Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T11:15:27.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer's Office

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Austin Sarat  and
William L. F. Felstiner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the research from which this paper is derived, we have observed and tape-recorded approximately 115 lawyer-client conferences. Our observations were made in two sites, one in California and one in Massachusetts. In this paper we take an in-depth look at the nature of lawyer-client discourse by focusing on one conference. We explore three of the most important themes in that discourse. First is the discussion and characterization of the legal system and its major actors. Next is the exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of disposing of disputed issues through negotiation or trial. Finally, the third theme involves the “legal construction of the client,” where a lawyer and client discuss rules of relevance that govern the legal process as well as the aspects of the client's experience that are to be the subject of legal inquiry. The paper concludes by exploring the way each of these themes expresses or embodies prevailing legal ideologies and influences the way cases develop and are managed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1986 , pp. 93 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research on which this paper is based was supported in part by two grants from the National Science Foundation (SES 8110483 and 8510422). Earlier versions of the paper were presented at a workshop on the Study of the Interaction between Lawyer and Client, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, The Netherlands, and to the seminar on Legal Ideology and Legal Process, Amherst, Massachusetts. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of the participants in those meetings. In addition, we have received useful suggestions from Jane Collier, Thomas Kearns, Robert Kidder, Susan Silbey, Ronald Tiersky, Stephanie Sandler, and Diane Vaughan. Special thanks is to be given to Beatrice Caesar-Wolf and David Kanouse, whose insights have considerably enriched our thinking.

References

BERENDS, Miek (1981) “Modes of Lawyer-Client Interaction: Translation, Transformation and Social Control.” Presented at the Law & Society Association Annual Meeting. Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham S. (1967) “The Practice of Law as Confidence Game,” 1 Law & Society Review 15.Google Scholar
BOGOCH, Bryna, and Brenda, DANET (1984) “Challenge and Control in Lawyer-Client Interaction.” Unpublished paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRANDEIS, Louis (1933) “The Opportunity in Law,” in Business—A Profession. Boston: Hale, Cushman and Flint.Google Scholar
CAESAR-WOLF, Beatrice (1984) “Professionalized Lawyer-Client Interaction: An Exemplary Case Study of a Divorce Consultation.” Unpublished paper. Presented at the Workshop on the Study of the Interaction Between Lawyer and Client. Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
CAIN, Maureen (1979) “The General Practice Lawyer and the Client,” 7 International Journal of the Sociology of Law 331.Google Scholar
CURRAN, Barbara (1977) The Legal Needs of the Public. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
DANET, Brenda, HOFFMAN, K. B., and N. C., KERMISH (1980) “Obstacles to the Study of Lawyer-Client Interaction: The Biography of a Failure,” 14 Law & Society Review 905.Google Scholar
ECKHOFF, Torstein (1966) “The Mediator, the Judge and the Administrator in Conflict Resolution,” 10 Acta Sociologica 148.Google Scholar
EISENSTEIN, James, and H., JACOB (1977) Felony Justice. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
ENGEL, David (1984) “The Oven Bird's Song,” 18 Law & Society Review 551.Google Scholar
FEELEY, Malcolm M. (1979) The Process Is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William L. F., ABEL, Richard L., and Austin, SARAT (1981) “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming and Claiming …,” 15 Law & Society Review 631.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William L. F., and Austin, SARAT (1985) “Access to Lawyer-Client Conferences.” Presented at the Workshop on the Study of the Interaction Between Lawyer and Client. Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
FENNO, Richard (1979) Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
FOUCAULT, Michel (1979) Discipline and Power. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
FRANK, Jerome (1950) Courts on Trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
GABEL, Peter (1980) “Reification in Legal Reasoning,” 3 Research in Law and Sociology 125.Google Scholar
GORDON, Robert (1982) “New Development in Legal Theory,” in Kairys, D. (ed.), The Politics of Law. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Kairys, D. (1983) “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of Enterprise,” in Geison, G. (ed.), Professions and Professional Ideologies in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
GRIFFITHS, John (1984) “What Do (Dutch) Lawyers Actually Do in Divorce Cases?” Presented at the Workshop on the Study of the Interaction between Lawyer and Client. Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
HEUMANN, Milton (1978) Plea Bargaining. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
HOSTICKA, Carl (1979) “We Don't Care About What Happened, We Only Care About What Is Going to Happen,” 26 Social Problems 599.Google Scholar
ILLICH, Ivan (1977) Toward a History of Needs. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
KENNEDY, Duncan (1979) “The Structure of Blackstone's Commentaries,” 28 Buffalo Law Review 205.Google Scholar
KIDDER, Robert (1973) “Courts and Conflict in an Indian City: A Study in Legal Impact,” 11 Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies 121.Google Scholar
MACAULAY, Stewart (1979) “Lawyers and Consumer Protection Cases,” 14 Law & Society Review 115.Google Scholar
MACAULAY, Stewart (1984) “Law and the Behavioral Sciences,” 6 Law and Policy 149.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn, and Barbara, YNGVESSON (1981) “Language, Audience and the Transformation of Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 775.Google Scholar
McINTOSH, John (1974) “Processes of Communication, Information Seeking and Control Associated with Cancer,” 8 Social Science and Medicine 167.Google Scholar
MERRY, Sally (1985) “Concepts of Law and Justice Among Working Class Americans,” 9 Legal Studies Forum 59.Google Scholar
MERRY, Sally, and Susan, SILBEY (1984) “What Do Plaintiffs Want,” 9 Justice System Journal 151.Google Scholar
MILLER, Richard, and Austin, SARAT (1981) “Grievances, Claims and Disputes,” 15 Law & Society Review 525.Google Scholar
PARSONS, Talcott (1954) “A Sociologist Looks at the Legal Profession,” in Parsons, T. (ed.), Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin (1977) “Studying American Legal Culture,” 11 Law & Society Review 427.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin, and William L. F., FELSTINER (1985) “Law Talk in the Divorce Lawyer's Office.” Presented at the Conference on Language and the Judicial Process. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
SHAPIRO, Martin (1981) “On the Regrettable Decline of Law French: Or Shapiro Jette le Brickbat,” 90 Yale Law Journal 1198.Google Scholar
SIMON, William (1978) “The Ideology of Advocacy,” 30 Wisconsin Law Review 29.Google Scholar
TAYLOR, Shelley (1979) “Hospital Patient Behavior,” 35 Journal of Social Issues 156.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David (1984) “Where the Action Is: Critical Legal Studies and Empiricism,” 36 Stanford Law Review 575.Google Scholar
TUSHNET, Mark (1983) “Following the Rules Laid Down,” 96 Harvard Law Review 781.Google Scholar
UNGER, Roberto (1975) Knowledge and Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
WEITZMAN, Lenore (1984) “No Fault Divorce and the Transformation of Marriage.” Presented at the Law & Society Association Annual Meeting. Boston, MA.Google Scholar