Showing posts with label Legal profession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal profession. Show all posts

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Book Launch for Lustig's "Veiled Power"

The Institute for International Law and Justice at NYU Law is hosting a book launch for Veiled Power, International Law and the Private Corporation 1886-1981 by Doreen Lustig on April 20, 2021, from 9:00am - 11:00am ET:

Veiled Power
chronicles the emergence of the contemporary legal architecture for corporations in international law between 1886 and 1981. Weaving together five in-depth case studies—Firestone in Liberia, the Industrialist Trials at Nuremberg, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Barcelona Traction and the emergence of the international investment law regime—Doreen Lustig traces the relationship between two legal ‘veils’: the sovereign veil of the state and the corporate veil of the company. The interplay between these two veils constitutes a conceptual framework that the book offers for the legal analysis of corporations in international law. Ultimately, Lustig suggests that, contrary to the prevailing belief that international law failed to adequately regulate private corporations, history reveals a close engagement between the two that allowed corporations to exert influence under a variety of legal regimes while obscuring their agency.
Responders:

B. S. Chimni, Distinguish Professor of International Law, Jindal Global Law School.

Megan Donaldson, Lecturer in Public International Law Faculty of Laws, UCL.

Martti Koskenniemi, Professor of International Law and Director of the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, University of Helsinki.

Glenda Sluga, Professor of International History, University of Sydney.

Moderator: Benedict Kingsbury, Director of the Institute for International Law and Justice, Murry and Ida Becker Professor of Law, and Vice Dean for Global Programs, NYU School of Law.

--Dan Ernst

Friday, April 9, 2021

Houser's "Bureaucrats of Liberation"

Myra Ann Houser, Associate Professor of History, Ouachita Baptist University, has published Bureaucrats of Liberation: Southern African and American Lawyers During the Apartheid Era (Leiden University Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 2021):

Bureaucrats of Liberation
narrates the history of the Southern Africa Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Right under law, a civil rights organization founded in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. Between 1963 and 1994, the Southern Africa Project connected lawyers from Namibia, South Africa, and the United States. Within the Project’s network, activist lawyers exchanged funding resources, provided logistical support for political trials, and mediated new voting and governmental systems.

The Project’s history provides a lens into twentieth century geopolitics tied to anti-apartheid, decolonization, Cold War, and movements agitating against white supremacy. In doing so, it pays careful attention to the Project’s different eras, beginning with US Executive Branch officials helming the effort and evolving into a space where more activist-oriented attorneys on both sides of the Atlantic drove its mission and politics.

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, April 8, 2021

Weidemaier on Lawyers, Self-Government and the London Stock Exchange

W. Mark C. Weidemaier, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has published Law, Lawyers, and Self-Governance During the Heyday of the London Stock Exchange in Law and Contemporary Problems 82 (2019): 195-223.  From the article:

This Article draws on original archival research, including the minutes of [London Stock Exchange (LSE)] committee meetings and correspondence with solicitors, to examine how the LSE managed its relationship with English courts and common law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By studying that problem—rather than the problem of enforcing bargains—we can see the artificiality of any neat dichotomy between private and public legal systems. To keep English courts from disrupting its affairs, the LSE used both extralegal tools—for example, expelling members who filed prohibited lawsuits—and legal tools—such as monitoring judicial developments and funding litigation. Regardless of the nature of the tool, lawyers often shaped its response, and their advice was guided by explicitly legal concerns.
–Dan Ernst

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

Luban on Two Third Reich Lawyers

David Luban, Georgetown University Law Center, has posted Complicity and Lesser Evils: A Tale of Two Lawyers, which is to appear in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics with comments by Leora Bilsky and Natalie Davidson, Kathleen Clark, Erica Newland, and Shannon Prince:

Government lawyers and other public officials sometimes face an excruciating moral dilemma: to stay on the job or to quit, when the government is one they find morally abhorrent. Staying may make them complicit in evil policies; it also runs the danger of inuring them to wrongdoing, just as their presence on the job helps inure others. At the same time, staying may be their only opportunity to mitigate those policies – to make evils into lesser evils – and to uphold the rule of law when it is under assault. This Article explores that dilemma in a stark form: through the moral biographies of two lawyers in the Third Reich, both of whom stayed on the job, and both of whom can lay claim to mitigating evil. One, Helmuth James von Moltke, was an anti-Nazi, and a martyr of the resistance; the other, Bernhard Lösener, was a Nazi by conviction who nevertheless claimed to have secretly fought against the persecution of Jews from the improbable post of legal adviser on Jewish matters. The Article critically examines their careers and self-justifications. It frames its analysis through two philosophical arguments: Hannah Arendt’s stern injunction that staying on the job is self-deception or worse, because like it or not, obedience is support; and a contemporary analysis of moral complicity by Chiara Lepora and Robert Goodin. The chief question, with resonance today as well as historically, is whether Arendt is right – and, if not, under what conditions lesser-evilism can succeed.

 --Dan Ernst

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Korpiola on Female Legal Scriveners in Coloquios de Historia del Derecho-UAM

[We have the following announcement.  DRE]

We are pleased to invite you to the next session of the Coloquios de Historia del Derecho of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, which will take place on Monday, March 22th, at 12am (Madrid time zone), at the Zoom platform.

On this occasion, Professor Mia Korpiola (University of Turku) will deliver the lecture “Moving into the Public Eye: Women and Legal Scrivening in Later Nineteenth-Century Finland.”  Prof. Korpiola’s investigations on this topic have been published, among others, in Legal literacy in Premodern European Societies, ed. Mia Korpiola (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) and in the book chapter “Attempting to Advocate: Women Entering the Legal Profession in Finland, 1885-1915,” in: New Perspectives on European Women's Legal History, eds. Sara L. Kimble and Marion Röwekamp, pp. 292-318 (Studies in Gender and History, Routledge, New York, 2016).

We will be looking forward to welcoming you in the next session! 

Laura Beck and Julia Solla
Coloquios de Historia del Derecho-UAM

Zoom platform: Meeting ID: 829 1079 8716.  Access code: 609743
Coloquios de Historia del Derecho-UAM 2020-21

Monday, March 15, 2021

Cummings on Lawyers and the Struggle for LA

Scott L. Cummings, UCLA Law, has published An Equal Place: Lawyers in the Struggle for Los Angeles (Oxford University Press, 2020):

An Equal Place
is a monumental study of the role of lawyers in the movement to challenge economic inequality in one of America's most unequal cities: Los Angeles. Breaking with the traditional focus on national civil rights history, the book turns to the stories of contemporary lawyers, on the front lines and behind the scenes, who use law to reshape the meaning of low-wage work in the local economy.

Covering a transformative period of L.A. history, from the 1992 riots to the 2008 recession, Scott Cummings presents an unflinching account of five pivotal campaigns in which lawyers ally with local movements to challenge the abuses of garment sweatshops, the criminalization of day labor, the gentrification of downtown retail, the incursion of Wal-Mart groceries, and the misclassification of port truck drivers.

Through these campaigns, lawyers and activists define the city as a space for redefining work in vital industries transformed by deindustrialization, outsourcing, and immigration. Organizing arises outside of traditional labor law, powered by community-labor and racial justice groups using levers of local government to ultimately change the nature of labor law itself. 
Cummings shows that sophisticated legal strategy — engaging yet extending beyond courts, in which lawyers are equal partners in social movements — is an indispensable part of the effort to make L.A. a more equal place. Challenging accounts of lawyers' negative impact on movements, Cummings argues that the L.A. campaigns have achieved meaningful reform, while strengthening the position of workers in local politics, through legal innovation. Dissecting the reasons for failure alongside the conditions for success, this groundbreaking book illuminates the crucial role of lawyers in forging a new model of city-building for the twenty-first century.

--Dan Ernst

Sunday, February 21, 2021

A Discussion of "The Neo-Liberal Republic"

On Monday, February 22, at 1:15 PM EST, Cornell University is sponsoring a discussion of Antoine Vauchez and Pierre France’s The Neoliberal Republic: Corporate Lawyers, Statecraft, and the Making of Public-Private France, which appears in Cornell University Press’s Corpus Juris book series, edited by Elizabeth S. Anker, Cornell University.  The discussants are Samuel Moyn, Yale University/Yale Law School, Mitchel Lasser, Cornell Law School, and Katharina Pistor, Columbia Law School.  Antoine Vauchez, Universite Paris 1–Sorbonne, will respond.  Professor Anker will moderate.  Register here.

--Dan Ernst.  H/t:  Thomas Perroud

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Virtual archive launch for Chelvanayakam papers

 (We share the following announcement about the papers of S.J.V.Chelvanayakam,

Tamil lawyer and leader in 1950s-70s Sri Lanka, which will soon be available as a digital archive. -MS)

Please join us for a free online public webinar celebrating the launch of the S. J. V. Chelvanayakam digital archive at the University of Toronto on Feb. 26, 2021 at 9am-12pm EST. The webinar will bring together international scholars and researchers who will speak about the Chelvanayakam archive, colonial and postcolonial history, justice and law, historical memory, and the significance of digital archives in the modern world. This webinar introduces the Chelvanayakam fonds and is envisioned as an invitation to future community and research collaborations, storytelling, and the sharing of memory. 

Speakers: 

Bruce Matthews, Acadia University (Emeritus), “S. J. V. Chelvanayakam”

Thamilini Jothilingam, UTSC, “A Return to Words: Metadata, Metahistory, and Digital Memory”

Sujith Xavier, University of Windsor, "They're talkin' 'bout a reconciliation: Listening to the Whispers in the Chelvanayakam Archives"

Vasuki Nesiah, New York University, "Towards a Larger Freedom"

T. Sanathanan, University of Jaffna, “Translations of a Document”

 

This event marks the launch of the archive of S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, an extraordinarily significant political leader of the Tamil community in postcolonial Sri Lanka. As a leader, lawyer, and parliamentarian, Chelvanayakam’s life bears witness to significant political events in the island from the 1950s to the 1970s. His papers, comprising of voluminous correspondence, along with documents and pamphlets, were meticulously collected by Mr. Chelvanayakam’s daughter, Susili Chelvanayakam Wilson. The archive was then donated to the University of Toronto Scarborough Library by Susili Chelvanayakam Wilson and Mr. Chelvanayakam’s granddaughter, Malliha Wilson.

This webinar is free and open to everyone and will take place via Zoom. The webinar will be in English and Tamil with live interpretation in both languages.  

Zoom link:  https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_eWITmA6uT66hV3jcvb9LOw

Also presented by: 

•         UTSC Library 

•         Tamil Worlds Initiative 

•         Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy 

Further information is available here.

--posted by Mitra Sharafi

Monday, February 8, 2021

AJLH 60:3

American Journal of Legal History 60: 3 (September 2020) has been published.
 
The Southern and Western Prehistory of “Liberty of Contract”: Revisiting the Path to Lochner in Light of the New History of American Capitalism  
Gabrielle E Clark
 
Race and Relevance: Arthur Garfield Hays and the Integration of the American Bar Association, 1938-1943    
Richard F Hamm
 
Citizenship in Empire: The Legal History of U.S. Citizenship in American Samoa, 1899-1960
Ross Dardani
 
Gendering Citizenship and Decolonizing Justice in 1960s Ghana: Revisiting the Struggle for Family Law Reform    
Kate Skinner
 
Book Reviews

 
Katie Donington, The Bonds of Family: Slavery, Commerce and Culture in the British Atlantic World    Matilde Cazzola
 
Sam Erman, Almost Citizens: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Constitution, and Empire    
Taylor Lauren Frazier
 
Susan Bartie, Free Hands and Minds: Pioneering Australian Legal Scholars    
Fiona Cownie

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Weekend Roundup

  • Here's what happened when Courtney E. Thompson (whose book we announced recently here) ran the 1776 Report through TurnItIn. 
  • New online in the AJLH: Marianne Vasara-Aaltonen, “From Disputation Hall to High Office: Swedish Students' Legal Dissertations at German and Dutch Universities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.”
  •  We were reminded that James Boyd White’s Keep Law Alive (Carolina Academic Press, 2019) speaks to recent events.
  • ICYMI:  Matthew Gabriele on Vikings, Crusaders, Confederates: Misunderstood Historical Imagery at the January 6 Capitol Insurrection (AHA Perspectives).  Mary Frances Berry et al. on DJT's legacy (BBC News).  Patti Minter on the inauguration (13WBKO).  Annette Gordon-Reed on slavery and today (Texas Public Radio).

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, January 15, 2021

Knowles on Learning the Law in 1830s Massachusetts

Helen J. Knowles, SUNY Oswego, has posted Learning the Law in 1830s Massachusetts: The Contrasting Experiences of Wendell Phillips and Lysander Spooner:

Wendell Phillips (NYPL)
Lysander Spooner (NYPL)
In the 1840s, Lysander Spooner and Wendell Phillips espoused opposing abolitionist interpretations of the United States Constitution. The former argued that the document did not sanction the enslavement of human beings, the latter denounced the text as a proslavery “covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.” This essay explores the effects of their contrasting legal educations on these theories. In the 1830s, Spooner worked as a legal apprentice under the tutelage of John Davis, Charles Allen, and Emory Washburn, three prominent lawyers (and politicians) working in Worcester, Massachusetts. By contrast, Phillips, consistent with his Boston Brahmin ancestry, attended the then-nascent Harvard Law School. The essay concludes that Spooner’s legal philosophy shows a far greater indebtedness to his legal education than does Phillips’s. This argument is defended by drawing on the voluminous correspondence and papers of both Phillips and Spooner, and the writings of their legal tutors and mentors.

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Eunice Hunton Carter, 1899-1970

[My annual exam in American Legal History also includes a biographical essay.  Previous years’ were on Stella Akin, the father-daughter duo Gaius and Jane Bolin, and others.  The subject of this year’s essay was Eunice Hunton Carter.  In writing it, I relied heavily upon Stephen L. Carter’s Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster (Henry Holt 2018).  Also, Carter appears, facing away from the camera, here.  DRE]
            
Eunice Hunton Carter (1899-1970) was born in Atlanta to Black middle-class parents.  Her father, William Hunton, was the grandson of a Virginia slave who purchased his freedom and moved to Canada, where William was born.  College-educated, he founded the “Colored Division” of the Young Men’s Christian Association and in that capacity traveled widely in the United States to create chapters that recruited local African Americans to the YMCA’s creed of “education, hard work, and Christian virtue.”  While founding a chapter in Norfolk, Virginia, he met and married Eunice’s mother, Addie Waites Hunton, who had been educated in the elite Boston Latin School.  The couple moved to Atlanta shortly before Eunice’s birth.  Both parents traveled, leaving Eunice and her younger brother Alpheaus in the care of a maid or family friends.  Addie gained a national reputation as a founder of Black women’s clubs and lecturer.  In a famous address, “Pure Motherhood the Basis for Race Integrity,” she argued that the most important duty of Black women was to tend to the family.  

The Huntons’ life was shattered in 1906 when a terrible race riot devastated Atlanta’s Black middle-class neighborhood.  Within months they moved to Brooklyn, New York.  Both parents continued to travel, in Addie’s case, for the Young Women’s Christian Association, the NAACP, and a group advocating world peace.  As before, Eunice and her brother the children usually roomed with other families.  Even William’s death in November 1916 did not slow down Addie’s clubwork.  Indeed, after the American entry into World War I, she spent 18 months in France bolstering the morale of Black troops stationed there.

Eunice was already on her way.  In 1917 she enrolled in Smith College, an elite and overwhelmingly White women’s college in Northampton, Massachusetts.  A society matron in the NAACP may have paid her tuition.  A government professor introduced her to Calvin Coolidge, at the time, governor of Massachusetts, who gave her advice and let her read in his well-stocked library as she worked on her thesis on state government.  The experience reinforced her lifelong attachment to the Republican Party, a family legacy.  In 1921, she graduated cum laude with both a bachelor’s and master’s degree.

Eunice spent one miserable academic year teaching at a Black college in the Deep South before returning to New York City, where was a substitute teacher and wrote short stories, some of which appeared in journals alongside works by Langston Hughes and other writers of the Harlem Renaissance.  Her mother helped her find jobs in various charitable and race organizations in Harlem.  Through one of her projects, a free dental clinic, she met Lisle Carter, an immigrant for the Caribbean island of Barbados, who owned the most profitable dental practice in Harlem.   They married in November 1924, and a year later their only child, Lisle Jr., was born.

Soon Eunice Carter was back at her social work jobs.  She helped her mother host an international “Pan-African Congress,” which brought to New York City people of African descent from around the world to discuss “the many problems of racial and social uplift.”  She also joined in several civil rights campaigns, such as protests of white-owned businesses that refused to hire African Americans.  But she wanted more.  As a child of eight, she had told a friend that she wanted to be a lawyer so she could “make sure the bad people went to jail.”  Starting in 1927, while still employed as a social worker and against her mother’s advice, she enrolled in the evening program at Fordham Law School, one of only three women in a class that would graduate 367.

Carter’s initial grades were well above average, but she had to take a year off, probably to care for her son, who may have been ill.   She graduated from Fordham Law School in 1932, the first Black woman to do so.  In May 1933, on her second try, she passed the New York bar exam.  The success came during an odd interlude, lasting into the winter of 1933-1934, during which she may have had a hysterectomy and battled depression.  

Carter attempted the practice of law but had few clients.  She wrote a few wills and represented a few misdemeanor defendants before magistrates sitting without a jury but spent more of her time as a supervisor for the Harlem Division of the Emergency Unemployment Relief Committee, which coordinated the distribution of cash, in-kind benefits, and public works jobs during the Depression.  She also was an unpaid assistant in the Harlem branch of the city’s Women’s Court, probably as an interviewer and counselor of the prostitutes whose arrests made up most of the docket.  Carter’s biographer called Women’s Courts “dark, fetid, grim chambers, loud and disorderly and presided over by bored, time-serving magistrates, many of whom . . . were thoroughly corrupt.”

She also campaigned for Republican political candidates.  When stumping in Harlem for a Black Republican candidate for the State Assembly in 1928, she was appalled by the dirty tricks of Tammany Hall Democrats, including a fake flyer that played upon the racial fears of the district’s White residents.  In that year she also worked for Herbert Hoover’s election as president but also protested that his handlers, seeing a chance to win the votes of White Southerners appalled by the selection of the Irish Catholic Al Smith to head the Democratic ticket, were ignoring Black Republicans and dealing only with the party’s “lily-white” Southern faction.  Even so, she gave a rousing speech on Hoover’s behalf in 1932, and when the Republicans needed a candidate to run for the state assembly seat encompassing Harlem in November 1934, she agreed.  Despite the endorsement of the nonpartisan Citizens Union, she lost.

The race made her known outside Harlem’s Black social elite and earned her the gratitude of the city’s Republican leaders, which they soon repaid.  In March 1934, Harlem residents, angered by what proved to be a false report of police brutality, attacked white-owned businesses in Harlem.  Three African Americans died, and hundreds were arrested.  The newly elected mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, a Progressive Republican who won with Black support (including Carter’s), appointed a biracial investigatory commission to investigate.  As its secretary, Carter became the public face of the commission, whose final report La Guardia deemed too critical of the racial biases of city officials to release to the public.

A still greater opportunity came a few months after her appointment.  An increase in mob-related violence forced the Tammany-approved District Attorney to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate organized crime in New York City.  Thomas E. Dewey, a graduate of the University of Michigan and Columbia Law School who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York at the end of the Hoover administrator, got the job.  When assembling his staff of twenty lawyers, he told a local judge he wanted to hire a woman.  The judge recommended Carter, and Dewey appointed her on August 5, 1935.  

Dewey was intent on busting the mob’s most lucrative enterprises, including the “numbers racket,” an illegal lottery.  Carter was put to work examining tickets and found those favored by Harlem’s residents never won.  But she was also convinced that the mob ran Harlem’s brothels, a view that went against received wisdom but was consistent with her observation of the Women’s Court.  Prostitutes who paid their employers a weekly “bonding fee” invariably escaped jail time.  The same lawyer appeared on their behalf, and when he did, arresting officers mysteriously forgot material details.  Carter reasoned that the mob must have used bribed police officers and judges. She persuaded a reluctant Dewey to conduct raids that led to the conviction of a top mobster.  Carter never appeared in court, however.

In the fall of 1937, Dewey easily won election as District Attorney.  Upon taking office in January 1938, he appointed Carter Deputy Assistant District Attorney in charge of the largest division, Special Sessions, whose staff, consisting mostly of white male lawyers, prosecuted 14,000 misdemeanors a year.  Her annual salary of $6,500 (about $122,000 today) was more than Charles Hamilton Houston made from working for NAACP.  Newspaper profiles had her working until at least 7:00 and often 11:00 at night but also mentioned her attire and on at least one occasion photographed her cooking.

Other African American lawyers took notice.  Carter addressed the national meeting of the National Bar Association in 1938 and served on two standing committees, Resolutions and on Discriminatory Legislation.  Sadie Alexander congratulated her on conducting “actual trial work” before juries.  “I cannot say too much for the ability that you have shown as well as the diplomacy you must have exercised to have obtained such a position,” Alexander wrote.

In her public addresses she was something less than a thorough-going feminist.  She did announce, “I believe in the independence of women,” but she also told an audience at Howard University in 1937 that too few Black children “learned the habit of working” and that Black women had “to see that the path is broken in the right direction.”  In 1938 she told a group of Black women voters, “Never argue with a man.  I believe that I have quarreled with a man only six times in my life.  Always it resulted in disaster.”  She elaborated: “Women’s influence should be from behind the throne, not on it.”   And: “Women must never forget that men should dominate the race and that a race is only as strong as its men.  We must continue to inspire them.”

The advice jibed uneasily with her own personal life.  While Carter attended law school, her son Lisle, Jr., often lived in the home of his father’s brother in New Jersey.  Then, in February 1935, the nine-year-old boy was sent to live with his father’s family in Barbados.  It would be a year before Eunice would see him; thereafter she visited only annually.  When he turned 14, he returned to the United States, only to be sent to prep school in upstate New York.  By that time his parents were living separately.  Lisle, Sr.’s extramarital affairs were well-known in the community; Eunice contemplated leaving him for another man.  Still, they stayed married and would later live together until Lisle Sr.’s death in 1963.

Carter continued to campaign for Dewey whenever he sought elective office, such as his unsuccessful run for governor of New York in 1938 and for the Republican presidential nomination in 1940.  The latter bid included a whistle-stop campaign through Illinois, ending in a Chicago appearance in which Carter and other African Americans joined Dewey on the platform.  She supported Dewey in his successful gubernatorial bid in 1942, again in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in 1944, and yet again in his presidential campaign against Harry S. Truman in 1948, notwithstanding the Democrats’ impressive civil rights platform.  Promotions or other preferments no longer followed, however.  Instead, Dewey’s successor as District Attorney demoted her (albeit at the same salary) to head the Adolescent Offender Bureau, where she implemented an innovative probation system for teenage offenders.  A judgeship she coveted went not to her but a Black male lawyer who started in the District Attorney’s office after she did.  

Carter thought she knew the problem: her brother.  Alphaeus Hunton had gotten a bachelor’s degree from Howard and a master’s degree from Harvard.  He then returned to Howard as an instructor of English and Romance Languages Department while pursuing and ultimately receiving a Ph.D. at New York University, with a dissertation, directed by a Marxist professor, on the politics of an English poet.  From at least 1933 onward, he met with Black communists, and he was a leader in John P. Davis’s National Negro Congress.  In 1943 he moved to New York to edit the journal of the Council on African Affairs, a group that turned up on the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.  For refusing to give the House Un-American Committee the records of another Communist Front group, he was imprisoned for six months in 1951.  After his release, he could find no employment and emigrated to Africa.  Although Carter had severed her ties with Alphaeus years earlier, she suspected, correctly, that the FBI had a substantial file on him and that it mentioned her and her connection to Dewey.

Carter left the District Attorney’s office in January 1945.  She attempted to practice law on her own but found leadership roles in Black women’s groups more interesting and remunerative.  Most of her new work had an international dimension, as when she represented the National Council of Negro Women at the organizational meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco.  She attended several overseas conferences as a representative of NGOs in the 1940s and 1950s.  “Each individual in this world has his own peculiar character and his own particular talent,” she said at one in 1951.  Democracies allowed the individual to “grow in character and in personality according to his own personal ability.”  Dictatorships, in contrast, forced him to “slave at tasks he would never choose for himself.”  They also denied women the chance to “choose and develop their individual beings in an atmosphere of freedom.”

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Cornett and Bosau on Country Lawyers

Judy M. Cornett, University of Tennessee College of Law, and Heather H. Bosau, a 2020 graduate of Tennessee Law, have published The Myth of the Country Lawyer in the Albany Law Review 83 (2020): 185-167:

Everyone knows what a “country lawyer” looks like. He (it’s always a “he”) is middle-aged or older, an avuncular mix of wisdom and good humor. He is a generalist, in a small town, deeply connected to his community. He is trusted and respected. The person who is called upon when trouble threatens. Figures as diverse as Sam Ervin Jr. and Gerry Spence have called themselves “country lawyers,” and many lawyer obituaries claim that their subjects were “simple” country lawyers. The familiarity of the country lawyer qualifies it as an archetype in American culture.1 But, surprisingly, as familiar as the country lawyer archetype is, there has been little analysis of the history, characteristics, or role of the country lawyer in American culture. This Article will examine how the country lawyer came to be a familiar figure in American culture, tracing the archetype through its fictional and non-fictional manifestations. The Article will also analyze how the country lawyer archetype has affected the public perception of the American legal profession.
–Dan Ernst

Monday, December 21, 2020

Morris, "Legal Sabotage: Ernst Fraenkel in Hitler's Germany"

Cambridge University Press has published Legal Sabotage: Ernst Fraenkel in Hitler's Germany (Aug. 2020), by Douglas Morris (Federal Defenders of New York). A description from the Press:

The Jewish leftist lawyer Ernst Fraenkel was one of twentieth-century Germany's great intellectuals. During the Weimar Republic he was a shrewd constitutional theorist for the Social Democrats and in post-World War II Germany a respected political scientist who worked to secure West Germany's new democracy. This book homes in on the most dramatic years of Fraenkel's life, when he worked within Nazi Germany actively resisting the regime, both publicly and secretly. As a lawyer, he represented political defendants in court. As a dissident, he worked in the underground. As an intellectual, he wrote his most famous work, The Dual State – a classic account of Nazi law and politics. This first detailed account of Fraenkel's career in Nazi Germany opens up a new view on anti-Nazi resistance – its nature, possibilities, and limits. With grit, daring and imagination, Fraenkel fought for freedom against an increasingly repressive regime.

A few blurbs:

'German-Jewish lawyer Ernst Fraenkel is remembered for his study of Nazi Germany, The Dual State. But talented historian Douglas Morris goes far beyond reconstructing Fraenkel’s biography, and following his path to his classic book, in order to dramatize the difficult choices of a pivotal lawyer in resistance. The result is an absorbing contribution not just to the history of German law in the twentieth century. It helps us to ponder the dilemmas of resistance for believers in the rule of law anywhere and even today.' -- Samuel Moyn

'There is a rich biographical and analytical literature on the lawyer and political scientist Ernst Fraenkel. We know his clear description of the Nazism as a 'dual state', we also know how important he was for the modernization of political theory, especially in Western Germany. But an investigation of his activities as a lawyer and author in the underground after 1933, based on all available sources, has not yet been carried out. It is presented here in an excellent manner, and at the same time it sheds light on the old problem: How can one use the legal order as a means of sabotage against a system of tyranny?' -- Michael Stolleis

More information is available here. H/t: New Books Network.

-- Karen Tani

Friday, November 20, 2020

Soares Pereira and Ridi on the "Invisible College of International Lawyers"

Luiza Leão Soares Pereira, University of Cambridge, and Niccolò Ridi, University of Liverpool, have posted Mapping the "Invisible College of International Lawyers" through Obituaries, which is forthcoming in the Leiden Journal of International Law

Since Oscar Schachter’s famous articulation of the concept, scholars have attempted to know more about the composition and functioning of the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’ which makes up our profession. They have done this though surveying public rosters of certain sections of the profession (arbitrators, International Court of Justice counsel), providing general anecdotal accounts about informal connections between members, or establishing certain individuals’ influence in the development of discrete legal concepts. Departing from these approaches, we use the obituaries published in the British Yearbook of International Law (1920-2017) to draw a map of the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’. Obituaries are a unique window into international law’s otherwise private inner life, unveiling professional connections between international lawyers and their shared career paths beyond a single academic or judicial institution. Employing network analysis, a method commonly used in social sciences to describe complex social phenomena such as this, we are able to demonstrate the ubiquity of informal networks whereby ideas move, and provide evidence of the community’s homogeneity. Exploring the connections between international lawyers and their shared characteristics in this novel way, we shed light on the features of the community and the impact individual personalities have on the law. These characteristics of the profession and its members may be obvious to insiders, but are seldom acknowledged. Graphic representation is a powerful tool in bolstering critiques for diversity and contestation of mainstream law-making narratives. More than an exercise in exhaustive mapping, we seek to take the ‘dead white men’ trope to an extreme, provoking the reader to question the self-image of the profession as an impersonal expert science.

--Dan Ernst.  H/t: JFW

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Wald on In-House Counsel

Eli Wald, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, has published Getting In and Out of the House: The Worlds of In-House Counsel, Big Law, and Emerging Career Trajectories of In-House Lawyers in the Fordham Law Review:

The traditional story of in-house counsel is of a transformation and triumph over “Big Law” in a zero-sum game for power, prestige, and money. That story, however, is inaccurate descriptively, prescriptively, and normatively. Descriptively, in-house lawyers were part of the legal elite dominating corporate counseling before large law firms first rose to power and prominence. In-house counsel then lost ground and the position of general counsel to Big Law lawyers between the 1940s and 1970s, only to mount an impressive comeback to elite status beginning in the 1970s. Yet the in-house comeback was not a simple power struggle with Big Law. Rather, modern in-house lawyers including the “new” general counsel came from within the ranks of Big Law, an offshoot rather than a competitor of large law firms, sharing Big Law’s background, training, and, more importantly, professional values, ideology, and ethos. Thus, the story of in-house lawyers and their relationship with Big Law is one of a complex symbiotic affiliation, not a competitive zero-sum game.
--Dan Ernst

Monday, November 9, 2020

Bradley and Rowland on women's access to law in England

 Kate Bradley (University of Kent) and Sophie Rowland (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) have published "A poor woman's lawyer? Feminism, the labour movement, and working-class women's access to the law in England, 1890-1935," Women's History Review (17 Aug. 2020). Here's the abstract: 

Women were excluded from both branches of the legal profession before the Sex Discrimination (Removal) Act 1919. Whilst campaigning for women's entry to the law was also part of wider efforts to make the law more accessible. Before and after the 1919 Act, middle-class women were able to offer legal support to working-class women, through feminist and trade unionist networks and the professions that were open to them—factory inspection and social work. By examining key women’s organisations between the 1890s and 1930s, we trace the development of work to both educate women and girls on their legal rights and to directly tackle problems and breaches of the law. We argue that, by looking at the legal activism of women in the factory inspectorate, social work, trade union and women's organisations, fresh insight into the development and ‘mainstreaming’ of working-class claims on citizenship in the early twentieth century can be found.

Further information is available here.

--Mitra Sharafi 

Friday, October 2, 2020

Sackar on Lord Devlin

Out this month by Justice John Sackar (Supreme Court of New South Wales) is Lord Devlin with Hart Publishing. From the press:
Media of Lord Devlin
Lord Devlin was a leading lawyer of his generation. Moreover, he was one of the most recognised figures in the judiciary, thanks to his role in the John Bodkin Adams trial and the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry. It is hard then to believe that he retired as a Law Lord at a mere 58 years of age. This important book looks at the life, influences and impact of this most important judicial figure. Starting with his earliest days as a school boy before moving on to his later years, the author draws a compelling picture of a complex, brilliant man who would shape not just the law but society more generally in post-war Britain.
Further information is available here.

--Mitra Sharafi

Saturday, September 5, 2020

Weekend Roundup

  • Anne C. Fleming is remembered, especially by other former Climenko Fellows, in Harvard Law Today
  • “The Bangor Historical Society is presenting a virtual exhibit that will focus on the connection between fashion and women’s freedoms. ‘Interwoven: Women’s Fashion and Empowerment’ focuses on the history of women’s rights, including social, economic, legal and voting, while relating milestones and benchmarks with fashion trends by decade" (Bangor Daily News).  And the National Constitution Center also has a new exhibit on the 19th Amendment (Philly Voice).
   Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Networks and Connections in Legal History

Just out from Cambridge University Press: Networks and Connections in Legal History, edited by Michael Lobban, London School of Economics and Political Science, and Ian Williams, University College London:
Network and Connections in Legal History examines networks of lawyers, legislators and litigators, and how they shaped legal development in Britain and the world. It explores how particular networks of lawyers - from Scotland to East Florida and India - shaped the culture of the forums in which they operated, and how personal connections could be crucial in pressuring the legislature to institute reform - as with twentieth century feminist campaigns. It explores the transmission of legal ideas; what happened to those ideas was not predetermined, but when new connections were made, they could assume a new life. In some cases, new thinkers made intellectual connections not previously conceived, in others it was the new purposes to which ideas and practices were applied which made them adapt. This book shows how networks and connections between people and places have shaped the way that legal ideas and practices are transmitted across time and space.
TOC after the jump. [DRE]