Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth: The "Lower Branch" of the Legal Profession in Early Modern England. C. W. Brooks (original) (raw)
1989, The Journal of Modern History
AI-generated Abstract
This paper explores the "lower branch" of the legal profession in early modern England, focusing particularly on attorneys and their role in the rapidly increasing litigation observed after 1550. It examines the demographic and economic factors that fueled this rise, critiques common perceptions of attorney practices, and provides insights into their training, public service engagements, and income effects on social status. The work draws on an extensive array of sources across three counties, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of legal practitioners during this transformative period.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
THE HISTORY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION -'A LIGHT-HEARTED FESTIVE SEASON ARTICLE.' OPENING REMARKS
The legal profession has often been clothed with controversy in that lawyers and those associated with the noble profession [my interpretation] the subject of unfavourable and contemptuous remarks [made only by some persons], for example, referred to as obsessed with money, ‘ambulance chasers’, bullies, ‘sharks’, genetically predisposed to mischief and in general ‘bad chaps.’
A Law for the People? English Courts and the Law, 1750-1850
In his provocative 1975 essay ‘Property, Authority and the Criminal Law’ Douglas Hay declared: ‘The private manipulation of the law by the wealthy and the powerful was in truth a ruling-class conspiracy, in the most exact meaning of the word. The king, judges, magistrates and gentry used private, extra-legal dealings among themselves to bend the statute and common law to their purposes.’ A doctoral candidate who studied under the direction of E.P. Thompson, architect of the Marxist-oriented ‘Warwick School’ of English social history, Hay’s inflammatory rhetoric narrowed the perspective of the English legal system down to a sweeping generalisation. He echoed his adviser’s belief that eighteenth-century English law ‘favoured those with power and disadvantaged those without.’ This essay presents the work of subsequent historians who disproved his assumption—most notably John Langbein—and which culminated in Peter King’s assessment that during this transitional period ‘the law held different meanings for different people and its pluralistic nature meant that each individual or social group might have a range of often contradictory experiences of legal institutions’.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.