In modern society, poverty has been defined not only by quantitative measures of well-being but as a morally distinct category. In turn, the moral status of poverty has frequently been associated with primordial characteristics of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. In these moral and ascriptive respects, the social structure of poverty has been related systematically to the thrust of civil legal assistance on behalf of the poor.

Cyclically over the past century in the industrialized West, the poor have been organized into a social status with castelike features. In alternating historical periods, not only have the poor been culturally differentiated as an inherently different status group, their qualitative distinction has been institutionally constructed by practices of segregation legally sanctioned by the state. By noting the historically fluctuating phases in the construction of a modern caste of the poor, we may better understand the sociological significance of providing counseling to the poor on their civil legal problems. Modern law quite generally and civil legal assistance to the poor in some narrow but notable ways have significantly promoted the structuring of poverty into caste forms. And the caste status of poverty has shaped the role of lawyers for the poor in several important respects.

Custody investigations by social workers of the home circumstances of children soon to be the subject of a custody order in a divorce case usually provide psychological and socioeconomic data about the family and other adults interested in the children's welfare. Reports of such investigations are used by judges in arriving at decisions about custody. The author's research has led him to conclude, however, that such institutionalized custody investigations can be defended only if they help spouses to resolve disputes that otherwise would be tried. Further, he suggests that safeguards be instituted to protect spouses from inaccurate and biased reporting.

This study examines the contours of local legal culture in four criminal trial courts. Local legal culture is conceptualized as common practitioner norms governing case handling and participant behavior in a court. A questionnaire consisting of descriptions of 12 hypothetical cases, together with questions regarding the appropriate mode of disposition, disposition speed, and sentence, was completed by judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in each of the courts. Responses on these questions are compared across courts and various types of practitioners. The responses are also compared with analogous data on actual case dispositions in each of the courts.

The major substantive conclusion of the research is that the existence of local legal culture—if defined as attitudinal agreement on proper disposition of criminal cases—is most apparent on issues of a procedural nature: disposition time and the necessity of a trial to resolve issues in the case. On these procedural dimensions there is general agreement among the lawyers and judges practicing in a court; furthermore, the contours of this agreement tend to differ across courts and to be related to actual practices (as illustrated by the samples of closed cases). On issues relating more to the substance of the cases—the appropriateness of plea concessions and the proper sentence—much more intracourt disagreement emerges. This disagreement is consistent with traditional notions of the roles of opposing counsel in an adversary setting, suggesting that at least attitudinal adversariness is present in the courts examined.

The author surveys and compares the legal professions of 15 nations, including both civil law and common law countries. The essay is organized around the ways that legal professionals control their markets—first by controlling “production of producers” or who and how many enter the profession (with formal education or apprenticeship requirements, examinations, access to entry-level positions). Legal professionals also control “production by producers”—both external competitors and lawyers themselves. This occurs, for example, through definition and defense of the professional monopoly, control of competition between licensed professionals, and creation of demand. The discussion takes place against the background of the legal profession's recent history—assessing changes in its composition (by race, age, gender), in lawyers’ practice settings, in the categories of work they perform, and in the income and status associated with these categories and with the profession in general.

This essay argues for the need to study the legal history of the American family. It does so by combining a critique of secondary literature in family and legal history with examples from nineteenth-century domestic relations law. These examples, drawn from family law doctrines on seduction under the cover of a marriage promise, runaway marriages, and bastardy, are used to indicate the benefits of adding a sociocultural dimension to legal history and legal and institutional dimensions to family history. Three main themes in the history of nineteenth-century domestic relations law are developed to make these points: the law's particular fabric of issues, its distribution of authorship, and its chronological development, These themes suggest why a full understanding of the legal history of the American family requires crossing the boundaries between legal and family history.

The comrades' courts of the East European socialist countries are considered by those who favor alternative means of dispute resolution to be admirable examples of informal courts in modern industrial societies. However, these courts have not been extensively investigated. This article presents the results of an intensive observational study of one kind of socialist alternative court, the Yugoslav Courts of Associated Labor, comparing them with an ideal model of informal courts and with the available data on comrades' courts in other East European socialist countries. We find that, in contrast with the latter, the Yugoslav courts are indeed workers' courts, in the sense that they are used by workers—over 90% of their cases are brought by individual workers. On the other hand, they are not workers' courts in the sense of being controlled by workers—they are instead dominated by legal professionals. We conclude that these Yugoslav courts are attractive to individual workers precisely because they are not informal, social courts, but rather are independent legal agencies from which workers may receive unprejudiced decisions and substantial remedies.

Plea bargaining and other informal disposition devices dominate case processing in the lower criminal courts. Consistently, studies have found such courts characterized by assembly-line procedures, deemphasis or disregard of formal due process rights, and guilty plea rates approaching 100% of all convictions. Caseload pressures, tendencies toward cooperation among courtroom participants and, above all, process costs of litigation that greatly outweigh the stakes in minor cases are widely thought to render informality and high guilty plea rates inevitable.

The study reported here challenges these assumptions. The author finds that in Philadelphia roughly one-fifth of all misdemeanor dispositions and one-half of all determinations of guilt are the result of genuine adversarial trials. He shows that an adversarial trial system need not impose prohibitive resource costs, even when extended to misdemeanor cases involving little likelihood of imprisonment, and that process costs will not deter defendants from invoking formal procedures when the court culture is committed to providing trials. Finally, the author argues that even routine misdemeanor cases benefit from guarantees of fairness and accuracy afforded by trial but unattainable when cases are processed by plea bargaining.

This article examines the administration of the poor laws in six southern states from 1800 to 1860. Although southerners were influenced to some degree by developments in northeastern communities, the unique features of antebellum southern life caused poor relief to assume a distinct character. Poverty was simply not perceived as a major concern in the South. Consequently, southerners were less inclined to stigmatize paupers, or to adopt a systematic policy of institutionalizing dependents. They relied heavily on such traditional practices as outrelief and apprenticeship. This approach harmonized with the southern preference for a legal system which encouraged informal solution of social problems at the local level.

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.