For researchers conducting interviews, many different kinds of research subjects exist. The common distinction between “elite” interviewees and their opposites – “mass publics,” perhaps – captures some of the difference. Relatively elite subjects, such as corporate lawyers or court officials, often possess inside knowledge that you hope to acquire or have a privileged vantage point. Often coming from a limited pool of people who share their perspective, each interviewee is valuable and must be approached with care. Yet many elite individuals nevertheless can be relative unknowns beyond the narrow confines of their field. Many Law and Society projects involve elites of this variety – see, for example, McBarnet (Chapter 14) or Dezalay and Garth (Chapter 18). The extreme end of the “elite” continuum may well be its own category, however: those who by their socioeconomic standing or unique political position are extraordinarily difficult to access, challenging to interview, or particularly sensitive subjects. Interviewing presidents, ministers, and justices – and getting useful data – is a challenge unlike any other.

Alan Paterson's doctoral dissertation, later published as The Law Lords, brought this student of jurisprudence face-to-face with fourteen of the judges who sat in the highest appellate body in the United Kingdom and forty-five leading barristers and judges from the lower courts. At a time of great deference to the judiciary, and in light of the traditional reserve of the senior judiciary, it was a remarkable achievement.