Do you think people in the legal system will necessary make the case decisions you desire if they become more familiar with your preferred subset of industry knowledge? That's the nub of the issue here. The thread is a complaint about a judicial decision. The one thing judges become practiced in doing is evaluating which parties to a case are b___s____ing and which parties are being straight with the court and law-abiding in their actions outside court. A trial judge's judgment can be reversed by an appellate court if the appellate court determines that the trial judge misapplied the law to the case. But it is a rare circumstance when an appellate court reverses any finding of fact by a trial judge, because trial judges see the witnesses, review all the evidence submitted by all parties to the case, and hear motions from all parties about evidence should be admitted.

In general, I think that most young people who attend law school are more knowledgeable about the law after attending than before. (I cannot say the same with confidence about young people who attend colleges of education with respect to teaching.) But as someone with a legal background, some of the statements I see here about why the Australian judge's decision was an outrage are not convincing to me. Are you willing to consider the possibility that if all readers of HN became much more knowledgeable about the law, they might perhaps disagree with the dollar amount of the judgment, but support the finding of liability in the case?