It is rare for the law to completely favour one side over the other. There is usually a legal argument that must be made on both sides of a particular issue. However, the law generally leans in one direction, and I have found that the legal force of a case is less important than the given facts of the case. In my experience with local judges, it is often the facts that determine the outcome of cases, not the law; That is, I have had many situations and cases where the law is stacked on my side to some extent and my client has always received an unfavorable outcome. Conversely, I scratched my head on the results where I was disadvantaged by the law, but I got a victory for my client on the basis of favorable facts. I think it is because most trial judges are legally realistic. Realism was treated as a conceptual claim for much of the late 20th century because of H.L.A. Hart`s misunderstanding of theory.  Hart was an analytical legal philosopher who was interested in the conceptual analysis of concepts such as the notion of «law.» This included identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the term «law». When realists like Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out that those involved in the legal system generally wanted to know what was going to happen, Hart assumed that they provided the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the term «law.» Today, legal theorists tend to recognize that realists and conceptual jurists were interested in different issues. Realists are interested in methods to predict judges more accurately, while conceptual lawyers are interested in the correct use of legal terms. I believe trial judges are more likely to be legally realistic for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I believe their overburdened court cases force this into local courtrooms.
Judges are often placed in situations where they must act quickly to deal with the large number of cases before their respective courts. They often «split the baby in half» to solve certain problems. They don`t have the time to sift through lengthy briefs that lawyers are known to write, and frankly, they don`t have the time to spend the time that a cognitive approach would require on joint litigation. It is much easier and more efficient for judges to resolve cases quickly by doing what they believe is the best outcome for the parties to the court, regardless of complex legal concepts. They have a general understanding of the many legal interests and have a working knowledge of the fundamental concepts that guide their day-to-day decision-making. They are not interested in being published in the Yale Law Review for their ingenious thoughts or opinions on an original topic. They just want to get through the day and be able to sleep with the decisions they made from the bench. Examples of such laws that realists opposed included labor laws, which would allow management to replace striking workers, and contract laws, which allowed employers to terminate contracts with their employees at will without a legal reason. Legal realism was primarily a reaction to the legal formalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was the dominant approach for much of the early 20th century. With her negative willingness to challenge formalistic assumptions, she managed to ensure that judges always do what they said, so that it is often said that «we are all realistic now». Realism, however, has failed in its positive quest to find a better way to predict how judges would behave than relying on the reasons given by judges.
Legal realism is not a unified collection of thoughts. Many realists, such as Pound and Llewellyn, were highly critical of each other and presented irreconcilable theories. Nevertheless, five currents of thought dominate the movement. The streams focus on power and economics in society, the beliefs and characteristics of each judge, the well-being of society, a practical approach to a sustainable outcome, and a synthesis of legal philosophies. The idea that judges legislate from the judiciary was a revolutionary idea that ran counter to orthodox legal thought of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In The Federalist, no. In 78, Alexander Hamilton formulated the orthodox position when he declared that the judiciary is the «least dangerous branch» because it has «neither power nor will, but only judgment.» The legislature, Hamilton said, has the power to prescribe the rights and duties by which the country is to be regulated, and the executive has the duty to enforce those laws by the power of the sword. The role of the judiciary, Hamilton writes, is simply to interpret and apply the laws passed by the other two branches. The training and experience that an individual lawyer undergoes to prepare for the bailiff is aimed at evading this human condition and making him an objective thinker. The quality abstract society that lawyers and judges try to teach is called «cognitive» decision-making.
Most individuals are usually «affective» thinkers. It simply means that most people use the right side of their brain to make decisions. These people tend to be emotional, creative, and interested in people rather than legal issues. They often see hearings and trials as human tragedies rather than abstract issues. Cognitive thinkers, on the other hand, are supposed to argue with the left side of their brains. This thinker is more interested in abstract issues than people, likes to wait and not decide until all the evidence is received, and uses inductive reasoning to make a final logical decision. That being said, no one is completely «cognitive» or «affective»; On the contrary, each person is a combination of both, and a continuum is probably a better perspective than a strict answer to the question of what kind of thinker is a particular person. For obvious reasons, most judges tend to be more cognitive thinkers; Again, however, it is a matter of degree. Each judge has a different mix of the two types of thought patterns and can be influenced by a variety of factors when making a decision based on who he or she is. Both Hamilton and Marshall believed that the law is an autonomous body of knowledge, independent and distinct from the personal preferences of the judge applying it, and that it is possible to interpret that knowledge objectively. The adherents of this legal theory are known as formalists. In the nineteenth century, formalists argued that state and federal law represented a rational system of rules and principles that judges could apply mechanically to achieve a clear, certain, and non-controversial resolution of a dispute.
Legal realism can also be described as a naturalistic approach to law. Do not follow traditional legal principles, but question these traditional principles. Legal realism asserts that courts can logically and objectively apply the rules and principles that guide them. It has long been said, «A good lawyer knows the law; A great lawyer knows the judge. This saying couldn`t be truer in everyday legal practice, but perhaps not for the reason most people think of first. In my experience, judges rarely make decisions based on particular relationships or preferences for a particular legal counsel or parties. Of course, this is a great generalization and I am sure it happens somewhere in the democratic world from time to time, but I firmly believe that it rarely happens. Judges, while human, regularly strive to be impartial towards individual litigants or criminal defendants. What is happening, however, is that judges, for the sake of «general fairness,» sometimes deviate from the strict application of the law when this does not seem to be «common sense.» A theory of law and legal reasoning that emerged in the early decades of the twentieth century is largely characterized by the assertion that the law can be better understood by focusing on what judges actually do when they rule on cases, rather than what they say they do.  The central objective of legal realism was legal formalism: the classical view that judges do not make a law, but apply it mechanically by drawing logically unambiguous legal conclusions from a set of clear, coherent and comprehensive legal rules.
American legal realism has been rightly described as «the most important indigenous jurisprudential movement in the United States during the twentieth century.»  The second line of thought supports the relativistic view that the law is nothing more than what a particular court says on a given day, and that the outcome of a dispute varies according to the political, cultural and religious beliefs of the presiding judge. Some realists, such as Jerome N. Frank, another prominent thinker of American jurisprudence in the 1920s and 1930s, have insisted that a judge`s psychological and personality traits also influence the judicial decision-making process. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo even went so far as to call the justices robed legislators. In contrast, «legal realism» is the concept that the law, as a male, malleable corpus of directives, should be applied creatively and liberally so that the law serves good public order and social interests. Legal realists see the legal world as a means of promoting justice and the protection of human rights. Legal realists often believe that judges should gradually develop and update the law because, as the closest branch that comes into contact with economic, social and technological realities, they should and can adapt the law accordingly to meet these needs.