Somehow it seems to work quite fine. I can't say if judges here have some approximate documentation for acceptable hourly costs and work loads, or if it's decided case by case.

The US has elected judges, who have to campaign, and raise campaign money. The chances are non-nil that the "rich person" has, could or will contribute to the judge's campaign funds.

In practice, this is no different to having judges determine the amount of any damages awarded in a successful civil action or the amount of jail time or size of fine given to a convicted criminal. Making such assessments, taking into account the circumstances of each specific case, is a large part of the role of the judge in many legal systems.

Amount of jail time doesn't really benefit donors, but amount of damages and who pays does.

Sorry, I don't follow. Does "donors" have some technical meaning here?

Judges in the US run for office like politicians and thus have donors to their campaigns. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

What I don't see is how anyone who is inherently subject to popular opinion can possibly rule impartially in the interests of justice, but that's a different question.

I guess people feel the ability to vote out a judge balances versus the problems. It also probably keeps some flaky political appointees from becoming judges.