What kind of constitutional standards are applicable to communications likely to cause listeners to commit crimes? An examination of the tension between the highly protective approach to advocacy of crime taken by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio and the provisions in many criminal codes that make those who encourage criminal violations generally punishable for solicitation is followed by an analysis of the penological reasons for punishing crime-causing communications and of the relevance to such communications of the justifications for freedom of expression. After an account of the Supreme Court decisions dealing with this subject and a summary critical examination of interpretive approaches to the First Amendment, the author suggests standards for constitutional appraisal of prohibitions of communications that may cause crime. The central proposals are that most statements of fact and value be accorded virtually absolute protection; that dominantly situation-altering utterances, such as agreements, offers of agreement, and orders, be treated as outside the scope of First Amendment protection; and that simple encouragements to commit specific crimes, a kind of action-inducing communication, be granted a degree of protection that depends heavily on context, with criteria like those contained in Brandenburg applicable to public ideological solicitation but with much less restrictive standards applicable to private solicitation.

While the legal profession's efforts to suppress the practice of law by non-lawyers go back to colonial times, the modern unauthorized practice movement began in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Its greatest success, however, took place during the 40 years from 1920 to 1960. Recent years have seen the reversal of some of the prior successes in the field, and current challenges to unauthorized practice restrictions raise serious questions about their present validity. Do the benefits to the public from the enforcement of rules against the unauthorized practice of law justify continuation of the effort?

This article explores the role of a local trial court in terms of the plurality of legal systems—both formal and informal—found in the community in which the court operates. The concept of legal pluralism in American society is examined, and a comparison is made between the study of plural normative systems and the study of disputes and dispute processing. Two examples of legal pluralism drawn from an empirical study of a midwestern community are presented: the first exploring oral contractual agreements among farmers and the second examining formal and informal norms concerning divorce. The application of this form of analysis is found to reveal important distinctions between the manifest and latent functions that the trial court performs in its community setting.

The competence of the practicing bar has been subjected to substantial criticism in recent years. Since law schools have a virtual monopoly over access to the bar and licensure is granted without further training, legal education has been a particular focus of attack and reform efforts. Yet there has been little systematic study of what skills and knowledge are important in the actual practice of law or the relevant contributions of legal education. This study of practicing lawyers in Chicago examines the nature of the competencies important to the practice of law and the sources lawyers credit for contributing to their development.

Practitioners cite a broad range of skills, many of them not unique to the practice of law, with their importance varying by the predominant legal specialty practiced. The data further indicate that law schools play but a part in the development of skills and knowledge important to the practice of law and that experience, both prior and subsequent to graduation, plays a significant role. The evaluation of law schools' contributions is related to opportunities for further training, particularly in the context of law firm practice. There is, however, a strong general view that law schools rather uniformly concentrate on some skills to the exclusion of others and that the former are not necessarily those that lawyers think are most important to the practice of law.

This is the first in a series of articles that will report the results of a pilot effort to assess how well the system of civil discovery is working and to identify the principal problems which burden that system. The study revolves around interviews with 180 Chicago area litigators. This first essay, which synthesizes observations, insights, and complaints by interviewed attorneys, suggests that the world of civil discovery is not one monolithic whole, but consists of subworlds which exhibit clearly distinguishable features and problems. In addition to describing the principal problems which afflict the discovery system in its two major subworlds, the author reports what the interviewed lawyers suggest are the primary causes of those problems. While the litigators identify many ways in which the character of lawyering encumbers and disrupts the discovery process, they also locate much of the blame for the system's problems in the behavior of judges and the inefficiency of the judicial machinery. The interviews produced a dramatically widespread appeal to the courts to increase use of sanctions as a means of restraining discovery abuse.

This article summarizes the results of a study of 534 reported defamation cases decided over a period beginning in 1976 and ending just before the Hutchinson and Wolston decisions of mid-1979. A major aspect of the study was the comparison of media and nonmedia defamation cases, which appear quite different. Each case was studied to identify, among other things, the plaintiff and the defendant, the statement that provoked the suit, the context of that statement, the role of state and federal law in resolving the case, and the procedural stages at which each case was resolved. A follow-up study to identify changes since Hutchinson and Wolston is in progress.

This article focuses on the corporate actor elite of Chicago's legal community—those attorneys who practice law with and for the major business, social, civic, and cultural organizations in the city. A continuation of a previous article, this article focuses on the differential allocation of professional respect made within that elite. Specifically, the discussion centers on the “second-class citizenship” in the legal community to which elite house counsel are relegated by elite partners in private law firms.

The first half of the article probes the social bases for that stigma. Examining a number of alternative explanations, it offers most support to one based on differences in the educational preparations of the respondents, to the effect that house counsel attended less prestigious law schools and performed less outstandingly at these schools than did firm partners at theirs. In the concluding half of the article, the effects of the stigma on elite social cohesion and commonality of purpose are examined. What emerges from this analysis is the finding that the house counsel stigma—strongly felt as it may be by all concerned—nevertheless generates no lasting lines of social cleavage within the corporate actor legal elite.

This article, the second in a three-part series based on interviews of 180 civil litigators in Chicago, describes lawyers’ assessments of the health of the discovery system and their views about the relative severity of several major problems and abuses that burden the discovery process. The data present a disturbing picture of the way the discovery system functions, especially in larger cases. Big case litigators are much unhappier with the current state of affairs in discovery than are their smaller case counterparts, and apparently for good reason. Tactical jockeying, evasive and dilatory practices, and various forms of harassment play major and costly roles in a high percentage of large lawsuits. And in at least one of every two big cases the discovery system fails to distribute the relevant information to all the parties. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of disaffection with the current state of affairs in major litigation, however, is the widespread support the lawyers expressed for more aggressive judicial involvement in the process and for more frequent, telling use of sanctions to punish its abusers.

The third article in this series will report the lawyers’ reform proposals and will explore some of the implications of the data described here.

Until recently, women were rarely found on the faculties of the nation's law schools. The few who were tended to teach at their alma maters and specialized in only a few subject areas. This article reports the extent to which women have become part of the tenure track faculties of the nation's law schools. The author finds that women have made considerable progress toward becoming tenure track law teachers. She finds, however, that women law professors continue to be academically inbred in disproportionate numbers and overrepresented in some subject areas.

Lawyers have become concerned about the rising numbers and the rising amounts of professional liability claims, which have in turn driven up liability insurance premiums and temporarily even caused an alarming contraction in the supply of insurance coverage. This article examines the state of factual information that could be used to measure and explain the development. It goes on to discuss the potential role that increased knowledge of the types and causes of professional liability claims could play in efforts to reverse the development, followed by a discussion of the difficulties of obtaining usable data from the two principal potential sources—lawyers and their insurers. The second half of the article describes and evaluates the work of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability in developing, in cooperation with the major insurers, a comprehensive data collection and reporting system for lawyers' professional liability claims.

In the United States, law schools provide the principal route of entry into the legal profession. Indeed, education in a law school is the only experience that virtually all members of the modern legal profession have in common. The gatekeeping function of law schools places the nation's law teachers in a most influential position. Although law professors play a vital role in selecting and molding the members of the profession, little research has been done on them. This article presents the results of the American Bar Foundation's first major study of law teachers. The author finds them to be a most highly credentialed group of lawyers, the overwhelming majority of whom are graduates of a small group of elite law schools. She also finds that possession of a degree from one of these schools appears to be not only highly determinative of who become law teachers but also of the nature of teachers' academic careers.

In an effort to promote business flexibility and efficiency, corporation law has moved from a rule of unanimous shareholder consent to simple majority rule for fundamental changes. A strong utilitarian theme runs through much of the discussion of this change—that some individual hardship might be necessary in order to promote group welfare. But the creation of power in the majority to effect such changes also created the power to squeeze out the minority through self-dealing. While the business-purpose test has been developed to preserve the goal of group wealth maximization, in practice it bears little relationship to this goal. The test provides no means for measuring the costs and benefits of a fundamental change, and attempts to judge what are proper or improper business purposes intrude on the domain of business judgment. The assumption that all decisions reached by a disinterested majority maximize aggregate welfare is based on a logical fallacy, so that not even arm's-length transactions approved by a majority are free from risks of inefficiency. Further development of judicial restraints on majority rule promises little in the way of efficiency, and a re-examination of alternative rules of group decision making is required.

During the 1970s, the Florida legislature enacted some of the nation's most innovative and comprehensive state and local land-planning and regulatory programs. The Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 adopted large parts of an early draft of article 7 of the ALI Model Land Development Code, thereby asserting a state regulatory role in areas of critical state concern and for developments of regional impact; Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 introduced planning and regulatory innovations that, if ever fully implemented, could place Florida in the vanguard of land regulatory reform at the local governmental level. This study, which is the concluding part of a study of the evolution of federal, state, and local regulatory roles in the management of coastal land resources, examines the intergovernmental, interagency, and separate-branch tensions that have emerged as Florida moves to implement its new laws. Included, inter alia, is an analysis of the Florida Supreme Court's controversial nondelegation decision in Askew v. Cross Key Waterways. Although Florida can claim some limited successes in program implementation, its land management systems are still not adequately integrated and coordinated, and they have not been implemented as successfully as their proponents thought possible. For example, the state has several alternatives for complying with the federal requirements for an approved management program under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972—the comprehensive land management system examined in this study being only one of the available ones. Yet Florida still has been unable to obtain federal approval, and, if it ever does, will be one of the last of the major coastal states to do so. Much of Florida's difficulty in forging a well-integrated coastal land management process is attributable to substantial disagreements on two basic propositions: because of Florida's unique ecological characteristics, coastal land management should not be divorced from comprehensive land management for other purposes; and because of substantial regional diversities within the state, coastal land management in Florida should include a significant planning and regulatory role for local governments as well as for regional and state agencies.

The studies conducted by Jan Brake1 and Don McIntyre, under a grant from the General Service Foundation, constitute a first effort to inquire into the practical effect on the residential landlord-tenant relationship of legislation modeled after the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA). These are modest studies of a difficult relationship, and they cannot be expected to yield many definitive answers. At the same time, this is important work because it pioneers empirical study of this subject. Most important, it gets us to thinking about our expectations of law reform.

The people's sense of what is good and right is both the ultimate source and the ultimate strength of the rules that govern a democratic society. If there is a major discrepancy between that sense and the rules, the rules and those who cling to them will eventually disappear.

In early 1979 I expressed the view that the Supreme Court, in City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart, erred in a fundamental way and that if the decision continued to stand, it should at least be confined as narrowly as possible to minimize the damage it did. Subsequently, four of my University of Chicago colleagues have taken me to task, alleging error in my interpretation of the governing statutes and failure to give adequate consideration to the accumulating demographic learning relevant to the subject matter. I remain unpersuaded. With slight modifications induced by their discussion of the demographic literature, I continue to stand on my original analysis. But their statement was careful and ambitious and deserves the compliment of an explicit effort to refute at least its major points.

This quarter's American Bar Foundation Research Journal book review section is devoted to review articles of the American Bar Association's proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In the strict sense the current draft of the Model Rules is not a book—its typescript pages and denomination as “Discussion Draft” clearly identify it as subject to change. Yet even in their preliminary form the Model Rules merit careful analysis. First, the Discussion Draft is important in its own right. It is the most significant legislative proposal in the field of legal ethics in over a decade. Second, the problems discussed in these reviews—for example, enforcement, lying in negotiation, disclosure of client confidences, and client control of decision making—will continue to be serious problems no matter what changes are made in future drafts of the Model Rules. Third, by inviting the comments of some of the leading scholars in legal ethics before a final draft is written, we have been able to supply the Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards with drafts of the symposium contributions in ample time for the Commission to consider making some of the changes the reviewers suggest. Last, because these scholars (most of whom are also practitioners) are familiar with the ethical literature of the last decade, they should be able to set the Model Rules in the context of that literature—no small accomplishment.

The following articles examine the impact of legislation modeled after the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) in Portland, Oregon, and Cleveland, Ohio. Their conclusion is that the legislation has been only marginally effective, benefiting primarily middle-income tenants in the suburbs or in the cities' better neighborhoods, while largely failing in the aim of helping the inner-city poor and upgrading the quality of slum housing. The general lesson is an old one: law reform attempts at rearranging basic social-legal relationships often fail to achieve their intended effects, particularly when their effectuation is left to the initiative or ingenuity of those individual private parties who are least likely to possess or display these traits.