Yeah. Jury of your peers is fine for non-technical matters, but an awful lot of cases are technical. I would like to see a profession "juror" that requires a broad science education--enough that it doesn't come down to whose "expert" is better at making it believable. And for cases involving licenses make some of it people qualified to hold the license. (And the lawyers would hate that. They go ape over supposed lack of liability with vaccines--no, it goes before medically trained people. And locally there used to be a malpractice review board--three? doctors, three? lawyers. All malpractice cases must be presented to it first--non-binding but your chances in court were pretty slim if you did get a majority from the review board. The lawyers really loved destroying that.)
> And for cases involving licenses make some of it people qualified to hold the license.
Cases involving licenses (rather than cases involving torts or crimes by licensed professionals, which are not the same thing) already do, generally; they aren't held in courts, they are held by licensing boards who are themselves composed of licensed professionals in the same profession.
> And the lawyers would hate that.
Legal malpractice being tried to a jury of lawyers? Lawyers would love that.
