resolution of legal disputes."
  
  Section::::Aftermath.
   In addition, the hold must include precise, clear language that informs all custodians of their responsibilities to preserve evidence. Once the organization issues the litigation hold, the lawyer’s responsibilities toward this data do not end; rather, they must regularly prompt custodians to continue preserving evidence by sending out reminder notices.
   Arguing a client's case before a judge or jury in a court of law is the traditional province of the barrister in England, and of advocates in some civil law jurisdictions. However, the boundary between barristers and solicitors has evolved. In England today, the barrister monopoly covers only appellate courts, and barristers must compete directly with solicitors in many trial courts. In countries like the United States, that have fused legal professions, there are trial lawyers who specialize in trying cases in court, but trial lawyers do not have a legal monopoly like barristers. In some countries, litigants have the option of arguing "pro se", or on their own behalf. It is common for litigants to appear unrepresented before certain courts like small claims courts; indeed, many such courts do not allow lawyers to speak for their clients, in an effort to save money for all participants in a small case. In other countries, like Venezuela, no one may appear before a judge unless represented by a lawyer. The advantage of the latter regime is that lawyers are familiar with the court's customs and procedures, and make the legal system more efficient for all involved. Unrepresented parties often damage their own credibility or slow the court down as a result of their inexperience.
   The Illinois competency statute merely states: "A defendant is unfit if, because of his mental or physical condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense."
  
  In Dusky v. U.S., the Court held that a defendant's competency was measured by "whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him"
   Certain critics have argued that legal ghostwriting actually gives the self-represented litigant an unfair advantage over his or her adversary, even when that adversary has an attorney. The reason for this is that judges have had a history of giving pro se litigants more leeway in the courtroom to make up for their lack of experience. For example, a person appearing pro se might be allowed to fix a procedural error but had a lawyer had made the same mistake, their error would have led to some adverse consequence. When a self-represented litigant uses an attorney as a ghostwriter, critics argue he or she should not be entitled to any special treatment. However, proponents of legal ghostwriting point out that while judges might grant certain flexibility to "pro se" clients on procedural matters, no judge would rule in favor of a party simply because they lacked an attorney.
   Today, determining legislative intent is a critical job that arises from the distinct and separate roles played by the judiciary and the legislature in administering justice. Judges are routinely required to apply the relevant laws and rules passed by the legislature to the decisions they make. There are reasons this can be difficult.
   This case set the current standard for adjudicative competence in the United States. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States, the two elements outlined in the decision are held in common:
  
  BULLET::::- The defendant must understand the charges against him or her
  
  BULLET::::- The defendant must have the ability to aid his or her attorney in his or her own defense.
  
  Felhous (2011), who argues that many state statutes and the federal statute do not incorporate the rationality standard enunciated in "Dusky".
   In Nova Scotia, on the other hand, the Rules of Civil Procedure are made by the judges of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.46 of the Judicature Act. The Attorney General does not have a hand in their creation, and they are not subject to approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Court of Appeal for Nova Scotia has taken the position that a single judge of the court may use the inherent jurisdiction of the court to manage its own procedures.
  
  Section::::See also.
  
  BULLET::::- Court system of Canada
   Formalists, contrary to Realists, take the judge at face-value, assuming that the facts and principles as recorded in a judge's reasons reflect the facts that the judge considered to be relevant, and the principles that the judge arrived at to reach the judgement. They therefore place little emphasis on the means by which a judge determines the facts.
   In most U.S. states, certain areas of the law, especially the law of contracts and torts, continue to exist primarily in the form of case law, subject only to limited statutory modifications and refinements. Thus, for example, there is no statute in most states which one can consult for answers on basic issues like the essential elements of a contract. Rather, one must consult case law, with all the complexity and difficulty that implies.
   Even if an exception to the work-product doctrine is made, the court would still protect privileged actions by an attorney, by redacting the privileged part of the document. "Memoranda, briefs, communications ... other writings prepared by counsel for his/her own use in prosecuting the client's case ... mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories" are never discoverable by an opposing party.
  
  Section::::History.
   Certain activities, such as the representation of another person in litigation, are generally proscribed. Even in that area, many jurisdictions recognize exceptions for such matters as small-claims and landlord-tenant tribunals and certain proceedings in administrative agencies. Moreover, many jurisdictions have authorized law students and others not locally admitted to represent indigent persons or others as part of clinical legal education programs. . . .
   In order for the rule to be effective, the contract in question must first be a final integrated writing; it must, in the judgment of the court, be the final agreement between the parties (as opposed to a mere draft, for example).
   The majority began by explaining that judiciary's authority under Article III of the United States Constitution is to "'say what the law is'", quoting "Marbury v. Madison" (1803). "Congress, no doubt, may not usurp a court's power to interpret and apply the law to the circumstances before it" by, for example, saying in a hypothetical case "Smith v. Jones" that Smith wins or compelling the courts to reexamine a case after final judgment has been issued.
   In its most wide-reaching form, the principle of "iura novit curia" allows the court to base its decision on a legal theory that has not been the subject of argument by the parties. However, in view of the parties' right to be heard ("audiatur et altera pars") and the adversarial principle, both also recognized in civil law systems, this freedom is not unlimited. Many jurisdictions require the court to allow the parties to address any points of law first raised by the court itself. 
   BULLET::::3. The truth of (2) is derived, not from EU law, but purely from the law of England: the common law recognises a category of constitutional statutes.
   California, Illinois and New York are notable in that almost all of their "sui generis" civil procedure systems are codified in statutory law, not in rules promulgated by the state supreme court or the state bar association. The position taken by these states is that to protect the rights of the citizens of a representative democracy, civil procedure should be directly managed by legislators elected by the people on a frequent basis, not judges who are subject only to relatively infrequent retention elections (California) or direct elections (Illinois and New York). (All three states have strong traditions of popular sovereignty; they are among the minority of U.S. states whose enacting clauses and criminal prosecutions are done in the name of the people, rather than the state.) The other problem with having judges manage civil procedure rules is that they are usually too busy with their regular caseloads to directly draft new or amended rules themselves. As noted above, most of the real work is delegated to appointed advisory committees. 
   Legislation can also be challenged by courts that are trying cases for whose outcome it is relevant.
  
  Legislation can further be challenged by one of the parties to the a trial, but only after the trial court has handed down its verdict and only if the verdict actually references the piece of legislation in question.
  
  Verdicts by administrative trial courts can additionally be challenged on the grounds that they violate the relevant party's constitutional rights in some other way.
   Generally, geographic limitations can be troublesome for a lawyer who discovers that his client's cause requires him to litigate in a court beyond the normal geographic scope of his license. Although most courts have special "pro hac vice" rules for such occasions, the lawyer will still have to deal with a different set of professional responsibility rules, as well as the possibility of other differences in substantive and procedural law.
   Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also affect "pro se" litigants. For example, the Judicial Council of California officially advocates treating self-represented litigants fairly. The California rules allow for accommodating mistakes by a "pro se" litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal, if the case is otherwise merited. In addition the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgments notes that "pro se" litigants may need additional advice with regard to necessity of responding a summary judgment motion.
   Section::::Gaming the system.
  
  Gaming the system, also called "rules lawyering", is a pejorative phrase applied to someone who follows the letter of the law to obtain an outcome the speaker finds immoral or contrary to the spirit of the law. There are two reasons why this can be possible. A body of law may have been formulated in a way that permits ambiguity, or else there may be limitations in the law's scope or jurisdiction. For example, an offshore bank account can be used to reduce domestic tax obligations in some countries.
  
  Section::::See also.
  
  BULLET::::- Law:
   Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving the executor or personal administrator of a probate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.
   Controlling law can also have an effect on whether or not a lawsuit begins in the first place. When the plaintiff resides in a different state than the defendant, taking action can be extremely expensive. The costs of hiring an attorney in the area, along with the costs of travel and wages lost from appearing in court, can often discourage them from filing the lawsuit. This effectively limits the number of minor claims brought against the author of the contract, although more serious claims are often brought without regard to the expense.
  
  Section::::See also.
  
  BULLET::::- Forum selection clause
  
presuppositions: A law/similiar ruling does not exist unless the lawyer brings it up. A law/ruling doesn't exist until the lawyer brings it up.
corrections: This doesn't typically happen in real life but happens a lot in fictional media. This happens a lot in fictional media, but typically doesn't happen in real life.
raw_presuppositions: A law/similiar ruling does not exist unless the lawyer brings it up. A law/ruling doesn't exist until the lawyer brings it up.
raw_corrections: This doesn't typically happen in real life but happens a lot in fictional media. This happens a lot in fictional media, but typically doesn't happen in real life.