Jocelin writes:

The truth of Jocelin's statement is born out by what is known about Samson's career as a papal judge delegate. Twenty-five mandates addressed to him by Innocent III survive or are known to have once existed: they concern judicial or administrative business. Other mandates will have been lost. Although the pope appointed whom he pleased to determine appeals to the curia, it was quite usual for him to appoint the petitioner's nominee or nominees. The frequency with which Samson was employed indicates that Samson's fellow countrymen as well as Innocent himself regarded him as an able judge in ecclesiastical matters. The fact that he would tend to be biased in favour of Benedictine monks must have encouraged them to nominate him as a judge delegate in their disputes.

Conflict between the secular clergy and the religious was a feature of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. It might arise because a secular bishop, fired by reforming zeal, tried to hold a visitation of a highly privileged and wealthy Benedictine monastery, especially if he considered that the administration was lax and the Rule not properly observed. A number of disputes were between secular bishops and their monastic chapters. In general, a secular chapter, composed of prebendary canons, was more useful to a bishop than one composed of monks living communally in the cathedral priory. But, in addition, a bishop might want to reform the priory or simply enrich himself at its expense. The latter cause of conflict was exacerbated because often the line dividing a bishop's property from that of his cathedral priory was not clear. The various disputes, whatever their causes, resulted in numerous appeals to Rome by aggrieved parties.