lawyers.4
There may be a stronger message about lawyers and history in the fact that
you can count on lawyers as people who enjoy telling and hearing stories about
the profession. Lawyers’ lounges or vacant jury rooms in county courthouses are
still places where counsel trade tales about cases and people. This is consistent
with the common law tradition, in which judges, lawyers, and law students met
in the English inns of court to debate cases and rules of law. Modern lawyers
may be wanting in our formal study of legal history, but you can generally
persuade a lawyer to tarry a moment at the courthouse to hear the end of a story
about some famous case or clever advocate. It is that spirit which motivated the
Indiana Supreme Court to invite collaboration with the Indiana Law Review to
stage this symposium.
II. HISTORY OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW
During a period when so much is governed by statutes,5
one is continually
amazed at how much of our daily work involves the common law made by
courts. As I remarked earlier, the common law, and the rules of precedent and
stare decisis which accompany it, constitutes a system that looks backwards.
Still, the common law has never been considered a static code.6
It has always
been understood that common law evolves over time to meet the demands of the
day, in what Justice Brent E. Dickson has called: “the march of Indiana common
law.”7
The best advocates in this sort of legal environment are those who know that
urging a court to move the law somewhere new is best undertaken when you
know where the law has been. As Judge Robert Grant once said during a
ceremony admitting new lawyers, “Never move a fence until you understand why
it was built there in the first place.”
The benefit of being so equipped is all too easy to overlook. In the late
1980s, the Indiana Supreme Court set for oral argument a civil case in which the
lawyers.4There may be a stronger message about lawyers and history in the fact thatyou can count on lawyers as people who enjoy telling and hearing stories aboutthe profession. Lawyers’ lounges or vacant jury rooms in county courthouses arestill places where counsel trade tales about cases and people. This is consistentwith the common law tradition, in which judges, lawyers, and law students metin the English inns of court to debate cases and rules of law. Modern lawyersmay be wanting in our formal study of legal history, but you can generallypersuade a lawyer to tarry a moment at the courthouse to hear the end of a storyabout some famous case or clever advocate. It is that spirit which motivated theIndiana Supreme Court to invite collaboration with the Indiana Law Review tostage this symposium.II. HISTORY OF SUBSTANTIVE LAWDuring a period when so much is governed by statutes,5 one is continuallyamazed at how much of our daily work involves the common law made bycourts. As I remarked earlier, the common law, and the rules of precedent andstare decisis which accompany it, constitutes a system that looks backwards.Still, the common law has never been considered a static code.6 It has alwaysbeen understood that common law evolves over time to meet the demands of theday, in what Justice Brent E. Dickson has called: “the march of Indiana commonlaw.”7The best advocates in this sort of legal environment are those who know thaturging a court to move the law somewhere new is best undertaken when youknow where the law has been. As Judge Robert Grant once said during aceremony admitting new lawyers, “Never move a fence until you understand whyit was built there in the first place.”The benefit of being so equipped is all too easy to overlook. In the late1980s, the Indiana Supreme Court set for oral argument a civil case in which the
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..