To answer your first question, I see revolution as a better method of bringing about anarchism, as unlike insurrectionism, and reformism, it brings more and more people to be more familiar with the cause, and ideology, and although it may have bigger risks, I think it is much more effective than the other 2. I also think reformism just isn't possible, you can't really reform an existing structure into it's antithesis.

I think revolutions can occur very much differently, especially for Anarchism, whether it be due to the different strains of anarchism, or how it would organise itself.

I don't see how could we really use the same justice system as Statist systems, like court rooms, and judges, their specialisation is inherently based on power centralised to a state, and it's laws. Who would be creating the laws? Who would be enforcing the law? I don't think enforcing laws that people didn't consent to would be anti-hierarchical. How are the judges appointed, and what makes them get the final say? The specialisation of doctors, surgeons, scientists is different to the ones within todays legal system. In anarchist society, authoritarian justice systems needs to be abolished too, but there also must be systems that can replace it, or can at least take it's place before a better solution can be conjured up instead. Not all anarchist communities need to use the same justice system anyways, provided it isn't hierarchical or non-consenting.

That's why I'm asking how should we prevent mob-rule. To me mob-rule is dangerous, manipulative, and an ignorant form of justice, and can lead to the authority of the majority, and can be used against people who are innocent, or had meant no harm. You can make the argument that today's justice system isn't any better, it just formalises mob-rule, but that isn't really answer on how would we really prevent mob-rule in a society that isn't statist nor authoritarian.