1 Earl Johnson, Jr., Justice and Reform: The Formative Years of the oeo Legal Services Program (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974); Mauro Cappelletti, James Gordley, & Earl Johnson, Jr., Toward Equal Justice: A Comparative Study of Legal Aid in Modern Societies (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1975); Samuel J. Brakel, Judicare: Public Funds, Private Lawyers, and Poor People (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1974).Google Scholar

2 See Eric H. Steele, Fraud, Dispute, and the Consumer: Responding to Consumer Complaints, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1107 (1975); Eric H. Steele & Raymond T. Nimmer, Lawyers, Clients, and Professional Regulation, 1976 A.B.F. Res. J. 917; Leon H. Mayhew, Law and Equal Opportunity: A Study of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968); Philip Selznick, Law, Society, and Industrial Justice (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969); Philippe Nonet, Administrative Justice: Advocacy and Change in a Government Agency (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969).Google Scholar

3 E.g., Steele, supra note 2.Google Scholar

4 Perry Miller, The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War 239–68 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965).Google Scholar

5 Charles Warren, A History of the American Bar 3–18, 211–39 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1911). Warren wrote, for example: “Nothing, however, in the early legal history of the Colonies is more striking than the uniformly low position held in the community by the members of the legal profession … . [A] lawyer or attorney was a character of disrepute and of suspicion.”Id. at 4.Google Scholar

6 In a letter to James Madison in 1811, Bentham proposed to develop a code, and Madison replied in 1816 that the United States did not need Bentham's help. However, a movement for codification arose over the next decade. Tushnet, Mark V., Perspectives on the Development of American Law: A Critical Review of Friedman's “A History of American Law,” 1977 Wis. L. Rev. 81, 106; Note, Swift v. Tyson Exhumed, 79 Yale L.J. 284, 297–310 (1969).Google Scholar

7 Bloomfield, Maxwell, Sampson, William and the Codifiers: The Roots of American Legal Reform, 1820–1830, 11 Am. J. Legal Hist. 234, 235 (1967).Google Scholar

8 Warren, supra note 5, at 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Id. at 510 and see also at 514–27; Tushnet, supra note 6, at 106; Bloomfield, supra note 7.Google Scholar

10 Warren, , supra note 5, at 531; Charles Noble Gregory, Bentham and the Codifiers, 13 Harv. L. Rev. 344, 349 (1899).Google Scholar

11 Warren, supra note 5, at 532.Google Scholar

12 3 Titus M. Coon, ed., Speeches, Arguments and Miscellaneous Papers of David Dudley Field, 238 (1890).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Bloomfield, supra note 7, at 250. Curiously, the Indiana provision (Ind. Const, art. 7, £ 21 (1851, repealed 1932)) was on the books for more than 80 years.Google Scholar

14 Bloomfield, supra note 7, at 241.Google Scholar

15 See Earl Johnson, Jr., Valerie Kantor, & Elizabeth Schwartz, Outside the Courts: A Survey of Diversion Alternatives in Civil Cases, National Center for State Courts Pub. No. R0023 (Denver, Colo.: National Center for State Courts, 1977). Civil diversion, a contemporary reincarnation of legal simplification reform, is discussed almost inextricably in substantive and procedural terms.Google Scholar

16 Warren, supra note 5, at 516–17.Google Scholar

17 The Speech of Henry Brougham, Esq., M.P., in the House of Commons on Thursday, February 7, 1828 (London: Henry Colburn, 1828).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 60, 64–65 (asterisk deleted).Google Scholar

19 Courts of Concilation, 102 N. Am. Rev. 135 (1866).Google Scholar

20 New York Const, art. VI, £ 23 (1845; later dropped from constitution). Similar provisions were contained in five other state constitutions of the period. See John B. Winslow, Tribunals of Concilation, 10 Report of the Proceedings of the Meetings of the State Bar Association of Wisconsin 206 (1914), and Reginald Heber Smith, Justice and the Poor 61 (Chicago: National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 1967, originally published 1919).Google Scholar

21 Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution of the State of New York, 1846, reported by William G. Bishop & William H. Attree, at 588 (Albany, N.Y.: printed at the office of the Evening Atlas, 1846).Google Scholar

The debate on the conciliation court provision in the New York Constitutional Convention continued with a more extended description of just what was being proposed:.Google Scholar

(Conciliation courts] go very far to repress litigation, and speedily to arrange those controversies that sometimes spring up between very honest and well meaning men, without the costs and delays attending upon a litigation in our courts. Mr. W[orden] said he only doubted whether such could be made applicable to the state of things existing in our State, and the nature of all the various dealings between individuals, or to all questions that arise out of our extensive mercantile transactions; but there were a class of cases which he said he believed could with great propriety and advantage be referred to these courts. And with leave of the Convention, Mr. W. said he would state the mode of procedure in Courts of Conciliation, and the cases that, in his opinion, might be brought to an end and wisely disposed of in these courts. A court of conciliation where they are in existence, is organized in this way—there are two, intelligent and honest men appointed to hear the complaints and allegations of the parties, who appear before the court without the aid of lawyers, and each states his case and the points and questions of controversy existing between them, and the facts on which they base their claims. The judges of the court hear their statements, and take into consideration the rights of the parties, and advise them in regard thereto and make efforts to bring them to a conciliation. No witnesses appear in court, nor are counsel or attorneys employed; and nothing that takes place is ever admitted in evidence between the parties elsewhere. If the parties agree, a statement of the agreement is reduced to writing, signed by the parties and the court, and time fixed for the payment of the amount agreed on, for which, if not paid as agreed, the court issues execution very similar to that from our justice's court. Mr. W. said he thought courts of this description could be organized in the towns, wherein parties residing in such towns should be compelled, before going to law, to make efforts to settle their difficulties; and, as in the countries where those courts exist, the parties should not be permitted to recover costs unless they had made an effort to conciliate their differences in the court of conciliation of the town. It is true these courts do not act compulsor[il]y, but by prohibiting the parties from recovering costs unless [they make] an effort to conciliate [their] differences, it operates to enforce the parties into that court; and it is found that the moral sense of the community in favor of a peaceful adjustment of difficulties, induces parties to seek that mode of doing so. In this way neighborhood difficulties—personal controversies—that now disturb communities, and call in aid courts and juries, are settled and put an end to… . The subject was worthy of consideration, and if it could be so arranged as to reach to the suppression of litigation and to the adjustment of controversies, it would do much towards repressing the spirit of litigation, and the costs and vexation attendant upon long and protracted legal controversies, which often had no other result than the ruin of those engaged in them.Google Scholar

Id. at 589.Google Scholar

22 Id.Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 Courts of Conciliation, supra note 19, at 144.Google Scholar

25 The situation is described as follows in an extract from an article in Law Magazine (Jan. 1931) in review of Lord Brougham's speech on local courts: There is an arbitrary paternalism in this assumption that some lawsuits are inconsequential and others important, and that this distinction can be made clearly and objectively on the basis of a brief summary of the matter. While many would agree that the great bulk of cases can easily be classified into one or the other classes, it seems clear that many cases are important to some while inconsequential to others. And the parties themselves—who are in control of compromise and settlement—are least likely of all to classify their dispute as inconsequential once having pressed it to this point. Id. at 144–45.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 145.Google Scholar

27 New York State Constitutional Convention Committee, [Reports and Studies], vol. 9, Subcommittee on Judicial Powers and Administration 6–7 (Albany, N.Y.: J. B. Lyon Co., Printers, 1938); and see Winslow, supra note 20.Google Scholar

28 This antilawyer theme is at least as old as Plato's Republic.Google Scholar

29 Grevstad, Nicolay, Courts of Conciliation, 68 Atlantic Monthly 401 (1891).Google Scholar

30 Who Was Who in America, vol. 1, 1897–42, at 487 (Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1943).Google Scholar

31 Grevstad, supra note 29, at 402; see also the two paradigms set out in Engel, David M. & Steele, Eric H., Civil Cases and Society: Process and Order in the Civil Justice System, 1979 A.B.F. Res. J. 295, 332–6.Google Scholar

32 Grevstad, supra note 29, at 403–4.Google Scholar

33 Id. at 404.Google Scholar

34 Id. at 404–5.Google Scholar

35 Id. at 402.Google Scholar

36 Steele, supra note 2.Google Scholar

37 Grevstad, supra note 29, at 405.Google Scholar

38 Courts of Conciliation, supra note 19, at 146:.Google Scholar

39 The situation of the recently enfranchised slaves presents many of the features which have made these courts successful among the peasantry of Denmark. They are a poor people, an agricultural people; their dealings are confined to their own neighborhood; their quarrels are generally about simple matters; they have just been freed from slavery, and have many of its trammels still hanging about them. Though an irascible, they are a very placable people, and when they do respect one of the lately dominant race, they will submit to his opinion and advice with a readiness which exceeds the docility of any European peasantry.Google Scholar

40 Smith, supra note 20, at 42.Google Scholar

41 Id.Google Scholar

42 Winslow, supra note 20, at 213–14.Google Scholar

43 Grevstad, Nicolay, Courts of Conciliation in America, 72 Atlantic Monthly 671 (1938); Winslow, supra note 20, at 224.Google Scholar

44 Winslow, supra note 20, at 224; Smith, supra note 20, at 61.Google Scholar

45 Winslow, supra note 20, at 224–25.Google Scholar

46 Cayton, Nathan, Small Claims and Conciliation Courts, 205 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 57 (1939).Google Scholar

47 This attraction is illustrated by the emergence of the Courts of Equity, the justice of the peace, the arbitration movement, and more recently the Neighborhood Justice Center. Cf. Daniel McGillis & Joan Mullen, Neighborhood Justice Centers—an Analysis of Potential Models (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977).Google Scholar

48 Smith, supra note 20, at 6. Cf. Warren, supra note 5, at 3–18.Google Scholar

49 Chandler quoted in Richard Hofstadter, Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R., at 23, 144–45 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955).Google Scholar

50 Hofstadter, supra note 48, at 23.Google Scholar

51 Id. at 8–9.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 9.Google Scholar

53 Id. at 203–4 (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

54 Arthur Mann, The Progressive Era 2 (2d ed. Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press, 1975).Google Scholar

55 Id. at 50; Eric F. Goldman, Rendezvous with Destiny: A History of Modern American Reform (New York: Vintage Books, 1960); Hofstadter, supra note 48; Samuel P. Hays, The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era, in Stanley N. Katz & Stanley I. Kutler, eds., New Perspectives on the American Past, vol. 3, 1877 to the Present 148 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1969); Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order 1877–1920 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1967).Google Scholar

56 Goldman, supra note 54; Hays, supra note 54; and Hofstadter, supra note 48.Google Scholar

57 Mann, supra note 53, at 204.Google Scholar

58 Marc Galanter, Justice in Many Rooms (Disputes Processing Research Program working paper 1979–4) (Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School, 1979).Google Scholar

59 Hays, supra note 54, at 155, and Wiebe, supra note 54.Google Scholar

60 Report of the Debates and Proceedings, supra note 21.Google Scholar

61 Grevstad, supra note 42, at 674.Google Scholar

62 Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 29 A.B.A. Reports 395 (1906).Google Scholar

63 Wigmore, John H., Roscoe Pound's St. Paul Address of 1906: The Spark That Kindled the White Flame of Progress, 20 J. Am. Jud. Soc. 176, 178 (1936).Google Scholar

64 Taft, William H., Delays and Defects in the Enforcement of Law in This Country, 187 N. Am. Rev. 851, 851 (1908).Google Scholar

65 Pound, Roscoe, The Administration of Justice in the Modern City, 26 Harv. L. Rev. 302, 316 (1913).Google Scholar

66 Alger, George W., Treadmill Justice, 104 Atlantic Monthly 696, 699 (1909). See also Charles Dickens's classic description of the endless litigation of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in Bleak House.Google Scholar

67 J. G. Donnelly, The Law's Delays, 10 Report of the Proceedings of the Meeting of the State Bar Association of Wisconsin 136, 137 (1913).Google Scholar

68 Pound, supra note 64, at 311.Google Scholar

69 Grevstad, supra note 42, at 675.Google Scholar

70 Smith, supra note 20, at 11.Google Scholar

71 Report of the Debates and Proceedings, supra note 21, at 736.Google Scholar

72 Donnelly, supra note 66.Google Scholar

73 W. H. Carruth, A Court Without Lawyers, 89 Outlook 992, 993 (1908).Google Scholar

74 An Alleged Breakdown in American Institutions, 42 Current Literature 612, 613 (1907).Google Scholar

75 Herbert Harley, Organizing the Law Courts for Efficiency, 32 Survey 458, 459 (1914).Google Scholar

76 Taft, supra note 63, at 853.Google Scholar

77 Levine, Manuel, The Branch Court of Conciliation of the Municipal Court of Cleveland, Am. Jud. Soc'y Bull. 8, Apr. 1915, at 4, 6.Google Scholar

78 N. A. Fuessle, People's Court, Collier's, July 3, 1915, at 27.Google Scholar

79 Lapp, John A., Legislative Notes and Reviews, 8 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 614 635, 636 (1914).Google Scholar

80 Pound, supra note 61.Google Scholar

81 Harley, supra note 74, at 459.Google Scholar

82 Alger, supra note 65, at 697.Google Scholar

83 Id. at 702.Google Scholar

84 See An Alleged Breakdown, supra note 73.Google Scholar

85 Expedition and Thoroughness in the Courts, 89 Outlook 54 (1908).Google Scholar

86 Jesse Macy, The Efficiency of English Courts: An Example for America, 33 McClure's Magazine 552–57 (1909).Google Scholar

87 Grevstad, supra notes 29 and 42; Alfred Russell, Avoidable Causes of Delay and Uncertainty in Our Courts, 25 Am. L. Rev. 776 (1891); Levine, supra note 76, at 4.Google Scholar

88 The Waste of Time at Court, 42 Nation 253 (1886).Google Scholar

89 James Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers 147 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1950).Google Scholar

90 Id. at 149.Google Scholar

91 Id. at 147–49, 178–79; Chester H. Smith, The Justice of the Peace System in the United States, 15 Calif. L. Rev. 118 (1927); id., Justice of the Peace, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 7, at 52 (New York: Macmillan Co., 1932).Google Scholar

92 Robert McMurdy, The Law Providing for a Municipal Court in Chicago: Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Illinois State Bar Association, 38 Chi. Legal News 398 (1906).Google Scholar

93 Hurst, supra note 88, at 150.Google Scholar

94 Manual Levine, Conciliation Court of Cleveland, an address delivered before the American Political Science Association, at Chicago, Dec. 30, 1914, reprinted in 2 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 10 (1918).Google Scholar

95 Van Santvoord, George, The Indiana Justice 10 (1845).Google Scholar

96 Note, Small Claims in Indiana, 3 Ind. Legal F. 517, 519 (1970).Google Scholar

97 Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution of the State of New York: Containing All the Official Documents, Relating to the Subject, and Other Valuable Matter, by Nathaniel H. Carter & William L. Stone, reporters, & Marcus T. C. Gould, stenographer (Albany, N.Y.: E. & E. Hosford, 1821).Google Scholar

98 Patterson, Thomas, Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace, and the Possible Application in Pennsylvania of the Small Debtors' Court on the English Plan, n.s. 36 Am. L. Reg. 481 (1897).Google Scholar

99 Id. at 483.Google Scholar

100 Harrison, James P., Suggested Changes in Our Judicial System, 5 Va. L. Reg. 351, 360 (1899).Google Scholar

101 McMurdy, , supra note 91, and Robert lies, Municipal Courts, 37 Chi. Legal News 235 (1905).Google Scholar

102 Olson, Harry, The Municipal Court of Chicago, 40 Chi. Legal News 20 (1907).Google Scholar

103 Fuessle, supra note 77.Google Scholar

104 Harley, Herbert, Ultimate Types of Inferior Courts, 22 Case & Com. 314 (1915).Google Scholar

105 Smith, supra note 20, at 42–43. As for the general history of justices of the peace, see The Justice of the Peace, a report as approved by the American Bar Association in 1940, reprinted in Arthur T. Vanderbilt, ed., Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration: A Survey of the Extent to Which the Standards of the American Bar Association for Improving the Administration of Justice Have Been Accepted Throughout the Country 678 ([New York]: Law Center of New York University for the National Conference of Judicial Councils, 1949). See also Vanlandingham, Kenneth E., The Decline of the Justice of the Peace, 12 Kan. L. Rev. 389 (1964); Palmer, Ben W., The Vestigial Justice of the Peace, 47 A.B.A. J. 380 (1961); Silverstein, Lee, Small Claims Courts Versus Justices of the Peace, 58 W. Va. L. Rev. 241 (1955). Criticism of the J.P. system is collected in id. at 246 n.38. See also Smith, supra note 90, and Patterson, supra note 97.Google Scholar

106 Harley, Herbert, The Small Claims Branch of the Municipal Court of Chicago, Am. Jud. Soc'y Bull. 8, Apr. 1915, at 25, 38.Google Scholar

107 Id., Conciliation Is Succeeding, 45 Am. Jud. Soc'y 70 (1920); Grevstad, supra note 42; and Patterson, supra note 97.Google Scholar

108 Strasburger, Milton, A Plea for the Reform of the Inferior Court, 22 Case & Com. 20 (1915).Google Scholar

109 Grevstad, supra notes 29 & 42.Google Scholar

110 Id. and The Waste of Time, supra note 87.Google Scholar

111 Pound, Roscoe, Organization of Courts, Am. Jud. Soc'y Bull. 6 [1915], at 1.Google Scholar

112 Smith, supra note 20.Google Scholar

113 Discussed infra in the text at notes 165–80 and literature there cited.Google Scholar

114 Carruth, supra note 72.Google Scholar

115 Winslow, supra note 20; Courts of Conciliation, supra note 19.Google Scholar

116 Harley, supra note 106; Grevstad, supra note 29; Harley, Herbert, Justice or Litigation, 6 Va. L. Rev. 143 (1919).Google Scholar

117 Wigmore, John H., Introduction, Am. Jud. Soc'y Bull. 8, Apr. 1915, at 3.Google Scholar

118 Gilbert, Hiram T., New Municipal Court System, 38 Chi. Legal News 287 (1906).Google Scholar

119 Harley, supra note 103, at 315.Google Scholar

120 Harley, supra note 105, at 38.Google Scholar

121 Id. Harley, supra note 106; Vance, William R., A Proposed Court of Conciliation, 1 Minn. L. Rev. 107 (1919); Informal Procedure in Chicago, Am. Jud. Soc'y Bull. 15, Dec. 1920, at 23; Winslow, supra note 20; Strasburger, supra note 107.Google Scholar

122 Anthony, Elliott, Justices of the Peace, 4 Kan. L.J. 113, 135 (1886).Google Scholar

123 Pound described this as “liberality.”.Google Scholar

124 Smith, supra note 20, at 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

125 Id. at 11, quoting Chief Justice Olson in the Eighth and Ninth Annual Report of the Chicago Municipal Court (1915), at 128.Google Scholar

126 Harrison, supra note 99, at 364.Google Scholar

127 Macy, supra note 85, at 553.Google Scholar

128 Patterson, supra note 97.Google Scholar

129 Grevstad, supra note 42; Patterson, supra note 97; Olson, supra note 101; Moley, Raymond C., Justice Through Common Sense: The Conciliation Court, 33 Survey 101 (1914).Google Scholar

130 Is somewhat unclear in this context who was being referred to when reformers of the period talked about the “poor” or the “common man.” These designations were used in many ways, sometimes limited to what today would be called poverty, sometimes not. Examples are given in the leterature of people who had jobs or small businesses, but whose legal rights were effectively limited or denied because they could not afford the cost of litigation in the regular courts. Some legal critics concerned with the very poor seemed also to include these individuals in their concerns. The only meaning common to most of the critics was the operational definition: Anyone for whom the cost of bringing a small claim would represent a great hardship, or for whom the inability to litigate the claim would cause substantial hardship, was considered poor.Google Scholar

131 Harrison, supra note 99, at 360.Google Scholar

132 Taft, supra note 93, at 855.Google Scholar

133 Macy, supra note 85, at 553.Google Scholar

134 Smith, supra note 20, at 12.Google Scholar

135 Taft, supra note 63, at 855.Google Scholar

136 Donnelly, supra note 66, at 141.Google Scholar

137 Smith, supra note 20, at 9.Google Scholar

138 Taft, supra note 63, at 855–56.Google Scholar

139 Cf. Bonn, Robert L., The Predictability of Nonlegalistic Adjudication, 6 Law & Soc'y Rev. 563 (1972).Google Scholar

140 Smith, supra note 20.Google Scholar

141 Harley, supra note 106; Grevstad, supra note 29; Harley, supra note 115.Google Scholar

142 Vance, supra note 120.Google Scholar

143 Wigmore, supra note 116.Google Scholar

144 Discussion on resolution about reprinting Roscoe Pound's paper, 29 A.B.A. Reports pt. 1, at 55 (1906).Google Scholar

145 Pound, supra note 64, at 317.Google Scholar

146 Wigmore, supra note 116; Gilbert, supra note 117, at 296.Google Scholar

147 Pound, Roscoe, A Practical Program of Procedural Reform, 22 Green Bag 438 (1910).Google Scholar

148 Harley, supra note 103.Google Scholar

149 Pound, supra note 64, at 317.Google Scholar

150 See, e.g., 205 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. passim (1939).Google Scholar

151 Cayton, supra note 45, at 59–60.Google Scholar

152 Introduction to Reginald Heber Smith & John S. Bradway, Growth of Legal-Aid Work in the United States, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Bull. No. 607, at v (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1936).Google Scholar

153 Myers, Frank H., The Small Claims Court in the District of Columbia, 287 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 21, 26 (1953).Google Scholar

154 Institute of Judicial Administration, Small Claims Courts in the United States 10, 11 (New York: Institute of Judicial Administration, 1955).Google Scholar

155 Currie, F. A., Small Claims Courts, 9 U. Fla. L. Rev. 33, 33, 46 (1956).Google Scholar

156 See Northrop, Everett H., Small Claims Courts and Conciliation Tribunals: A Bibliography, 33 Law Lib. J. 39 (1940).Google Scholar

157 Small Claims Court: Reform Revisited, 5 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs., 47, 49 (Aug. 1969).Google Scholar

158 Does the Small Claims Branch of Our Municipal Court Measure Up to the Standards of the Community? based on an address by Hon. Kronheim, Milton S. Jr., 18 J.B. Ass'n D.C. 113 (1951).Google Scholar

159 Id. at 113.Google Scholar

160 Id. at 114–15.Google Scholar

161 Note, Small Claims Courts as Collection Agencies, 4 Stan. L. Rev. 237, 237 (1952).Google Scholar

162 Id.Google Scholar

163 Id. at 242.Google Scholar

164 Myers, supra note 152, at 26.Google Scholar

165 Note, The California Small Claims Court, 52 Calif. L. Rev. 876, 891 (1964).Google Scholar

166 Tim Murphy, D.C. Small Claims Court—the Forgotten Court, 34 D.C.B.J., Feb. 1967, at 14, 15.Google Scholar

167 J. Skelly Wright, The Courts Have Failed the Poor, N.Y. Times, Mar. 9, 1969, £ 6 (Magazine), at 26, 104, col. 3, quoting an anonymous court commentator.Google Scholar

168 Moulton, Beatrice A., The Persecution and Intimidation of the Low-Income Litigant as Performed by the Small Claims Court in California, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 1657 (1969).Google Scholar

169 Id. at 1683, 1684.Google Scholar

170 See e.g., David Caplovitz, The Poor Pay More: Consumer Practices of Low-Income Families (New York: Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar

171 See Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, esp. at 274–77 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1968).Google Scholar

172 Haemmel, William G., The North Carolina SMall Claims Court—an Empirical Study, 9 Wake Forest L. Rev. 503, 510 (1973).Google Scholar

173 Jerome E. Carlin, Jan Howard, & Sheldon L. Messinger, Civil Justice and the Poor: Issues for Sociological Research (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967).Google Scholar

174 Cahn, Edgar S. & Camper Cahn, Jean, What Price Justice: The Civilian Perspective Revisited, 41 Notre Dame Law. 927 (1966); Eovaldi, Thomas L. & Gestrin, Joan E., Justice for Consumers: The Mechanisms for Redress, 66 Nw. U.L. Rev. 281 (1971); Gardiner Jones, Mary, Wanted: A New System for Solving Consumer Grievances, 25 Arb. J. 234 (1970); Gardiner Jones, Mary & Boyer, Barry B., Improving the Quality of Justice in the Marketplace: The Need for Better Consumer Remedies, 40 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 357 (1972); Carol Hecht Katz, ed., The Law and the Low Income Consumer (New York: New York University School of Law, 1968).Google Scholar

175 Caplovitz, supra note 169. Levine, Felice J. & Preston, Elizabeth, Community Resource Orientation Among Low Income Groups, 1970 Wis. L. Rev. 80; Barbara A, Curran, The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of a National Survey (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1977); Comment, Small Claims Courts and the Poor, 42 So. Cal. L. Rev. 493 (1969).Google Scholar

176 Much of this research is summarized in Barbara Yngvesson & Patricia Hennessey, Small Claims, Complex Disputes: A Review of the Small Claims Literature, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 219 (1975).Google Scholar

177 Id. at 226.Google Scholar

178 Id. at 227–28.Google Scholar

179 Mauro Cappelletti & Bryant Garth, Access to Justice, vol. 1, A World Survey 22–35 (Alphenaan den Rijn, Neth.: Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1978).Google Scholar

180 Id. at 23.Google Scholar

181 See, e.g., findings and recommendations in Redress of Consumer Grievances: Report of the National Institute for Consumer Justice 15–25 ([Washington, D.C.]: National Institute for Consumer Justice, n.d.); 1 Small Claims Study Group, Little Injustices—Small Claims Courts and the American Consumer: A Preliminary Report to the Center for Auto Safety 22–27 (2 vols. Washington, D.C: Center for Auto Safety, 1972); Special Project: Judicial Reform at the Lowest Level: A Model Statute for Small Claims Courts, 28 Vand. L. Rev. 711, 747–86 (1975); Note, The Ohio Small Claims Court: An Empirical Study, 42 Cin. L. Rev. 469, at 490–508 (1973); Eovaldi, Thomas L. & Meyers, Peter R., The Pro Se Small Claims Court in Chicago: Justice for the “Little Guy”? 72 Nw. U.L. Rev. 947, 992–95 (1978); John C. Ruhnka & Steven Weller with John A. Martin, Small Claims Courts: A National Examination (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1978); Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation, 9 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 590, 595–614 (1976).Google Scholar

182 Eovaldi & Meyers, supra note 180.Google Scholar

183 Ruhnka & Weller, supra note 180.Google Scholar

184 Cappelletti & Garth, supra note 178, at 35; see also Mayhew, Leon H., Institutions of Representation: Civil Justice and the Public, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 401 (1975).Google Scholar

185 E.g., Cappelletti & Garth, supra note 178.Google Scholar

186 E.g., Jones, supra note 173; Jones & Boyer, supra note 173, Eovaldi & Grestrin, supra note 173; Steele, supra note 2; Eric H. Steele, Two Approaches to Contemporary Dispute Behavior and Consumer Problems, 11 Law & Soc'y Rev. 667 (1977); Johnson, Kantor, & Schwartz, supra note 15; David E. Aaronson et ah, The New Justice: Alternatives to Conventional Criminal Adjudication (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977); Hufstedler, Shirley M., New Blocks for Old Pyramids: Reshaping the Judicial System, 44 So. Cal. L. Rev. 901 (1971).Google Scholar

187 E.g., American Bar Association, Report of Pound Conference Follow-up Task Force (1976) reprinted in 74 F.R.D. 159 (1977); Sander, Frank E. A., Varieties of Dispute Processing, 70 F.R.D. III (1976); id., Report on the National Conference on Minor Disputes Resolution (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1977); McGillis & Mullen, supra note 46.Google Scholar

188 See Sander, Varieties, supra note 186; Johnson, Kantor, & Schwartz, supra note 15.Google Scholar

189 Pound Conference Follow-up, supra note 186.Google Scholar

190 Cf. Frankel, Marvin E., The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1031 (1975); Terrence McFadgen, Dispute-Resolution in the Small Claims Context: Adjudication, Arbitration, or Mediation? (LL.M. thesis, Harvard Law School, 1972).Google Scholar

191 Engel & Steele, supra note 31.Google Scholar

192 See contra Jerome Frank, Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1949).Google Scholar

193 See Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860, at 253–65 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977); Edward White, G., The Intellectual Origins of Torts in America, 86 Yale L.J. 671 (1977); Hurst, supra note 88, at 147–63; James Willard Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970); and Grant Gilmore, The Ages of American Law (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

194 Pound, supra note 64, at 317.Google Scholar

195 See, e.g., W. F. Willoughby, Principles of Judicial Administration (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1929).Google Scholar

196 See Mayhew, supra note 183.Google Scholar

197 See Engel & Steele, supra note 31.Google Scholar

198 U.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report and Supplemental Studies (n.p., Mar. 1, 1968).Google Scholar

199 See Smith, supra note 20, at 3–6.Google Scholar

200 See Barlow F. Christensen, Professionalism, Justice and Availability of Legal Services, Harv. L. Sch. Bull., June 1971, at 12.Google Scholar

201 E.g., Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (New York: Harper & Bros., 1960); id., The First Amendment Is an Absolute, 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245; Steele, Eric H., The Impact of Psychoanalytic Theory on the Freedom of Speech, 38 Psychoanalytic Q. 583, 584–88 (1969).Google Scholar

202 Cf. A.B.A., Report of Pound Conference, supra note 186; Johnson, Kantor, & Schwartz, supra note 15; Sander, Report on National Conference, supra note 186.Google Scholar

203 Cf. Aron Eisenberg, Melvin, Private Ordering Through Negotiation: Dispute-Settlement and Rulemaking, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 637 (1976);id., Participation, Responsiveness, and the Consultative Process: An Essary for Lon Fuller, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 410 (1978); Fuller, Lon L., The Forms and Limits of Adjudication, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 353 (1978); Gulliver, P. H., Negotiations as a Mode of Dispute Settlement: Towards a General Model, 7 Law & Soc'y Rev. 667 (1973).Google Scholar

204 Macauley, Stewart, Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 Am. Soc. Rev. 55 (1963); id., Law and the Balance of Power: The Automobile Manufacturers and Their Dealers (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966).Google Scholar

205 See Hofstader, supra note 49.Google Scholar

206 See Smith, supra note 20; Pound, supra notes 61 & 64; Hurst, supra note 88.Google Scholar

207 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962).Google Scholar

208 Ralph Nader, Unsafe at Any Speed (New York: Grossman Pubs., Inc., 1965).Google Scholar

209 Galanter, supra note 57.Google Scholar

210 Smith, supra note 20, at 9. See also text supra at note 136 with quotation of Smith.Google Scholar

211 E.g., see Steele, supra note 2.Google Scholar

212 See Sander, Varieties, supra note 186; Marc Galanter, Afterward: Explaining Litigation, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 347 (1975); Steele, supra note 2; Curran, supra note 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

213 Cappelletti & Garth, supra note 178.Google Scholar

214 Id. at 6. Id. at 8.Google Scholar

215 Pound, supra note 61, at 398.Google Scholar