Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (3-4)

In both Roman and Islamic law, legal representation is not limited to court appearances on behalf of a principal. It is more or less the default in everyday life that men and women (and even children), educated and uneducated, rich and poor—all need to be represented by others, and that need is presumed to arise … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (3-4)

Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (2-4)

At the end of the last post we met the negotiorum gestor, an administrator of the business of another, even without any mandate from the principal. The argument for this and for the more recognizable representative, who receives an explicit appointment by the principal, we learn (from Ulpian), was made from “necessity.”  In the Digest, … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (2-4)

Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (1-4)

INTRODUCTION TO A SERIES OF FOUR POSTS In this series, I aim to play with a few ideas. First, I will imagine a society without heavily professionalized sophists who can argue either side in a legal dispute, i.e., lawyer-advocates (posts 1-2). The historical models I employ (Roman and Islamic law) allow me to underscore the … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (1-4)