I. IGNORANCE OF LEGAL HISTORY HAS FEW EXCUSES
Our inattention to legal history is curious in many ways. First, lawyers as a group more often than not are people who studied social science as undergraduates. Indeed, the profession is full of people who majored in history during college. In the course of earning their degrees, they likely learned a great deal about the history of governments and wars, the history of social movements, and the history of commerce. They probably did not learn much, however, about the role of the legal profession or even the courts.1 Law schools give their students a fair instruction in various substantive legal fields, but usually not a great deal about the history of legal institutions. There are precious few opportunities to learn it later.
Aside from what we picked up on our way to becoming lawyers, the whole profession operates in substantial part, one might say, on the basis of history. We use our basic legal education, which bears unmistakable resemblance to the common law catalogued by Sir William Blackstone, by acting like common law lawyers. “What have the courts said about the law in this field? Is there a case on the question my client has brought to me?” These are questions natural to a legal system based on the rule of precedent. It is very much a rule of history.
Of course, there are a few circles in which legal history thrives and produces regular writings. These subjects range from those of wide interest, like the evolution of tort doctrine, to true esoterica, like a piece concerning the evolution of Russian secured transaction law before 1917.2 On a broader front, bar associations publish pieces about famous milestones3 and about associations of