Why the Slow Pace of Justice Is Actually Its Greatest Asset
The Tortoise Method: Why Slow And Steady Does Actually Win The Race
In late January 2026, an international coalition designated the United States as the focus of the Day of the Endangered Lawyer, citing rising pressure and intimidation of lawyers and judges. At nearly the same time, two federal judges in Virginia took the extraordinary step of ordering the replacement of a US attorney appointed without Senate confirmation.
These episodes reflect a broader trend: the world’s legal institutions are under strain. But amid debates over pace and adaptability, we’re overlooking a fundamental truth. The deliberate tempo of legal processes isn’t a defect. It’s the cornerstone of legitimacy.
The Tortoise Method: Why Slow Actually Wins
The law’s measured cadence isn’t arbitrary. Procedural safeguards, from evidentiary thresholds and avenues for appeal to formal requirements for hearings and filings, prevent error, protect fairness, and ensure legal decisions can withstand scrutiny. Quick judgments might satisfy public impatience, but they sacrifice the legitimacy that gives law its authority.
This deliberative structure becomes vital when legal institutions face pressure. As US Court of International Trade Judge Delissa Ridgway observed in a recent American Bar Association webinar, the federal judiciary faces threats to judicial independence “unprecedented” in their “scope, scale and speed.” The procedural rigour that produces “slow” outcomes helps protect courts and legal professionals from partisan narratives, preserving independence when external forces demand rapid action.
The Speed Trap: Why “Delay” Isn’t Always What It Seems
Critics routinely decry the pace of law as inefficiency. Yet such critiques miss the fundamental distinction between speed and justice. Legal systems don’t operate on the temporal logic of news cycles or social media, they operate on a logic of reasoned decision-making, where time is intimately tied to legitimacy.
Complaints about “slow justice” frequently ignore that what appears sluggish externally is often checks and balances at work: evidence is sifted, procedures are followed, rights are respected, parties are heard. In contexts where the judiciary faces political pushback- whether through public denunciations of judges or executive overreach into prosecutorial appointments- the temptation to simplify outcomes or accelerate processes can be strong. But such shortcuts threaten the values the rule of law upholds.
As Columbia Law School’s Katharina Pistor notes in her recent work on legal regimes, the law’s machinery isn’t merely technical—it’s structural protection against arbitrary power. When we rush that machinery, we risk dismantling the safeguards it provides.
The Cost of Hasty Justice
When law is rushed, errors multiply and confidence shrinks. Decisions later overturned on appeal, judgments issued without full evidence consideration, or procedural shortcuts all chip away at institutional credibility. The European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report emphasises that justice systems require proper checks and balances, not expedited processes that undermine foundations.
Conversely, when legal systems adhere to their internal processes, they produce outcomes that withstand scrutiny, reduce error risk, and reinforce public trust. Democracy Forward’s analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term highlights the dangers of the Court’s “shadow docket,” where high-stakes decisions are made with little transparency on expedited timelines. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in dissent, such rushed processes produce outcomes “no party advocated for”—precisely the arbitrary result that properly paced deliberation prevents.
Why Procedural Patience Matters Now More Than Ever
The current climate underscores why procedural deliberation matters. Protecting the pace of law isn’t conservatism for its own sake- it’s a necessary bulwark against arbitrary rule and undermined institutions. As legal scholars at Harvard Law School’s “Facing the Future” conference observed, justice-oriented lawyering in an era of systemic challenges requires defending the structural protections that make justice possible.
The Law Society of England and Wales recently warned that “even well-established legal systems are not immune to political interference.” When lawyers and judges face targeting for doing their jobs, the deliberate pace of justice becomes essential. The time required for proper legal process protects not only individual litigants but the entire framework of accountable governance.
In a world demanding instant answers, the law’s measured rhythm can seem frustrating. But that frustration signals the system working as designed- refusing to sacrifice justice for speed, protecting rights through rigorous process, and maintaining legitimacy under pressure. The slow pace of justice isn’t failure. It’s strength.