Vol. 5 No. 2 (February, 1995) pp. 47-49
SPECIAL ISSUE, JUDICIAL PROCESS TEXTS
Michael W. McCann, Editor
BEFORE THE LAW: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGAL PROCESS, 5th Edition
by John J. Bonsignore, Ethan Katsh, Peter d'Errico, Ronald M.
Pipkin, Stephen Arons, and Janet Rifkin (Editors). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1994. 574 pp. Paper $34.00.
Reviewed by John Brigham, Department of Political Science,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
BEFORE THE LAW emerges from a Legal Studies tradition which
brought law back into the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum.
Law and Society, a related academic movement, brings social
science approaches to law and consequently incorporates social
considerations, like racialized practices in administering the
death penalty. For Law and Society work, the methods and
pretensions of social science partially distinguish its approach
from that of the professionals. Legal Studies relies on the
undergraduate environment and a reaction against teaching legal
doctrine to distinguish itself from professional legal education.
BEFORE THE LAW tries to treat law as it might have been treated
before it was professionalized and snatched from the liberal
arts. This appears easier than it turns out to be. BEFORE THE LAW
allows us to see why it is so hard to separate law from the
profession. In this capacity, it is a fine text/reader.
Now in the fifth edition, this text had its genesis in the late
1960s. The first edition was published in 1974. I have great
respect for work that goes into multiple editions. This
collection is packed and it has benefited from continuous
revision. It contains more than enough material for a semester
"legal studies" course. I would probably use it myself
but for my training in the institutional dimensions of process
which has resulted in a predisposition to teach things like the
hierarchies of courts in the federal system and the difference
between criminal and civil law. The institutional basics are not
a focus of this book. Luckily I have never faced this adoption
issue because I share a campus with its authors who teach large
and successful classes using the text.
The distinctive framework of BEFORE THE LAW is of the greatest
interest to me because it allows me to raise a few questions
about ways Americans see law. The authors, like so many in power
today, have moved from the 60s into middle age. Yet, unlike
others (the President, the Speaker of the House) they have not
quite become respectable. The authors have constructed the book
as outsiders. The book teaches that law is mysterious,
complicated and difficult to penetrate, in short, that it is run
by others. I think their view is a remarkably common one in law
schools, especially very good law schools, where methods from
outside the law, from interpretation to economics, have been
incorporated. The authors consider this obfuscation problematic
and from its signature parable to the critical voice throughout,
the point is brought home. I think that the message in BEFORE THE
LAW, as well as in professional practice, may be making the
critical framework more acceptable than it once was.
The new edition looks a lot like its predecessor. In muted tones,
the cover carries a portrait from the COURTHOUSES OF THE
COMMONWEALTH, the handsome collection of photo essays on the
Page 48 follows:
Massachusetts courts by Keller and Peet. BEFORE THE LAW is
divided into six key parts (Theory and Practice, Police, Legal
Profession and Legal System, Juries and Community Participation,
Conflict Resolution, and Legal Theory) with 3-8 chapters in each
part. Each chapter contains 3-5 readings. There is minimal
writing by the authors. Mostly, this writing is confined to short
introductory paragraphs, more extensive notes, questions and
comments at the end. This material is of very high quality and
here Legal Studies draws from its big brother in the law schools
to employ illuminating cases and wrap them in provocative
questions. For instance, following the Foreword begins,
"Before the law stands a doorkeeper on guard. To this
doorkeeper there comes a man from the country...." The notes
discuss the parable as "an old and odd form of
education" (xix) traceable to the old testaments of most
religions. (Here in the notes, the refinements that this book has
received over the years is evident.)
This reviewer is drawn to speculate on the relationship between
the title of the book, which comes from this passage in Franz
Kafka's THE TRIAL and the handsome architecture of the 19th
century courtroom on the cover because the relationship between
the two defines the framework of the book. Kafka presented the
law as something difficult to know because authorities wanted it
to be that way. Kafka's man from the country has little luck
gaining admittance to the law even though he thinks that the Law
"...should be accessible to every man and at all times"
(xviii). The reader is positioned outside like "the man from
the country". Yet, as the cover suggests, the vernacular
American courtroom is something we visit quite often, at least
culturally if not in person. The contradiction is important.
This image of citizen or student outsider is not my image of the
law. When I first learned of this "continental" view in
the 1960s it reflected the alienation of my generation. Although
I didn't know enough to understand its implications, I accepted
it at the time. Foreignness as an expression of alienation had
more appeal then. Now, I think this perspective is off the mark
and that the more accurate picture in America is of access and
vernacular legal penetration that gives law its power. Although
getting to the trial is still pretty foreign, most of us are
participants in the law and now know many of its mysteries. With
Christine Harrington I have argued that in its ordinariness and
in its penetration into the fabric of our lives, the law
exercises greater control than the continental law of Kafka's
oppressive doorways.
I feel free to indulge my concern about the frame because the
text provides the material for this kind of analysis. We see the
law in this book not in its formal, black letter manifestations,
but in the fascination with its ambiguity. With these materials
we can investigate its power. At one level, the book is full of
material that attests to our capacity to know the law. We are
invited to learn how lawyers reason and how judges think. We are
introduced to law in much the same way that lawyers are
introduced to it. This is a Legal Realist text in the modern
manifestation that movement has taken. I believe the point of the
book, though it is not explicitly stated, is a grudging respect
for law's institutions and practices which is manifested in the
readiness to enter the fray, to ask lots of questions. This stuff
reflects the diverse
Page 49 follows: authors' and in this respect the book benefits
greatly from the many scholars who came together in its creation.
The book contains many of the classic readings in the legal
studies tradition (Llewellyn from THE BRAMBLE BUSH, Orwell on
Shooting an Elephant, de Tocqueville on the legal profession,
Jerome Frank on fights and truth, Martin Luther King, Jr. from
the Birmingham jail, and Robert Cover on Violence) and some cases
that have been widely used to elaborate this tradition (FURMAN,
EEOC V. SEARS ROEBUCK, NOW V. OPERATION RESCUE). But the book is
more than simply a collection of the classics. There are a number
of selections here not adequately covered in conventional legal
studies readers, including excellent material on legislation and
administrative lawmaking, tax and other commercial questions as
well as useful selections by Duncan Kennedy, Patricia Williams,
Marc Galanter and V.I. Lenin.
In the language of the recent past, the book has a voice. It is a
progressive collection. The writers help us see that law is not
equally accessible to everyone; that law serves entrenched power
quite effectively; and that people as jurors are an important
democratic element of the system. There are sections on feminism
and conflict resolution. There is extensive treatment of the jury
and special sections on the relationship between "law,
status, wealth and power." The success of the book supports
the proposition that this voice rings true to many scholars in
the field.
The readings, the organization and the editorial material all
establish the value of this veteran text. To me its greatest
strength is that it is provocative. The authors say that they
want it to be but, frankly, when they say this it does not ring
true. It's when you begin to work with the materials that their
richness emerges. Here is where legal meaning and legal ambiguity
come through and here in the names (Faludi, Felstiner, Crenshaw,
Turow, Noonan) and the issues (race, sex, abortion, search and
seizure, jury nullification, conflict resolution) one feels the
vitality of legal studies.
Reference:
EEOC V. SEARS ROEBUCK 628 F. Sup. 1264 (1986)
FURMAN V. GEORGIA 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
Franz Kafka, THE TRIAL (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1937)
Karl N. Llewellyn, THE BRAMBLE BUSH (New York: Oceana, 1951)
NOW V. OPERATION RESCUE 726 F. Sup. 1483 (1989)
George Peet and Gabrielle Keller, COURTHOUSES OF THE COMMONWEALTH
(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984).