Suchergebnisse

Richard L. Abel presents the stories of ten California lawyers who broke the rules: hiring an ex-cop to chase ambulances flouting fee limitations in medical malpractice cases, creating a fictitious company and impersonating non-existent people in order to appropriate Sega's computer games

Using detailed records of disciplinary proceedings and six disciplinary case studies, Abel describes the actions surrounding certain cases based on three of the most common complaints: neglecting the client, overcharging of clients, and betraying adversaries and courts out of excessive loyalty to clients or causes

Preface / Philip S.C. Lewis -- Revisioning lawyers / Richard L. Abel -- England and Wales: a comparison of the professional projects of barristers and solicitors / Richard L. Abel -- German advocates: a highly regulated profession / Erhard Blankenburg and Ulrike Schultz -- The present state of Japanese practicing attorneys: on the way to full professionalization? / Kahei Rokumoto -- Legal experts in Belgium / Luc Huyse -- The Venezuelan legal profession: lawyers in an inegalitarian society / Rogelio P(c)♭rez Perdomo -- Feminization of the legal profession: the comparative sociology of women lawyers / Carrie Menkel-Meadow -- Putting law back into the sociology of lawyers / Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis

This detailed portrait of American lawyers traces their efforts to professionalize during the last 100 years by erecting barriers to control the quality and quantity of entrants. Abel describes the rise and fall of restrictive practices that dampened competition among lawyers and with outsiders. He shows how lawyers simultaneously sought to increase access to justice while stimulating demand for services, and their efforts to regulate themselves while forestalling external control. Data on income and status illuminate the success of these efforts. Charting the dramatic transformation of the pr

The Politics of Informal Justice.

The Trump administration directly attacked and indirectly subverted liberal democracy in many ways. This article describes several pivotal attacks and evaluates the efficacy of efforts to defend liberal democracy. It begins by analyzing how the administration continued to wage the US "war on terror," contrasting its behavior with that of the Bush and Obama administrations with respect to indefinite detention in Guantánamo Bay, torture, electronic surveillance, civilian casualties, criminal prosecutions for terrorism, courts martial, military commissions, habeas corpus petitions, and civil liberties. Judicial decisions in civil liberties cases correlated significantly with the party of the appointing president in all three administrations, most strongly among those by Trump appointees. I then turn to two of Trump's central preoccupations: immigration and the Russia investigation. Having based his 2016 campaign on demonizing immigrants, President Trump sought to execute his threats through executive orders and other actions. Almost all were struck down by courts in cases where judges divided along political lines, most dramatically in the Supreme Court. Frustrated by his inability to block the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump sought to intervene in the prosecutions of his underlings that emerged from that inquiry. He attacked the FBI, appointed a compliant Attorney General (who substituted his subordinates for independent prosecutors, changed sentencing recommendations and withdrew successful prosecutions), dangled the prospect of pardons to ensure the silence of the accused, and granted them after conviction. The central lesson of this appalling era of American history is that law is inescapably political. Where politicians appoint judges and government lawyers, the defense of liberal democracy ultimately rests on the ballot box.

Cet article examine l'importance des voies formelles et informelles de règlement des conflits par les tribunaux , développe un modèle d'analyse destiné à montrer les similarités entre ces deux modalités ; propose des illustrations de ce modèle prises dans la vie américaine , puis l'utilise pour affirmer la signification politique de l'intérêt contemporain pour toute institution informelle.

Redistributing laywers' services is a principal focus of efforts to reform contemporary legal systems. Such reforms generally attempt to modify the market distribution in oneof two ways: by subsidizing lawyers for the unrepresented, or by rendering lawyers unnecessary through deprofessionalization. This essay analyzes the contribution that redistribution could make to social (rather than formal) justice by extrapolating the consequences of the greatest conceivable redistribution: a socialization of the profession that would withdraw lawyers from those who presently purchase lawyers' services, while simultaneously subsidizing lawyers for the unrepresented. It then turns to the political prospects forsocialization. Concluding that socialization appears either feasible nor likely to attainsocial justice if it were possible, the essay reflects on the implications of continued pursuit of reformist goals.