Authentic peer review in the legal profession is rare.
The practice of law can be lonely. Certainly the time spent drafting, reading and preparing is mostly spent in solitude. When it comes to appearances in the Magistrates’ Court, it’s rare to be accompanied to court by anyone except your client – not always the most reliable indicator of how you went.
Your opponent or the presiding magistrate may be forthcoming with their assessment of your efforts, but they do not always have your best interests at heart (though, notably, some do). It’s very easy for practitioners to go on making the same mistakes in their advocacy (in style and substance), year after year through their careers, without anyone bringing these flaws to their attention or suggesting alternative approaches.
If this is true of practitioners, it’s even more so of the judiciary. How often do they get the opportunity to watch one of their brothers or sisters at the grindstone, running a practice court or deciding cases? Never. Reading a transcript or having it described later is not the same thing.
Like all sorts of voluntary training, it’s inevitable that those who need it the most will use it the least. But it’s a step in the right direction.