The law is not usually simple. In fact, it is often complicated. That's why lawyers spend years in law school learning about it. And then years more practicing it.

But while the law is complicated, it should never be treated or applied as complex. What's the difference, you ask? And why does it matter? Read on.

Google "complicated vs. complex" and you'll soon learn the significant difference in these terms. You'll find a slew of articles, posts, and other information explaining this in the context of various industries and systems. The Harvard Business Review, for instance, published an article that hits the point head-on: “[T]he main difference between complicated and complex systems is that with the former, one can usually predict outcomes by knowing the starting conditions. In a complex system, the same starting conditions can produce different outcomes, depending on interactions of the elements in the system.” Gokce Sargut and Rita Gunther McGrath, Harvard Business Review, quoted in John M. Kamensky, "Managing the Complicated vs. the Complex," IBM Center for the Business of Government, Viewpoints (Fall/Winter 2011), available here JohnKamensky.pdf. As Kamensky explains, "[f]or example, building a highway is complicated, but managing urban traffic congestion is complex. Likewise, building a state-of-the-art air traffic control center is a complicated challenge in executing a project, while directing air traffic is complex, involving in-the-moment problem-solving." Id.

The key takeaway regarding how this applies to our legal system is this - the outcome of a complicated problem is "predictable and linear in nature..." Id. In other words, by linearly (i.e. logically) applying rules (i.e. laws) to a set of facts, you should be able to predict the outcome. In a complex problem, in contrast, outcomes cannot be predicted, or at least not easily so. Id. Put differently, if complex, you cannot linearly apply the law to the set of facts and predict the outcome - one time one result, a second time a second, different result. And that is why we must firmly reject and fight back against claims that the law is or can be complex.

Our legal system is a system, no different than a highway system, or a traffic control system. It addresses civil, criminal, administrative, and other legal disputes and issues, intended to resolve them through a specified process. Just as building a highway no doubt involves many moving parts (pun intended), so too may a legal case involve many moving parts - witnesses, documents, evidence, etc. But by linearly applying the relevant law to the facts, even if they present a maze of information, the outcome should be predictable - just as applying relevant scientific and design principles to the building of a highway predictably leads to construction of a specific roadway. 

Our legal system is based on two fundamental concepts - notice and fairness. Notice - citizens must have notice of what the law allows and prohibits. Fairness - blind justice, every person is created equal, and should receive equal treatment under the law. If our system is allowed to be viewed as complex - if we blindly accept the many pundits who belittle us with claims that "you don't understand because the law is nuanced..." or statements to that effect - we have accepted that the law cannot be linearly applied to cases, and case results can and will be unpredictable. And if that is so, how are citizens to know what is and is not allowed? How does one person receive equal treatment to another if they get different outcomes depending on whether or not they're a celebrity, or wealthy, or what their political viewpoint is, or their race/color/creed?

We see this more and more, the news reporting a case that seemingly went "off the rails." A result that makes no sense given what we know of the relevant facts and what took place in the courtroom. A different result for one person who is a rich celebrity, than another "regular" person on the same charges. Or a politician of one party found liable for certain actions while a politician of the opposite party skates free for the same conduct. If our system is fair, shouldn't we be able to predict the outcomes of these cases? If we're to know what is and is not permissible under the law, shouldn't both get the same result? 

And to make matters worse, we then hear incessantly from so-called legal "experts" who do mental gymnastics to rationalize how the judge/jury got it right despite the surprising outcome, and how we must accept the decision. They tell us that "the law is complex," that "this case is nuanced," etc.  Of course, we then also hear from plenty of pundits on the other side of the debate claiming "judicial activism..." or political bias. What are we to do, to try and make sense of it all?

Here's what you do - reject the notion that our legal system is complex and unpredictable, and that these kinds of decisions are OK. Push back and call it out when a court or jury renders what appears a random and "off the rails" decision. Advocate for objective, fair-minded laws, judges, and courtrooms, free of political or personal bias and corruption. But in doing so, be careful, and be thoughtful.

Remember, even though our legal system should not be complex (unpredictable), it is complicated. And there are legitimate reasons for some variability in our legal system, even though it is not complex. First, the law is often not simple. Take a read through your city statutes, a few sections of the United States Criminal Code, or (gasp) our nation's tax laws, and you'll soon discover a new way to either fall asleep or trigger a migraine. And relatedly, in most cases, a judge instructs or applies the law as he/she believes appropriate - not all judges take the same approach to a case, laws differ from state to state, and this all means human subjectivity is introduced to the process. So you have variability in the law applied in a case.

Second, the facts of a case are determined by a judge or jury after listening to witnesses, reviewing documentary and other physical evidence, and just plain being present in the courtroom when it is all taking place. What you hear reported in the news, or seized on by a "pundit" or podcaster, is not necessarily the complete picture, nor does it capture things like witness demeanor, credibility, and other things that a fact-finder takes into account and that legitimately matter. So again, you have more variability in the legal process, which affects predictability of case outcomes.

All that said, though, the American legal system is a system "of laws, not men." Our system is based on laws, or statutes, written by legislators, and enacted into law. In theory, a citizen should be able to read a law and understand what is legal, and what is not. This, in contrast to a system in which a man, namely a king, decided what the law was or meant, and enforced it as he saw fit. Some received lenient treatment, others not so much. But the subjectivity and unpredictability of such a system is the opposite of what our system is meant to be. Translated - our legal system is not, or should not be viewed as, complex (ie largely unpredictable). It should generally be predictable, by linear (logical) application of law to facts. And we should all demand it be treated as such.

Those who are OK with our legal system being complex have accepted that "the same starting conditions can produce different outcomes, depending on interactions of the elements in the system.” See id., Sargut and McGrath. Put differently, the same facts and law may produce a different outcome for two different people depending on, e.g., their relative socioeconomic status, celebrity, political viewpoint, etc. How is that fair? Does that comport with notice and blind justice? How is the "rule of law" upheld if there are so many different circumstances and variables that might affect the outcome of a given case - so much so that the outcome is unpredictable?

The answer is plainly that it is not fair, and it is not right. Citizens lose confidence that they know what the law permits, and what it does not. They lose faith that the justice system is indeed blind and treats everybody fairly, or the same. They increasingly come to believe that the outcome of a case, and their fate, lies in their status or lack of status, how well their views and beliefs align with the political or personal predilections of the judge, etc. The rule of law suffers, and deteriorates.

The many legal "experts" you hear from compound the problem. Despite what appears an out-of-line decision, some shout from the rooftops, celebrating the outcome and announcing proudly that the rule of law prevailed - of course, only as long as the decision, however unpredictable, favors their "guy" or their politics or whatever other agenda they have. But when a decision goes against these agenda points - their "guy" gets hammered by a judge or jury, the decision aligns with the other side of the political aisle, the judge was appointed by a President of the other party, etc. - they rant and rave and denounce not only the decision as an "attack on the rule of law," but the "activist judge" who presided over the case. The only thing that benefits are news ratings. Meanwhile, the public's confidence in the legal system suffers further.

So when you see a legal decision that makes no sense and diverges from what you predicted, look deeper. What is the relevant law? What are the facts? What is the expected outcome? Take into account that you likely don't have the complete picture (unless you were in that courtroom). You (and those pundits claiming to know everything) were not privvy to all the facts, all the evidence, the demeanor of the witnesses, or the jury discussions in deliberation.

But don't stop there. Consider reasons why the actual outcome diverged from what you predicted. Decide for yourself if it was likely a matter of agenda and outcome-driven legal maneuvering. Or instead a judge and jury that heard and considered all the evidence and made a good faith decision. Bad decisions deserve to be called-out for what they are. And good decisions deserve to be defended whether you agree with the outcome or not. The integrity of our legal system demands no less.