Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:08:32.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clients, Colleagues, and Community: The Shaping of Zealous Advocacy in Country Law Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Donald D. Landon
Get access

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the impact of context on the exercise of one dimension of professional responsibility—zealous advocacy. The context selected for observation is the small town (population 20,000 or less), where lawyers work under conditions of high visibility, scrutiny, and accountability. The study suggests that in the small town, the lawyer works in a system where expectations of clients, community, and colleagues possess a high degree of salience for the manner in which he works. The expectations of these separate groups tend to converge on the issue of zealous advocacy and result in the rural attorney's being less likely to exploit the possibilities for adversary combat. The definition of “zealous advocacy” under which he works is shaped in the context of his practice, not in the content of his law school socialization.

Type
Articles
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Winter 1985 , pp. 81 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1985 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g., William J. Goode, Robert K. Merton, & Mary Jean Huntington, The Professions in Modern Society (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1957); William J. Goode, Community Within a Community: The Professions, 22 Am. Soc. Rev. 194 (1957); Robert Perucci & Joel Gerstl, Profession Without Community: Engineers in American Society (New York: Random House, 1969). But see Rue Bucher & Anselm Straws, Professions in Process, 66 Am. J. Soc. 325 (1961).Google Scholar

2 Goode, supra note 1.Google Scholar

3 Fragmentation within the legal profession has been documented in a series of studies of the metropolitan bar. E.g., Jack Ladinsky, The Impact of Social Backgrounds of Lawyers on Law Practice and the Law, 16 J. Legal Educ. 127 (1963); Jerome E. Carlin, Lawyers on Their Own: A Study of Individual Practitioners (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962); id., Lawyers' Ethics: A Survey of the New York City Bar (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966); Erwin O. Smigel, The Wall Street Lawyer: Professional Organization Man? (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969); John P. Heinz & Edward O. Laumann, Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar (New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1982).Google Scholar

4 Goode, supra note 1.Google Scholar

5 The population of attorneys from which the sample was selected was limited to attorneys in private practice. The list was compiled from the 1980 Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and From the 1981 Missouri Legal Directory published by the Legal Directories Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas. The table below indicates the size of the final sample.Google Scholar

Respondents to the Nonurban Bar Survey, by Community SizeGoogle Scholar

6 Arthur J. Vidich & Joseph Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society: Class, Power, and Religion in a Rural Community (rev. ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968). See also Don Martindale & R. Galen Hanson, Small Town and the Nation: The Conflict of Local and Translocal Forces (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 1969), for a similar orientation.Google Scholar

7 Richards, Robert O., Urbanization of Rural Areas, in David Street et al., Handbook of Contemporary Urban Life: An Examination of Urbanization, Social Organization and Metropolitan Politics (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1978); J. Rubin, Growth and Expansion of Urban Centers in A. M. Wakstein, ed., The Urbanization of America: A Historical Anthology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970).Google Scholar

8 Three general positions on the issues are found in the literature. One asserts that there is a direct, universal effect of population size, density, and heterogeneity on important aspects of social structure, culture, and personality. Another takes the opposite view-that few if any social, cultural, or personality characteristics are necessarily and invariably associated with the size, density, and heterogeneity of settlements. A third and intermediate view suggests that population concentrations tend to produce a diversity of subcultures and to foster diffusion among them. For an evaluation of the positions see N. D. Glenn & L. Hill, Jr., Rural and Urban Differences in Attitude and Behavior in the US, in 429 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 36 (1977).Google Scholar

9 Richards, supra note 7, at 579.Google Scholar

10 J. D. Kasarda & M. Janowitz, Community Attachment in Mass Society, 39 Am. Soc. Rev. 335 (1974); Charles Korte, Urban-Non-urban Differences in Social Behavior and Social Psychological Models of Urban Impact, 36 J. Social Issues 29 (1980).Google Scholar

11 Glenn & Hill, supra note 8, at 41. see also Fischer, Claude S., To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City chs. 6, 16 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).Google Scholar

12 Glenn & Hill, supra note 8, at 41.Google Scholar

13 Fischer, supra note 11, at 260.Google Scholar

14 Glenn & Hill, supra note 8, at 43–44.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 50.Google Scholar

16 Fischer, supra note 11, at 257.Google Scholar

17 Thomas Reuben Bell, Law Practice in a Small Town 9 (master's thesis, Harvard University Law School, 1969).Google Scholar

18 Multiplex relationships involve a number of functional and/or affective ties between any two individuals. Simplex relationships are more restricted, involving only a single functional or affective tie between individuals. See J. Van Velson, Procedural Informality, Reconciliation and False Comparisons, in Max Gluckman, ed., Ideas and Procedures in African Customary Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1966). see also Kidder, Robert L., Formal Litigation and Professional Insecurity: Legal Entrepreneurship in South India, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 11, 31 (1974).Google Scholar

19 See generally Marvin E. Frankel, Partisan Justice 21–26 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1978); William H. Simon, The Ideology of Advocacy: Procedural Justice and Professional Ethics, 1978 Wis. L. Rev. 29.Google Scholar

20 Marian Neef & Stuart Nagel, The Adversary Nature of the American Legal System from a Historical Perspective, 20 N.Y.L.F. 123 (1974).Google Scholar

21 Frankel, supra note 19, at 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Strick, Anne, Injustice for All 109 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1977).Google Scholar

23 Frankel, supra note 19, at 62–63.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 21.Google Scholar

25 Pound, Roscoe, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice 13–14 (Chicago: American Judicature Society, 1963).Google Scholar

26 Frankel, supra note 19, at 17.Google Scholar

27 Strick, supra note 22, at 99.Google Scholar

28 Auerbach, Jerold S., A Plague of Lawyers, Harper's, Oct. 1976, at 42.Google Scholar

29 Strick, supra note 22, at 14; Frankel, supra note 19, at 53.Google Scholar

30 Frankel, supra note 19, at ch. 9. But see Strick, supra note 22, at ch. 15.Google Scholar

31 Changes include broadening the definition of lawyering from the narrow view of combatant, usually in a courtroom, to a more comprehensive framework where lawyering is seen as counseling, negotiating, drafting, mediating, etc. See Brown, Louis M. & Dauer, Edward A., Professional Responsibility in Non-adversarial Lawyering: A Review of the Model Rules, 1982 A.B.F. Res. J. 519.Google Scholar

32 For the primary studies of the metropolitan bar see note 3 supra. Small-town studies are limited to Joel F. Handler, The Lawyer and His Community (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), which examines law practice in a midwest community of 90,000, and Donald D. Landon, Lawyers and Localities: The Interaction of Community Context and Professionalism, 1982 A.B.F. Res. J. 459, which is a preliminary analysis of law practice in towns of under 20,000. An unpublished thesis by Bell (supra note 17) is a descriptive study of small-town practice based primarily on the personal experience of the author. For insight into litigation in smaller settings see David M. Engel, Legal Pluralism in an American Community: Perspectives on a Civil Trial Court, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J. 425; id., The Ovenbird's Song: Insiders, Outsiders, and Personal Injuries in an American Community, paper delivered at the Law and Society Association meeting, Denver, 1983; id., Cases, Conflict, and Accommodation: Patterns of Legal Interaction in a Small Community, 1983 A.B.F. Res. J. 803; Stephen Daniels, Civil Litigation in Illinois Trial Courts: An Exploration of Rural-Urban Differences, 4 Law & Pol'y Q. 190 (1982).Google Scholar

33 James Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers 302 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1950).Google Scholar

34 Lingeman, Richard, Small Town America: A Narrative History, 1620 to the Present 304 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1980).Google Scholar

35 Id. at 121. Lingeman also quotes Henry Howe who described litigation in pioneer Ohio.Google Scholar

In newly settled counties there appears to be a particular fondness among people for lawsuits. After a court has been organized in a new county they will still continue to settle their quarrels by combat until fines become too troublesome. The court then becomes the arena in which their contentions and quarrels are carried out and finally disposed of. If one cannot afford the fine or imprisonment which would be incurred by taking satisfaction, he can bring a suit, if any cause of action can be found and no matter how small the amount claimed or frivolous the matter, if he can only cast his adversary and throw him into the courts, he is as much gratified as if he had made him hollow (holler) “enuf—take him off.”Google Scholar

Id. at 118.Google Scholar

36 See Daniels, , supra note 32; Engel, Ovenbird's Song, supra note 32.Google Scholar

37 Mayhew, Bruce, Size and Density of Interaction in Social Aggregates (mimeographed); Kidder, supra note 18, at 19 & n.6.Google Scholar

38 Frances Kahn Zemans, Framework for Analysis of Legal Mobilization: A Decision-Making Model, 1982 A.B.F. Res. J. 989, 1023. R. M. Gifford notes that in a survey of the Missouri Bar in 1974 there was a significantly higher percentage of lawyers from metropolitan settings reporting “unreasonable adversaries,” as contrasted with reports from lawyers in rural counties. See J. Mo. B., June 1977, at 229.Google Scholar

39 Engel, Ovenbird's Song, supra note 32.Google Scholar

40 The reluctance to use the adversary process in rural areas is not unique. Even in contemporary society the “compromise” system is preferred in a situation in which the disputants must live together afterward. Arbitration as a means of settling labor disputes illustrates the fact. Moreover, one study of businessmen showed they did not want to bring suits against customers with whom they expect to do business after the dispute is settled. See Macaulay, Stewart, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 Am. Soc. Rev. 55 (1963).Google Scholar

41 See Fischer, , supra note 11, at 45–62.Google Scholar

42 Carlin, Lawyers on Their Own, supra note 3, discovered that “even though a reputation may be established in a particular neighborhood or in certain ethnic islands, this is precisely the kind of identity and the kind of practice that is least desired and one which the individual practitioner makes every effort to move beyond.”Id. at 147.Google Scholar

43 Thomas, Edwin J., Role Conceptions, Organizational Size, and Community Context, in Bruce J. Biddle & Edwin J. Thomas, eds., Role Theory: Concepts and Research 167 (New York: John Wiley & sons, 1966).Google Scholar

44 The data show that 51% of the rural practitioners in this study pursued business interests in addition to their law practice; 12% were involved in three or more enterprises besides law practice. The extremely varied enterprises included Amway distributorships, oil drilling, boat manufacture, antique sales, asphalt business, Cambridge Diet counseling, etc., in addition to the more conventional roles of farmer, landlord, shop owner, or newspaper publisher. Attorneys in small towns are seen as entrepreneurs.Google Scholar

45 See Simmel, Georg, The Stranger, in Kurt Wolff, ed., The Sociology of Georg Simmel (New York: Free Press, 1950).Google Scholar

46 Richard E. Miller & Austin Sarat, Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture, 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 525 (1980–81).Google Scholar

47 Lingeman, supra note 34, at 120.Google Scholar

48 Legal culture is defined by Friedman to mean “attitudes, values, and opinions held in society, with regard to the law, the legal system and its various parts. So defined, it is the legal culture which determines when, why, and where people use the law, legal institutions, or legal process; and when they use other institutions, or do nothing. In other words, cultural factors are an essential ingredient in turning a static collection of norms into a body of living law. Adding the legal culture to the picture is like winding up a clock or plugging in a machine. It sets everything in motion.” Lawrence M. Friedman, Law and Society: An Introduction ch. 7 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977). For an extensive bibliography on legal culture and litigation, see William L. F. Felstiner, Influences of Social Organization on Dispute Processing, 9 Law Soc'y Rev. 63, 89 (1974).Google Scholar

49 Dan Fenno Henderson, Law and Political Modernization in Japan, in Robert Ward, ed., Political Development in Modern Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

50 Frake, Charles O., Litigation in Lipay: A Study of SubanumLaw, 3 Proc. Ninth Pac. Sci. Congress (1963), quoted in Laura Nader, The Anthropological Study of Subanum Law (pt. 2), 67 Am. Anthropologist 3, 21 (1965).Google Scholar

51 Greenhouse, Carol J., Nature Is to Culture as Praying Is to Suing: Legal Pluralism in an American Suburb, 20 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L. 17 (1982).Google Scholar

52 Zemans, supra note 38.Google Scholar

53 Harl, Neil E., Delivery of Legal Services in Rural Areas, address delivered at Colloquium on Delivery of Legal Services in Rural Areas, sponsored by American Bar Association, Section on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law, Forum Committee on Rural Lawyers and Agri-Business, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 9, 1982 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

54 See Goffman, Erving, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1959). Goffman's analysis of front stage behavior helps us understand the lawyer as actor. In his capacity as a professional, the lawyer is concerned with maintaining the impression that he is living up to the many standards by which he and his work are judged. In the intimate setting of a small town, these standards are numerous and pervasive. The lawyer consequently dwells more than we might think in a moral world. While as an actor or performer he may not be concerned with the moral issue of realizing the standards set for him, he is always concerned with the amoral issue of constructing a convincing impression to the community that these standards are being realized.Google Scholar

55 Felstiner, supra note 48, at 83.Google Scholar

56 Galanter, Marc, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 95, 113 (1974).Google Scholar

57 Macaulay, supra note 40. Engel, Ovenbird's Song, supra note 32, discovered that in Sander County:Google Scholar

While there might be sympathy for those who suffered in (personal injury accidents), it was considered highly improper to try to “cash in” on them through claims for damages. Money was viewed as something one acquired through long hours of hard work, not by exhibiting one's misfortunes to a judge or a jury or other thud party, even when the injuries were clearly caused by the wrongful behavior of another. Such attitudes were further reinforced by a constant awareness of living in a small and close-knit community. It would be awkward to sue or otherwise assert a claim against someone in the community with whom the plaintiff and the plaintiff's children and friends would continue to interact for many years in the future.

Engel also cites the conservative attitudes of rural juries toward personal injury suits as a factor in constraining such litigation. One rural insurance adjuster told him, “The jury will be people from right around here …. A good share of them will be farmers, and they've been out there slaving away for every penny they've got and aren't about to just give it away to make that free gift to anybody.”Id. Google Scholar

58 See Zemans, , supra note 38, at 1024. See also James Willard Hurst. The Functions of the Courts in the United States: 1950–1980, 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 401, 422 (1980–81); Galanter, supra note 56; Austin Sarat, Alternatives in Dispute Processing: Litigation in Small Claims Court, 10 Law & Soc'y Rev. 339 (1976); Roger B. Huntin & Gloria Neuwirth, Who Sues in New York City? A Study of Automobile Accident Claims 109 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

59 Engel, Ovenbird's Song, supra note 32.Google Scholar

60 Wells, Richard S., Lawyers and the Allocation of Justice, in James R. Klonoski & Robert I. Mendelsohn, The Politics of Local Justice 158 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1970). see also Pollitt, Daniel H., Timid Lawyers and Neglected Clients, Harper's, Aug. 1964, at 81–86.Google Scholar

61 Wood and Wardell discovered that community leadership was an important extraprofessional role, particularly among attorneys in smaller settings. See Wood, Arthur L. & Wardell, Walter, The Lawyer and Community Leadership, 9 J. Legal Educ. 162 (1956). See also Thomas James Matthews, The Lawyer as Community Leader: One Dimension of a Professional Role (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1952).Google Scholar

62 E.g., Daniel H. Pollitt, Counsel for the Unpopular Cause: The Hazard of Being Undone, 43 N.C.L. Rev. 1 (1964).Google Scholar

63 Auerbach, supra note 28, at 42.Google Scholar

64 Lingeman, supra note 34, at 419.Google Scholar

65 Bell, Supra, note 17, at 51.Google Scholar

66 Hurst, supra note 33, at 286.Google Scholar

67 Gouldner defines the norm of reciprocity as a socially established expectation making “two interrelated minimal demands: (a) people should help those who have helped them, and (b) people should not injure those who have helped them.” See Gouldner, Alvin W., The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement, in Bruce J. Biddle & Edwin J. Thomas, Role Theory: Concepts and Research 136, 140 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966).Google Scholar

68 Id. at 143.Google Scholar

69 Galanter, supra note 56.Google Scholar

70 Abraham S. Blumberg has pointed this out in reference to the work of defense attorneys. Their continuing contacts are with police, bail bondsmen, prosecutors, and other court personnel; clients tend to be gone when the case is finished. See his The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession, Law & Soc'y Rev., June 1967, at 15. In rural practice lawyers typically rely on each other for referrals and also for not complicating one another's workload by unnecessary paper work.Google Scholar

71 Role set refers to the particular complex of positions in which an individual holds simultaneous memberships. Male, father, husband, lodge member, Caucasian, businessman, son, Catholic, uncle, and Democrat are designations for a partial set of such positions in which a given man may hold memberships. See Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure 368 (New York: Free Press, 1957).Google Scholar

72 Curtis, Charles, It's Your Law 20 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954).Google Scholar