Legal records are notoriously dangerous sources and their criticism is still at such an early stage that in principle it is foolhardy to place too much reliance on them. However, the local historian of late-medieval England must use them, since they are far and away the best source for events in the localities. Reliance on legal records in itself is problematic, for one has to guard against assuming that conflict and violent or illegal behaviour were the norm and care must be taken to give equal weight to less obviously attractive and usable evidence indicating cooperation, such as deeds.

As is well known, these records give the authorities', or, alternatively, the lawyers', view of events. In the latter case, a particular pitfall is the use of common form, for example the description of a killing in self-defence or the standard words used to describe a violent incident or a wounding. At this period there is the added complication that the records may give the version of one faction trying to do down another. We cannot be sure that alleged offences really were committed or, if they were, that it was in exactly the form alleged. The more circumstantial the account, however, the more likely it is to contain some truth.

Two remarkable instances are the two different versions of the murder of William Chetwynd - one according to his widow, the other the coroner's verdict, probably ‘massaged’ by the Stanleys – and of the Coventry affray that initiated the Stafford-Harecourt feud.