I don't think I can speak for lawyers generally, but I'm happy to share my own thoughts and concerns, which I know are shared by at least some lawyers.
Personally, I am concerned that magistrates frequently convict people when the case is far from proven beyond reasonable doubt. Read the Secret Barrister's books for some horror stories.
I am concerned that the Court of Appeal still upholds convictions when it is clear that the accused is almost certainly innocent, because they appear to worry that overturning too may convictions will result in people losing faith in the justice system. It has improved, but it still isn't good enough. It shouldn't have needed an Act of Parliament to clear all the subpostmasters. The Court of Appeal should have done the job but, whilst they did clear some, they upheld every single conviction where the Post Office objected to it being overturned. That should not have happened.
I am concerned that the family courts sometimes make odd judgements that really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I am concerned every time I see an appeal where the first tier judge has come up with a decision that suggests they really don't understand the law they are supposed to be upholding.
I could go on.
There is some oversight of judges. The Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO) issued 58 disciplinary sanctions in 2023-24 (the most recent year for which figures are available). I'm not sure whether that means they are catching most misconduct or just the tip of the iceberg.
Things have certainly changed in my lifetime. In criminal trials, for example, there was a time when some judges behaved as if they were an additional advocate for the prosecution. And the practice of the judge using the summing up to strongly guide the jury towards the verdict they wanted has stopped.
But it is still the case that sometimes people fail to get justice because the lower courts make a mess of the case and the litigant does not have enough money and/or determination to pursue an appeal. I would not expect a judge to face sanctions for simply getting it wrong unless they are making the same mistake repeatedly, but they certainly shouldn't be turning in judgements like this one, which is easily the worst I have ever seen.
However, to be balanced, most judgements I have seen are reasonable and the in the overwhelming majority I agree with the judgement. And judges are sometimes in an impossible position. They may, for example, be faced with two different accounts of a road traffic accident with no independent evidence to support either, but they still have to come up with a decision as to who was at fault.
So no, the system is not perfect and I suspect that oversight of judges is inadequate, but the system works well most of the time. However, we should always be looking for ways to improve. The fact that the JCIO is now able to deal with complaints about tribunal judges and non-legal members of tribunals is a step forward in my view - previously these complaints were dealt with by the senior leadership judge in each tribunal.