Non-lawyers who represent themselves in court don't stumble because of a sinister conspiracy by lawyers to trip them up. They stumble because law is a really complicated subject, and no matter how smart you are it's impossible to replace years of full-time learning with a little reading on the side.
The saying "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" is hundreds of years old.
Put another way: nobody individually profits when the law is made simple and clear.
If you want to have rule of law relying on simple laws just doesn't cut it most of the time.
Now, legalese can and should be reduced, modern lawyers are working on that. But laws will always be used to enforce/define complex systems or relationships. This often requires complex rules.
I do see how the application of simple law is complex. But that complexity could be seen as a trade-off. I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law.
The people experiencing such injustice are not willing, and violently so.
Having been through a 2 year legal battle myself, I can tell you that the complexity is there for a reason, and that reason is lawyers arguing a client's case, the court reconsidering their previous opinion, and hopefully a more fair outcome going forward. The world is far more complex than we can imagine, otherwise we'd be able to write perfect, simple laws.
Let me give you a challenge: Say my wife and I are getting a divorce, and we are splitting up community property. I have options and RSUs (any equity asset on a vesting schedule really) that I was awarded before we were married, some that were awarded after, some awarded before that vested after our date of separation. These all have different vesting schedules, strike prices, and hypothetical future value (stock might tank, might leave before it all vests, etc). What is a simple law to determine what dollar value I owe my ex for her interest in this community property?
For instance in your divorce question: why not excercise everything at the date of divorce and split the proceeds 50/50? Is that outrageous? Or simple?
What if one of the parties doesn't want to sell the stock, or it doesn't make sense because the stocks are currently underwater (but may not be at some future date)? What if many of the assets in question are Restricted Stock Units, with no agreed upon value since they cannot be priced until they are released?
"Just sell it all and split it 50/50! DUH!" is not something that works in the real world, where the law is meant to operate.
You think hanging them up from yardarms would deter them?
You want to ensure proper behavior; you have to take away the tools that let them aggregate power in the first place; and prevent it from re-occurring.
There is no "higher" standard. There is only one standard; functional, competent, accountable, just.
If you don't have a legal system that can accomplish those. Then you need to scrap your legal system. Not "hold them to a higher standard", which often is just an escape clause for preferential treatment ("Chevron deference").
It is not an accident that the GINI coefficient, is so drastically out of whack in the US.
The mortgage system, was meant to break the original land grants (which had to be honored under British-American common law).
The corporation both a shield for the rich; and a sword against the middle-classes as it disenfranchises citizens from the bill of rights.
Intellectual property is just a more extreme form of corporations. The notion that idea can be owned for decades, with the cost of enforcement out-sourced to the public, and private profits insourced.
Same with the public schooling system (ready workers). Etc.
Just about every Western institution ("improvement") you'ld care to name, has an ulterior motive moving us one step further along to what amounts to perpetual slavery.
I think if you sent back a person from this era, 120+ years ago, to try and "improve" the American system, they'ld have burned him alive. Such is the level of degradation inherent in todays "modern" governance.
My point is that if your guild is entrusted with monopoly power by the government, the guild's behavior must be held to a higher standard (work must be in the public's interest, not in the guild member's individual interest). Unfortunately this point seems to be lost in modern culture.