ASLH meeting draws big names, crowd

10/30/2007

ASLH meeting draws big names, crowd


     Nearly 300 scholars and students of legal history from around the world gathered Oct. 25-27 at the  College of Law and the Tempe Mission Palms Hotel for the 2007 conference of the American Society for Legal History.

Donahue, Brand & O'Connor   

Chatting in the Great Hall are, from left, ASLH
president Charles Donahue Jr., plenary speaker
Paul Brand and retired U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
     The centerpiece of the meeting, which featured the presentation of more 100 papers and three dozen panels, was a plenary session with Paul Brand, the world’s most prominent English legal historian of the 13th and 14th centuries. Brand is a senior research fellow and academic secretary at All Souls College at the University of Oxford.
     “He’s also a good friend of the law school,” said Professor Jonathan Rose, who headed a committee that planned and executed the successful event. “I’ve rarely met a more collegial and generous person to scholars of all kinds.”
     Before Brand’s lecture in the Great Hall, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke about her love of history, and she touched on her own role in it, taking a cue from Patricia D. White, Dean of the College of Law.
     “Her enduring role and place in history is assured, and because of her accomplishments and her enduring role, the Justice is now the first woman for whom a law school has been named,” said White, to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from the audience.
     In welcoming the conference guests to Arizona, Justice O’Connor noted the state’s history is relatively brief, but its land is ancient and roots quite deep. She mentioned her history with several ASLH members, Professor Jonathan Rose, who led both the program and local arrangements committees, ASLH conference chairman Craig Joyce, a relative by marriage, incoming ASLH president-elect Maeva Marcus of George Washington University.
     “History is just so vital for all of us in everything we do,” Justice O’Connor said. “What you are doing matters to all of us, and you are more welcome than you will ever know.”
     Brand’s paper, “Thirteenth century English Royal Justices: What We Know and Do Not Know About What They Did,” was the result of decades of painstaking study, transcription and translation of hundreds of manuscripts of English law reports and books.
     From his research, Brand painted a picture of the early history of the legal profession in England, one that can’t be seen from official court records, because they omitted most of justice’s functions, actions and behavior from the bench.
     The Royal Courts of the 13th century were radically different from previous courts in that they had nationwide jurisdiction, rather than communal authority, and these king-appointed justices met every day, except Sunday, for weeks at a time, rather than a day or less every two to four weeks. However, Brand said, the law reports produce skepticism about whether the justices actually were in court, despite the official records saying they were.
     The new courts also were the first to keep complete written records of their cases and to require defendants to be served by the local sheriff. The justices heard both civil and criminal cases, that is, when they could hear the proceedings in their courtrooms.
     “We should think of the 13th century courts as quite often noisy places, where it would be difficult to hear what was said,” said Brand, noting that, while the official record of the court was published in Latin, the language used by the justices and the lawyers was a variety of French.
     The justices often took an active role during trials to charging the juries or interrogating them after they gave their verdicts, and they also brought specific problems to parliament to have them resolved there through legislation.
« Back