Defamation under ppc

WHAT AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION

Defamation may be by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or visible representation. Any person who makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, to defame that person.

HOWEVER THERE ARE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS

1. It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published.

2. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever regarding the conduct or character of a public servant in discharge of his public function.

3. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the conduct or character of any person touching any public question.

4. It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report or result of a Court of Justice of any such proceedings.

5. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any case, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or the conduct of any person as a party, or the witness or the agent, in such case.

6. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the merits of any performance which an author has submitted to the judgement of the public.

7. It is not defamation if a person having any authority over another person, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

8. It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.

9. It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another person, provided it is made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.

10. It is not defamation to convey a caution, intended for the good of a person to whom conveyed or for public good.

STRICT LIABILITY

In this case, the injury or damage is so severe and it's reasonably certain that the harm could have been foreseen that the law dispenses with the need to prove intent or mental state. The only issue is whether the party sued should pay the money award, or whether the party's employer should pay the money award.

INTENTIONAL TORT -- In this case, the injurer's intent must be proven, using a foreseeability test involving whether or not the injurer knowingly engaged in behavior that was substantially certain to bring about injury.

NEGLIGENCE -- In this case, intent or mental state do not matter as much as due diligence or standard of care matter. At issue is whether some inadvertent act or failure to act created an unreasonable risk to another member of society. Most states have three levels of negligence: (1) slight or mere (absence of foresight); (2) gross (reckless disregard); and (3) criminal. To be prosecuted under tort law for negligence usually requires at least level 2 since to be prosecuted for mere negligence requires considering foreseeability which would support charging the person with an intentional tort or not.

To reign in, or control, the litigation explosion, various forms of tort reform are in existence. Tort reform is controversial because of ideological differences over its necessity. Some argue that such reforms have a chilling effect on victims rights, and that most reforms favor the big corporations (by quashing legitimate claims, not just "frivolous" claims). Who's to say when a tort reform (like California's liability cap of $250,000 for "non-economic" damages, including death) starts to unjustly punish victims with legitimate claims? Also, who's to say if excessive litigation (the absence of tort reform) doesn't force corporations into due diligence and make our society safer? The US Supreme Court considered these questions somewhat in the following case:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell et al. 538 US 408 (2003)

Curtis Campbell was a Utah man dissatisfied with the $50,000 policy limit of his auto insurance for an accident which was not his fault. He sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In state court, a jury was allowed to hear evidence of State Farm's refusal to settle similar cases in other states, and awarded Campbell $145 in punitive damages in addition to $1 million in compensatory damages. The case sustained appeal up to the Utah Supreme Court, and when the US Supreme Court took the case, it found that punitive damages of $145 million were excessive when compensatory damages were only $1 million, ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeaser. Reasoning: Compensatory damages are intended to redress a plaintiff’s concrete loss, while punitive damages are aimed at the different purposes of deterrence and retribution. Punitive damages serve the same purpose as criminal penalties. However, because civil defendants are not accorded the same protections afforded criminal defendants, punitive damages pose an acute danger of arbitrary deprivation of property, which is heightened when the decisionmaker is presented with evidence having little bearing on the amount that should be awarded. Thus, this Court has instructed courts reviewing punitive damages to consider (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct, (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award, and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Majority opinion: Kennedy -- punitive damages pose an acute danger of arbitrary deprivation of property. Jury instructions typically leave the jury with wide discretion in choosing amounts, and the presentation of evidence of a defendant’s net worth creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses, particularly those without strong local presences. Dissents: Scalia & Thomas: "no such protections exist in the Due Process Clause" and Ginsberg: "the Court should not be involved with invalidating things clearly in the state's domain."

Tort

Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs that do not arise out of contractual duties. A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or "liable," for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury, and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury.

For instance, if somebody throws a ball and accidentally hits a pedestrian in the eye, the pedestrian may sue the ball thrower for losses occasioned by the accident (for example, costs of medical treatment or lost income during time off work). Whether or not the pedestrian wins will depend on whether he can prove the thrower engaged in tortious conduct in injuring the pedestrian (most typically, by failing to exercise ordinary care in undertaking the activity that caused the injury).

In addition to bodily integrity, tort law protects certain personal liberties, such as the right to one's reputation. If a newspaper publishes a defamatory statement about a celebrity which is untrue, the paper may have to pay damages to compensate the celebrity for the harm to his or her reputation resulting from the defamation. Other proprietary interests can also be protected, such as certain rights in property - for example, if somebody took their pet bulldog into another person's china shop, and the bulldog broke all the china, the pet owner would probably have to compensate the shop owner for the damage.

Tort law is broken down into various distinct types of "torts", so that a person may sue in negligence, when somebody has unreasonably breached a duty of care affecting another's interests. Torts other than negligence focus on particular interests, as defamation protecting reputation, nuisance and trespass to land protecting a landowner's interests in use and enjoyment of his land, trespass to the person protecting bodily interests, false imprisonment protecting freedom of movement, conversion protecting movable property, economic torts protecting contractual interests, and so on. The majority of tort cases concern road accidents, accidents in the workplace or medical accidents.

The Distinctive Charactoristics of Civil Process

There are three important differences between the civil process and the criminal process. One, a litigant under civil process must have "standing." This means that the person initiating the suit much have a personal stake in the outcome. Two, the standard of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of evidence" which means that decisionmakers are allowed to come to decisions despite having moral doubts. Three, is that many of the normal due process guarantees of the 5th and 14th Amendments do not apply. The right to a jury trial cannot be assumed, nor will anybody pay for your attorney fees. It might be helpful to clarify some differences in terminology also, as follows:

Criminal Process	Civil Process
Apprehension by agents of government	Plaintiff brings suit against defendant
Preliminary examination	Summons
Grand jury or Information	Pleadings
Arraignment and pleading	Trial
Trial	Verdict
Verdict	Judgment and sentencing
Judgment and sentencing	Appeal
Appeal	Enforcement
Execution of sentence	Source: Abraham (1996)

A plaintiff begins the civil process by paying a fee and filing a complaint or petition with the clerk of the court. The complaint states the facts, the damages alleged, and relief being sought. Any court with both subject matter AND person jurisdiction can take the complaint as the appropriate venue (unless another venue is sought, but generally there's plenty of room for shopping around). The federal law states that the proper venue is the district in which either the plaintiff or the defendant reside, or the district where the injury occurred. State venue statutes also provide some room for shopping, but generally try to keep the case in the country where land is located, if land is involved in the case. Once the clerk finishes filing the case, a copy of the complaint is attached to a summons, and a "process server" (usually a law enforcement official, but can be a private service) then issues it to the defendant. The summons requires a response called a "pleading" within 30 days usually. Two types of pretrial motions are deserving of note at this point:

· motion to clarify or object to plaintiff's petition -- this may take the form of requiring the plaintiff to be more specific; asking the court to throw this ridiculous thing out (this action is called a demurrer); or it may take the form of an "answer" (denial) accompanied by a "counterclaim" or countersuit

· motion for discovery -- this may involve depositions (sworn testimonies under oath), interrogatories (written questions that must be answered under oath), the production of documents, and/or examination by a physician

Most civil actions are settled during pretrial conference, a stage of civil process where the parties try to facilitate an agreement normally in the judge's chambers. The general practice is to only allow the judge and lawyers in such conferences. If no agreement seems forthcoming, the parties will at least try to arrive at various "stipulations" where they agree on the factual basis of certain things.

A civil trial will generally use fewer than twelve jurors, and they will have undergone "voir dire" consisting of peremptory challenges (excusing a juror without stating a reason) and challenges for cause. The lawyers will make statements, call witnesses, and move for a directed verdict (stating that the case is closed because something is proven). Several jurisdictions allow jurors in civil trials to ask questions of witnesses themselves, but usually by passing handwritten copies of these questions to the judge. The usual direct-cross-redirect-recross pattern of questioning witnesses is followed, and the plaintiff gets the last word, as usual. Jury deliberations must be done without any outside contact, which means sleeping accommodations and meals. After the civil trial, there are important post-trial motions, such as the motion for "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" which argues to the judge that no reasonable person would have come up with the verdict that the jury did. Losing parties usually file motions for a new trial, which usually has to be because of some new evidence, errors in the production of evidence (something that is also grounds for appeal, along with any irregularities in the judge's instructions to the jury), excessive damages or grossly inadequate damages (although these are more commonly associated with a motion for relief from judgment). Far more significant is the motion to execute the judgment, which brings in law enforcement to seize or lien property and begin to sell it at auction to help satisfy the judgment.

Possession

Possession is very difficult to define in English Jurisprudence. But it very important topic. Human life and society would become impossible without retention and consumption of material and non-material things. Food, clothes, tools, etc. are essential items to use. We get hold over the first to claim possession. It is not just acquisition of things but it is continuing claim for use of them. It may be legal or illegal.

How the possession is acquired: Following are some points which can be referred to acquire or loss the ownership:

1. Possession itself is evidence being owner. Pen in my hand is evidence being owner, regardless legally or illegally.

2. The person in possession is presumed to be the owner. A house in my possession is presumed my ownership along-with all the things lying in it.

3. Anything can be held wrongfully or by fraud.

4. Long possession of twelve years confers the title in property, which may belong to others. When a title is conferred to another even without ownership is acquisition of possession.

Possession is defined as “it is continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of it.” It does not cover incorporeal possession. Possession is different from ownership but normally possession and ownership lie together.

How the possession is acquired: Lease, renting out, pledge, mortgage, theft, fraud, and bailment etc. is the general mode of acquisition of possession.

Possession is of two kinds, i.e., possession in fact or de facto and possession in law or de jure. Some discordance in law and fact occurs. Law something presumes which may not actually exist. Normally possession in law and possession in fact exist in a person but it may vary.

1. Possession in fact or de facto: It means the possession, which physically exists in term of control over it. It can be seen landlord and tenant where tenant holds possession of house physically or de facto, but it is not possession in law or de jure.

2. Possession in law or de jure: It is the possession which, in the eyes of law, exists. It may exclude physical control over it. It is also called constructive possession. A servant may possess car, but in the eyes of law, it is possession of master. Possession of bailor through bailee is de jure possession on the part of bailor.

Corporeal and incorporeal possession: Corporeal possession is the possession of a material or tangible objects, thus it is continuing exercise of a claim on the use of material or tangible object.

Incorporeal possession is the possession of a non-material or intangible object. Thus it is continuing exercise of a claim on the use of non-material or intangible object.

There are two essential elements of possession, i.e., animus and corpus.

1. Animus is the intent or mental condition or activity or claim of exclusive use of the thing possessed. Cloth at tailor’s shop is in possession of tailor but he may not intend to exclude the owner or subject of the owner.

Animus may be legal or illegal. The only test is whether the man in possession intends to exclude others or not. General intent is enough to constitute possession.

All books in library, all fishes in net, all sheep in flock, are subject of intent whether in knowledge or not, thus possession completes.

2. Corpus is second element, which is essential and completes possession. It is objective part of possession. Both animus and corpus are necessary for possession.

The intent to exclude to others from interfering with the object possessed must be evidenced by physical facts. If there is no action then no intention is expressed. Pen in my pocket, ring on my finger, or goods in my home, are corpus of my possession of each of these.

Completion of possession:

1. Power of possession: It shows possession. Books or watch in my hand excludes others thus possession is complete. Things under lock and key are also possession.

2. Presence of possession: A person may be feeble and unable to exclude other but his presence may command respect. Cash in the hand of child is possession.

3. Secrecy: Mere knowledge that I have cash in bank, which is exclusive knowledge, is possession.

4. Continuing use: I use pen continuously, read book continuously, use of transport continuously, is possession.

5. Customs: In some localities people are not allowed to interfere to other things even presence is not there, like in Saudi Arabia where people leave their shops remain open and go to offer prayer and no interference is allowed. It is possession even in absence.

6. Respect of rightful claim: In law-abiding societies people do not interfere in the right of other and rightful claim generally obtain security from general acquisition.

Res nullius means ownerless things or objects. Terra nullius means no man land. A person, who finds lost goods, while passing on road, e.g., a wallet, being first finder, he has good title against the whole world except the true owner, even if it is found on another person property without committing trespass. This is the rule. Any other person who looks at finder of lost goods cannot demand his share from lost goods.

If a customer finds a lost wallet while shopping in a store which is not identifiable, can retain till reasonable time to wait its true owner. He is obliged to bring this matter into the knowledge of shopkeeper and give him his own address. If true owner did not come till reasonable time, he will hold title.

There are many other things which have no owner, i.e., gems stone, metal, gold, silver, natural resources, bird, animal, provided these things are found in way, without committing trespass. Precious stone cannot be held from the area specified by government. Bird or fish cannot be hunt from the area of property holder. Things cannot be hold from others house. Bird cannot be hunt, which is prohibited.

There are three exceptions in this rule:

1. Owner of the property on which the thing is found is in possession of the thing itself as well as property, or

2. If the finder is servant or agent then master or principal has title, or

3. Wrongful act does not constitute possession. Trespass is not allowed.

Natural resources in economic zone like water, sea, land etc. belong to government. If treasure comes out from others property will also belong to government.

Kinds of corporeal possession: Immediate possession means direct or proximate possession without agency and mediates possession means in between or remote possession. It is acquired with agency.

F A being a servant holds something for his master B. A has immediate possession while possession of B is mediate.

F Where both claim possession, e.g., tenant and landlord.

F In case of bailment, pledge or mortgage, both have claim.

A has exclusive right of possession on his land while right of way over his land is concurrent.

Acquisition of possession: Possession is acquired when both the animus and corpus are acquired:

1. By taking: When someone takes anything, he has possession. It may either be rightful or wrongful possession.

2. By delivery: The thing is acquired by delivery with consents of previous possessor.

Actual delivery is a kind in which goods are delivered while constructive delivery is the rental or sold goods.

First Information Report (FIR)

(A Guide for Citizens)

Centre for Peace Development Initiatives Pakistan (CPDI-Pakistan)

I. What is an FIR?
First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is a report of information that reaches the police first in point of time and that is why it is called the First Information Report. It is generally a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a cognizable offence or by someone on his/her behalf. Anyone can report the commission of a cognizable offence either orally or in writing to the police. Even a telephonic message can be treated as anFIR.
It is a duty of police to register FIR without any delay or excuses. Non-registration of FIR is an offence and can be a ground for disciplinary action against the concerned police officer.
Cognizable Offence:
A cognizable offence is one in which the police may arrest a person without warrant.
They are authorized to start investigation into a cognizable case on their own and do not require any orders from the court to do so.
Non-cognizable Offence:
A non-cognizable offence is an offence in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. The police cannot investigate such an offence without the court’s permission.

II. Why is FIR important?
An FIR is a very important document as it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. It is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police start investigation of the case.
According to Articles 21, 22, 23, 25, 49, 50 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, FIR is a relevant fact.

III. Who can lodge an FIR?
Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can file an FIR. It is not necessary that only the victim of the crime should file an FIR. A police officer that comes to know about a cognizable offence can file an FIR himself/herself. You can file an FIR if:

1 You are the person against whom the offence has been committed.
2 You know yourself about an offence, which has been committed.
3 You have seen the offence being committed.
The police may not investigate a complaint even if you file an FIR, when:

1. The case is not serious in nature;
2. The police feel that there is not enough ground to investigate;
3. The police resources are already over-committed in investigating more serious offences.

However, the police must record the reasons for not conducting an investigation and in the latter case must inform you (Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898).

IV. What is the procedure of filling an FIR?
The procedure of filing an FIR is prescribed in Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It is as follows:

1 When information about the commission of a cognizable offence is given orally, the police must write it down.
2 It is your right as a person giving information or making a complaint to demand that the information recorded by the police is read over to you.
3 Once the police have recorded the information in the FIR Register, the person giving the information must sign it.
4 You should sign the report only after verifying that the information recorded by the police is as per the details given by you.
5 People who cannot read or write must put their left thumb impression on the document after being satisfied that it is a correct record.
6 Always ask for a copy of the FIR, if the police do not give it to you.
7 It is your right to get a copy of FIR free of cost.

V. What should you mention in the FIR?
1 Your name and address;
2 Date, Time and Location of the incident you are reporting;
3 The true facts of the incident as they occurred, including the use of weapons, if any;
4 Names and description of the persons involved in the incident;
5 Names and addresses of witnesses, if any.
(Format used by the police for the registration of FIR is attached).

VI. Things you should NOT do:
1 Never file a false complaint or give wrong information to the police. You can be prosecuted under law for giving wrong information or for misleading the police (Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860).
2 Never exaggerate or distort facts.
3 Never make vague or unclear statements.
4 One who refuses to sign his statement of FIR can be prosecuted under section 180 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
5 One who lodges a false charge of offence made with intent to injure a person can be prosecuted under section 211 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

VII. What can you do if your FIR is not registered?
1 You can meet the District Police Officer (DPO) or Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) or other higher officers like Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of police and Provincial Police Officer (PPO) and bring your complaint to their notice.
2 You can send your complaint in writing and by post to the DPO, CCPO, DIG or PPO concerned. If the DPO, CCPO, DIG or PPO is satisfied with your complaint, he shall order the registration of FIR.
3 You can file a complaint to the District Public Safety and Police Complaints Authority in your district.
4 You can file a private complaint before the court having jurisdiction.

VIII. Disputes as to Jurisdiction of Police Station
As soon as the police receive the first information about the commission of an offence, it is its responsibility to immediately act and investigate the case. In some cases, however, there may emerge a dispute between two the police stations about their territorial jurisdiction about the spot where the reported offence occurred. In such a situation, the police are required to follow the following procedure:
1. If there is any confusion about the jurisdiction of the police station and if each one of the SHOs contends that the territory under dispute does not fall in his area of jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of each SHO to stay on the spot and keep on investigating into the case. The case record in such a case shall remain with the SHO who reaches the spot earlier until the question of jurisdiction has been decided (25-5 of the Police Rules,
1934).
2. When one of the two police officers is relieved after the determination of area of jurisdiction by senior police officers, the relieved officer shall record a report of all that he has done in a case diary and sign it, giving the date and hour of his relief. Such case diary shall be handed over to the other police officer, who shall certify thereon that he acknowledges the case to have occurred within his station limits or to be one which he is empowered to investigate, as the case may be (25-6 of the Police Rules, 1934).
3. When a case is transferred from one police station to another, after determination of area of jurisdiction, the offence registered in the original police station shall be cancelled by the Superintendent of Police and an FIR shall be submitted in the police station in the jurisdiction of which the case occurred (25-7 of the Police Rules, 1934).

CPDI-Pakistan
The Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives, Pakistan (CPDI-Pakistan) is an independent, non-partisan and non-profit civil society organization. It is registered under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies Registration and Control Ordinance, 1961. Its main objective is to promote citizenship and equitable development for guaranteed protection of human rights, strong democratic institutions, sustainable peace and
improved quality of life. Presently, CPDI-Pakistan is working in the following areas:

1 Social Conflicts;
2 Rule of Law;
3 Primary and Secondary Education;
4 Access to Information and Transparency;
5 Legislative Watch and Development.

Natural Law

The theory of natural law holds that there is a certain order in nature from which humans, by use of their reason, can derive standards for human conduct. For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas (a 13th-century European scholar and Roman Catholic priest), in his Summa Theologica, attempted to derive natural law from his understanding of the divine law revealed by God.

By contrast, philosophers of the European Age of Enlightenment (from the 1680s through the 1700s) such as John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government (1690) ignored the idea of divine law and based their concept of natural law on the fundamental human desire for self-preservation and fulfillment. Accordingly, Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers held that the laws of nature imply government based on consent of the governed as the way to secure natural rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property. The natural law standard for judging the worth of government was the effectiveness of the government in securing the natural rights of individuals. These rights were thought to exist prior to the people's establishment of their government, and all people were entitled to these rights by virtue of their humanity. All were bound to respect and abide by these natural rights because of their capacity to know and justify them through human reason.

The Enlightenment conception of natural law and natural rights influenced the founders of constitutional government in the United States. This influence is evident in the text of the Declaration of Independence and the preambles to the first state constitutions of the original 13 states. However, there were other important influences on the constitutional thought of the founders, such as the political and legal ideas brought to America from England and the experiences in establishing and developing their colonial governments.

The idea of natural law was used from time to time in debates about constitutional issues. For example, both sides in the slavery controversy, from the 1780s to the 1860s, appealed to natural law as justification for their views. Nineteenth-century opponents of strong government regulation of private business also appealed to natural law to support their constitutional arguments. However, during the 20th century, natural law theories have had little influence on the decisions of Supreme Court justices or the thoughts of most legal scholars. Legal protection of individual rights has not been based on natural law doctrines but on the principles and precedents stemming from interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.
See also Constitutional democracy; Constitutionalism; Constitutional law
Sources
• Hadley Arkes, “Natural Law”, Constitution 4, no. 1 (Winter 1992): 13–20

Natural Law

Natural Law Is a philosophic doctrine holding that there is a certain order in nature that provides norms for human conduct. This doctrine received its most renowned form in St. Thomas Aquinas's “Treatise on Law,” a part of his Summa Theologiae. For Aquinas, natural law was humanity's “participation” in the comprehensive eternal law. People could grasp certain self‐evident principles of practical reason, which corresponded to the various goods toward which human nature inclined. Natural law was a standard for human laws: unjust laws in principle did not bind in conscience.

Early modern political philosophers, especially Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who successfully sought to displace the older teleological philosophy also employed the terms “natural law” or “law of nature,” but in a new sense. According to them, the source of natural law was not a set of naturally ordered ends of human well‐being and fulfillment, but an innate desire for self‐preservation. On this foundation, these theorists erected a new doctrine properly described as “natural rights.” The desire for self‐preservation in a state of nature, which Hobbes described in his Leviathan (1651) as “the war of all against all,” led to the establishment of a social contract, the foundation of civil society. The fundamental duty of government, according to Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690), became the protection of rights to life, liberty, and property.

Modern natural rights theory was an important influence on the founders of American government, as evidenced by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, aspects of the older teaching continued to be embedded in American law and political thought, through various concepts on the common law and through the teachings of the “civic republican” tradition.

Some early judicial opinions such as that of Justice Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull (1798) held out the possibility that courts enforce “principles of natural justice” independently of particular constitutional provisions, but this idea was submerged when concepts of natural justice were channeled into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause after the Civil War (see Due Process, Substantive). In the early nineteenth century, both sides in the debate over slavery invoked natural law.

From the late nineteenth century until 1937, natural law was a weapon in the debate over government power to regulate economic affairs. Defenders of a laissez‐faire theory of capitalism sometimes invoked natural rights concepts (see Laissez‐Faire Constitutionalism). Critics of this trend, whose intellectual descendants came to dominate the Supreme Court after 1937, included Oliver Wendell Holmes, who achieved prominence as a proponent of legal positivism even before his tenure on the Supreme Court (1902–1932). For Holmes, natural law theorists naively assumed that what is familiar to them must be accepted as true by all people everywhere. Holmes maintained that law was only a prediction of the rules that the sovereign power in society would enforce. Owing to the influence of these views, the dominant philosophical position in law became pragmatism, as represented in the writings of Roscoe Pound, which emphasized adaptation of law to social change.

From the 1940s through the early 1960s, Justices Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black engaged in a famous debate on the meaning of due process of law. Frankfurter contended that due process was a concept of considerable generality and flexibility, which had to be given content by appealing to the “canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of English‐speaking peoples” (concurring in Adamson v. California, 1947). Black responded by criticizing the subjectivity of Frankfurter's “natural law” position. He later argued that the doctrine of substantive due process, formerly used to justify laissez‐faire economic decisions, was being resuscitated to justify a new right to privacy, including personal autonomy in childbearing decisions, in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).

The dominant strains in contemporary legal thinking continue to reject natural law doctrine. John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) has been influential in presenting a social‐contractarian theory. Other influential positions such as utilitarianism and critical legal studies are also hostile to natural law thinking. Some natural rights thinkers may be found among libertarian legal scholars, and a more classical natural law approach survives in writers such as John Finnis (Natural Law and Natural Rights, 1980).

Bibliography
• Charles Grove Haines, The Revival of Natural Law Concepts (1930).
• Benjamin F. Wright, American Interpretations of Natural Law (1931)

suffrage, women's

In Great Britain the cause began to attract attention when the philosopher John Stuart Mill presented a petition in Parliament calling for inclusion of women's suffrage in the Reform Act of 1867. In the same year Lydia Becker (1827–90) founded the first women's suffrage committee, in Manchester. Other committees were quickly formed, and in 1897 they united as the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, with Millicent Garret Fawcett (1847–1929) as president. Like their American counterparts, the British suffragists struggled to overcome traditional values and prejudices. Frustrated by the prevailing social and political stalemate, some women became more militant. Emmeline Pankhurst, assisted by her daughters Christabel and Sylvia, founded (1903) the Women's Social and Political Union. Her followers, called "suffragettes," heckled politicians, practiced civil disobedience, and were frequently arrested for inciting riots. When World War I started, the proponents of women's suffrage ceased their activities and supported the war effort. In February 1918 women over the age of 30 received the right to vote. Suffrage rights for men and women were equalized in 1928.

ap.grolier.com

Easement definition

easement definition – an easement is a legal right the owner of a piece of land to use another person’s land for a particular purpose, like a sewer line to get to the dominant estate or a thruway. Although an easement lasts in perpetuity, it doesn’t give the owner of the easement the right to improve or modify the subservient land.

Contract law

Contract law is the law that governs contracts. A contract can take several forms - it can be written on a piece of paper (or napkin, even) or it can be just a verbal agreement if it satisfies the Statute of Frauds.

A contract is basically an agreement between two or more people which creates an obligation to do, or not do, something. The agreement creates a legal relationship of rights and duties. If the agreement is broken, then the law provides certain remedies.

For a contract to be legally enforceable, not only do all the parties to the contract have to get something in return, but they must also suffer a detriment. In other words, one cannot contract to give someone else $500 unless the other person gives up something in return.

Contract law covers the legal implications of a contract. For instance, contract law determines what is and is not consideration, whether a contract was actually intended, if the parties making the contract were legally competent, whether there was fraud or duress involved, or how a contract is terminated.

Certain contracts are not legally valid, for instance, if the contract goes against public policy (such as a contract to satisfy a gambling debt). In most instances, people who are not of the age of majority are not allowed to make contracts.

When writing a contract, it is important to remember a central principle to contract law - terms of a contract will be construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, any ambiguities or uncertainties will be resolved against the writer. For instance, if someone drafts a contract where there is uncertainty as to whether the drafter has to pay $500 or $800 for a good or service, the contract will be interpreted against the drafter - i.e. he or she will have to pay the $800 amount.

Legal Elements of a Contract

There are three factors necessary to create a contract: 1) an offer, 2) acceptance, and 3) consideration. One party makes an offer, the second party must accept the offer and there must be consideration exchanged. Consideration has to be something of value. All of these factors must be met for the contract to be enforceable.

Statute of Frauds

To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a written agreement is required in certain circumstances. A writing is required for any contract that can't be completely performed within one year of its commencement, a contract involving the sale or purchase of real estate, a contract to answer for the debt of another person, or a contract involving a sale of goods for a price in excess of $500.00.

History

Ancient Greece

The earliest people who could be described as "lawyers" were probably the orators of ancient Athens (see History of Athens). However, Athenian orators faced serious structural obstacles. First, there was a rule that individuals were supposed to plead their own cases, which was soon bypassed by the increasing tendency of individuals to ask a "friend" for assistance. Fortunately, around the middle of the fourth century BCE, the Athenians disposed of the perfunctory request for a friend. Second, a more serious obstacle, which the Athenian orators never completely overcame, was the rule that no one could take a fee to plead the cause of another. This law was widely disregarded in practice, but was never abolished, which meant that orators could never present themselves as legal professionals or experts. They had to uphold the legal fiction that they were merely an ordinary citizen generously helping out a friend for free, and thus they could never organize into a real profession — with professional associations and titles and all the other pomp and circumstance — like their modern counterparts. Therefore, if one narrows the definition to those men who could practice the legal profession openly and legally, then the first lawyers would have to be the orators of ancient Rome.

Early Ancient Rome

A law enacted in 204 BC barred Roman advocates from taking fees, but the law was widely ignored. The ban on fees was abolished by Emperor Claudius, who legalized advocacy as a profession and allowed the Roman advocates to become the first lawyers who could practice openly — but he also imposed a fee ceiling of 10,000 sesterces. This was apparently not much money; the Satires of Juvenal complain that there was no money in working as an advocate.

Like their Greek contemporaries, early Roman advocates were trained in rhetoric, not law, and the judges before whom they argued were also not law-trained. But very early on, unlike Athens, Rome developed a class of specialists who were learned in the law, known as jurisconsults (iuris consulti). Jurisconsults were wealthy amateurs who dabbled in law as an intellectual hobby; they did not make their primary living from it. They gave legal opinions (responsa) on legal issues to all comers (a practice known as publice respondere). Roman judges and governors would routinely consult with an advisory panel of jurisconsults before rendering a decision, and advocates and ordinary people also went to jurisconsults for legal opinions. Thus, the Romans were the first to have a class of people who spent their days thinking about legal problems, and this is why their law became so "precise, detailed, and technical."

A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the government of a society to maintain stability and justice. Working as a lawyer represents the practical application of legal theory and knowledge to solve real problems or to advance the interests of those who retain (i.e., hire) lawyers for legal services.

The role of the lawyer varies significantly across legal jurisdictions, and therefore can be treated here in only the most general terms.

In practice, legal jurisdictions exercise their right to determine who is recognized as being a lawyer; as a result, the meaning of the term "lawyer" may vary from place to place.

* In Australia, the word "lawyer" is used to refer to both barristers and solicitors (whether in private practice or practising as corporate in-house counsel) but not people who do not practice the law.

* In Britain, "lawyer" is used loosely to refer to a broad variety of law-trained persons. It includes practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, legal executives and licensed conveyancers; and people who are involved with the law but do not practice it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation.

* In Canada, the word "lawyer" only refers to individuals who have been called to the bar or have qualified as civil law notaries in the province of Quebec. Common law lawyers in Canada may also be known as "barristers and solicitors", but should not be referred to as "attorneys", since that term has a different meaning in Canadian usage. However, in Quebec, civil law advocates (or avocats in French) often call themselves "attorney" and sometimes "barrister and solicitor".

* In the United States of America, the term generally refers to attorneys who may practice law.

· Other nations tend to have comparable terms for the analogous concept.

Responsibilities

In most countries, particularly civil law countries, there has been a tradition of giving many legal tasks to a variety of civil law notaries, clerks, and scriveners. These countries do not have "lawyers" in the American sense, insofar as that term refers to a single type of general-purpose legal services provider; rather, their legal professions consist of a large number of law-trained persons, known as jurists, of which only some are advocates who are licensed to practice in the courts. It is difficult to formulate accurate generalizations that cover all the countries with multiple legal professions, because each country has traditionally had its own peculiar method of dividing up legal work among all its different types of legal professionals.

Notably, England, the mother of the common law jurisdictions, emerged from the Dark Ages with similar complexity in its legal professions, but then evolved by the 19th century to a single dichotomy between barristers and solicitors. An equivalent dichotomy developed between advocates and procurators in some civil law countries, though these two types did not always monopolize the practice of law as much as barristers and solicitors, in that they always coexisted with civil law notaries.

Several countries that originally had two or more legal professions have since fused or united their professions into a single type of lawyer. Most countries in this category are common law countries, though France, a civil law country, merged together its jurists in 1990 and 1991 in response to Anglo-American competition. In countries with fused professions, a lawyer is usually permitted to carry out all or nearly all the responsibilities listed below.

Oral argument in the courts

Arguing a client's case before a judge or jury in a court of law is the traditional province of the barrister in England. However, the boundary between barristers and solicitors has gradually evolved over time. For example, in England, the barrister monopoly covers only appellate courts, and barristers must compete directly with solicitors in many trial courts. In countries like the United States which have fused legal professions, there are trial lawyers who specialize in trying cases in court, but trial lawyers do not have a de jure monopoly like barristers.

In some countries, litigants have the option of arguing pro se, or on their own behalf. It is common for litigants to appear unrepresented before certain courts like small claims courts; indeed, many such courts do not allow lawyers to speak for their clients, in an effort to save money for all participants in a small case. In other countries, like Venezuela, no one may appear before a judge unless represented by a lawyer. The advantage of the latter regime is that lawyers are familiar with the court's customs and procedures, and make the legal system more efficient for all involved. Unrepresented parties often damage their own credibility or slow the court down as a result of their inexperience.

Research and drafting of court papers

Often, lawyers brief a court in writing on the issues in a case before the issues can be orally argued. They may have to perform extensive research into relevant facts and law while drafting legal papers and preparing for oral argument.

In England, a solicitor gets the facts of the case from the client and briefs a barrister in writing. The barrister then researches, drafts, and files the necessary court pleadings, and orally argues the case.

In Spain, the procurator merely signs and presents the papers to the court, but it is the advocate who drafts the papers and argues the case.

In some countries, like Japan, a scrivener or clerk may fill out court forms and draft simple papers for lay persons who cannot afford or do not need attorneys, and advise them on how to manage and argue their own cases.

Advocacy (written and oral) in administrative hearings

In most developed countries, the legislature has granted original jurisdiction over highly technical matters to executive branch administrative agencies which oversee such things. As a result, some lawyers have become specialists in administrative law. In a few countries, there is a special category of jurists with a monopoly over this form of advocacy; for example, France formerly had conseil juridiques (who were merged into the main legal profession in 1991). In other countries, like the United States, lawyers have been effectively barred by statute from certain types of administrative hearings in order to preserve their informality.

Client intake and counseling (with regard to pending litigation)

In England, only solicitors were traditionally in direct contact with the client. The solicitor retained a barrister if one was necessary and acted as an intermediary between the barrister and the client. In most cases a barrister would be obliged, under what is known as the "cab rank rule", to accept instructions for a case in an area in which they held themselves out as practising, at a court at which they normally appeared and at their usual rates.

Legal advice (with regard to all legal matters)

Legal advice is the application of abstract principles of law to the concrete facts of the client's case in order to advise the client about what they should do next. In many countries, only a properly licensed lawyer may provide legal advice to clients for good consideration, even if no lawsuit is contemplated or is in progress.[29][30][31] Therefore, even conveyancers and corporate in-house counsel must first get a license to practice, though they may actually spend very little of their careers in court. Failure to obey such a rule is the crime of unauthorized practice of law.

In other countries, jurists who hold law degrees are allowed to provide legal advice to individuals or to corporations, and it is irrelevant if they lack a license and cannot appear in court.[32][33] Some countries go further; in England and Wales, there is no general prohibition on the giving of legal advice. Sometimes civil law notaries are allowed to give legal advice, as in Belgium. In many countries, non-jurist accountants may provide what is technically legal advice in tax and accounting matters.

Protecting intellectual property

In virtually all countries, patents, trademarks, industrial designs and other forms of intellectual property must be formally registered with a government agency in order to receive maximum protection under the law. The division of such work among lawyers, licensed non-lawyer jurists/agents, and ordinary clerks or scriveners varies greatly from one country to the next.

Negotiating and drafting contracts

In some countries, the negotiating and drafting of contracts is considered to be similar to the provision of legal advice, so that it is subject to the licensing requirement explained above. In others, jurists or notaries may negotiate or draft contracts.

Lawyers in some civil law countries traditionally deprecated "transactional law" or "business law" as beneath them. French law firms developed transactional departments only in the 1990s when they started to lose business to international firms based in the United States and the United Kingdom (where solicitors have always done transactional work).

Conveyancing

Conveyancing is the drafting of the documents necessary for the transfer of real property, such as deeds and mortgages. In some jurisdictions, all real estate transactions must be carried out by a lawyer (or a solicitor where that distinction still exists). Such a monopoly is quite valuable from the lawyer's point of view; historically, conveyancing accounted for about half of English solicitors' income (though this has since changed), and a 1978 study showed that conveyancing "accounts for as much as 80 percent of solicitor-client contact in New South Wales." In most common law jurisdictions outside of the United States, this monopoly arose from an 1804 law that was introduced by William Pitt the Younger as a quid pro quo for the raising of fees on the certification of legal professionals such as barristers, solicitors, attorneys and notaries.

In others, the use of a lawyer is optional and banks, title companies, or realtors may be used instead. In some civil law jurisdictions, real estate transactions are handled by civil law notaries. In England and Wales a special class of legal professional, the Licensed Conveyancer is also allowed to carry out conveyancing services for reward.

Carrying out the intent of the deceased

In many countries, only lawyers have the legal authority to do drafting of wills, trusts, and any other documents that ensure the efficient disposition of a person's property after death. In some civil law countries this responsibility is handled by civil law notaries.

In the United States, the estates of the deceased must be administered by a court through probate. American lawyers have a profitable monopoly on dispensing advice about probate law (which has been heavily criticized).

Prosecution of criminal suspects

In many civil law countries, prosecutors are trained and employed as part of the judiciary; they are law-trained jurists, but may not necessarily be lawyers in the sense that the word is used in the common law world. In common law countries, prosecutors are usually lawyers holding regular licenses who simply happen to work for the government office that files criminal charges against suspects.

Education

The educational prerequisites to becoming a lawyer vary greatly from country to country. In some countries, law is taught by a faculty of law, which is a department of a university's general undergraduate college. Law students in those countries pursue a Master or Bachelor of Laws degree. In some countries it is common or even required for students to earn another bachelor's degree at the same time. Nor is the LL.B the sole obstacle; it is often followed by a series of advanced examinations, apprenticeships, and additional coursework at special government institutes.

In other countries, particularly the United States, law is primarily taught at law schools. In the United States and countries following the American model, (such as Canada[54] with the exception of the province of Quebec) law schools are graduate/professional schools where a bachelor's degree is a prerequisite for admission. Most law schools are part of universities but a few are independent institutions. Law schools in the United States (and some in Canada and elsewhere) award graduating students a J.D. (Juris Doctor/Doctor of Jurisprudence) (as opposed to the Bachelor of Laws) as the practitioner's law degree. However, like other professional doctorates (including the M.D.), the J.D. is not the exact equivalent of the Ph.D., since it does not require the submission of a full dissertation based on original research. Many schools also offer post-doctoral law degrees such as the LL.M (Legum Magister/Master of Laws), or the S.J.D. (Scientiae Juridicae Doctor/Doctor of the Science of Law) for students interested in advancing their knowledge and credentials in a specific area of law.

The methods and quality of legal education vary widely. Some countries require extensive clinical training in the form of apprenticeships or special clinical courses. Others do not, like Venezuela. A few countries prefer to teach through assigned readings of judicial opinions (the casebook method) followed by intense in-class cross-examination by the professor (the Socratic method). Many others have only lectures on highly abstract legal doctrines, which forces young lawyers to figure out how to actually think and write like a lawyer at their first apprenticeship (or job). Depending upon the country, a typical class size could range from five students in a seminar to five hundred in a giant lecture room. In the United States, law schools maintain small class sizes, and as such, grant admissions on a more limited and competitive basis.

Some students have a preference for full-time law programs, while others often work full- or part-time to pay the tuition and fees of their part-time law programs.

Law schools in developing countries share several common problems, such as an overreliance on practicing judges and lawyers who treat teaching as a part-time hobby (and a concomitant scarcity of full-time law professors); incompetent faculty with questionable credentials; and textbooks that lag behind the current state of the law by two or three decades

Earning the right to practice law

Some jurisdictions grant a "diploma privilege" to certain institutions, so that merely earning a degree or credential from those institutions is the primary qualification for practicing law. Mexico allows anyone with a law degree to practice law.However, in a large number of countries, a law student must pass a bar examination (or a series of such examinations) before receiving a license to practice. In a handful of U.S. states, one may become an attorney by simply passing the bar examination, without having to attend law school first (though very few people actually become lawyers that way).

Some countries require a formal apprenticeship with an experienced practitioner, while others do not. For example, a few jurisdictions still allow an apprenticeship in place of any kind of formal legal education (though the number of persons who actually become lawyers that way is increasingly rare).

Career structure

The career structure of lawyers varies widely from one country to the next.

Common law/civil law

In most common law countries, especially those with fused professions, lawyers have many options over the course of their careers. Besides private practice, they can always aspire to becoming a prosecutor, government counsel, corporate in-house counsel, administrative law judge, judge, arbitrator, law professor, or politician. There are also many non-legal jobs which legal training is good preparation for, such as corporate executive, government administrator, investment banker, entrepreneur, or journalist. In developing countries like India, a large majority of law students never actually practice, but simply use their law degree as a foundation for careers in other fields.

Abraham_Lincoln

In most civil law countries, lawyers generally structure their legal education around their chosen specialty; the boundaries between different types of lawyers are carefully defined and hard to cross. After one earns a law degree, career mobility may be severely constrained. For example, unlike their American counterparts, it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice. Another interesting example is France, where for much of the 20th century, all magistrates were graduates of an elite professional school for judges. Although the French magistracy has begun experimenting with the Anglo-American model of appointing judges from accomplished advocates, the few advocates who have actually joined the bench this way are looked down upon by their colleagues who have taken the traditional route to magistracy.

In a few civil law countries, such as Sweden, the legal profession is not rigorously bifurcated and everyone within it can easily change roles and arenas.
Specialization

In many countries, lawyers are general practitioners who will take almost any kind of case that walks in the door. In others, there has been a tendency since the start of the 20th century for lawyers to specialize early in their careers. In countries where specialization is prevalent, many lawyers specialize in representing one side in one particular area of the law; thus, it is common in the United States to hear of plaintiffs' personal injury attorneys.

Organization
Lawyers in private practice generally work in specialized businesses known as law firms, with the exception of English barristers. The vast majority of law firms worldwide are small businesses that range in size from 1 to 10 lawyers. The United States, with its large number of firms with more than 50 lawyers, is an exception. The United Kingdom and Australia are also exceptions, as the UK, Australia and the U.S. are now home to several firms with more than 1,000 lawyers after a wave of mergers in the late 1990s.

Notably, barristers in England and Wales and some states in Australia do not work in "law firms". Those who offer their services to the general public — as opposed to those working "in house" — are required to be self-employed. Most work in groupings known as "sets" or "chambers", where some administrative and marketing costs are shared. An important effect of this different organizational structure is that there is no conflict of interest where barristers in the same chambers work for opposing sides in a case, and in some specialised chambers this is commonplace.

Lawyer’s Professional associations and regulation

Mandatory licensing and membership in professional organizations

In some jurisdictions, either the judiciary or the Ministry of Justice directly supervises the admission, licensing, and regulation of lawyers.

Other jurisdictions, by statute, tradition, or court order, have granted such powers to a professional association which all lawyers must belong to. In the U.S., such associations are known as mandatory, integrated, or unified bar associations. In the Commonwealth of Nations, similar organizations are known as Inns of Court, bar councils or law societies. In civil law countries, comparable organizations are known as Orders of Advocates, Chambers of Advocates, Colleges of Advocates, Faculties of Advocates, or similar names. Generally, a nonmember caught practicing law may be liable for the crime of unauthorized practice of law.

In common law countries with divided legal professions, barristers traditionally belong to the bar council (or an Inn of Court) and solicitors belong to the law society. In the English-speaking world, the largest mandatory professional association of lawyers is the State Bar of California, with 200,000 members.

Some countries admit and regulate lawyers at the national level, so that a lawyer, once licensed, can argue cases in any court in the land. This is common in small countries like New Zealand, Japan, and Belgium. Others, especially those with federal governments, tend to regulate lawyers at the state or provincial level; this is the case in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, to name a few. Brazil is the most well-known federal government that regulates lawyers at the national level. In Germany lawyers are admitted to a bar on a regional level, however german lawyers are allowed to appear for clients before all municipal and provincial courts.

Some countries, like Italy, regulate lawyers at the regional level, and a few, like Belgium, even regulate them at the local level (that is, they are licensed and regulated by the local equivalent of bar associations but can advocate in courts nationwide).

Such geographic limitations can be troublesome for a lawyer who discovers that his client's cause requires him to litigate in a court beyond the normal geographic scope of his license. Although most courts have special pro hac vice rules for such occasions, the lawyer will still have to deal with a different set of professional responsibility rules, as well as the possibility of other differences in substantive and procedural law.

Some countries grant licenses to non-resident lawyers, who may then appear regularly on behalf of foreign clients. Others require all lawyers to live in the jurisdiction or to even hold national citizenship as a prerequisite for receiving a license to practice. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a citizenship requirement on equality rights grounds in 1989, and similarly, American citizenship and residency requirements were struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 and 1985, respectively.

Who regulates lawyers

A key difference among countries is whether lawyers should be regulated solely by an independent judiciary and its subordinate institutions (a self-regulating legal profession), or whether lawyers should be subject to supervision by the Ministry of Justice in the executive branch.

In most civil law countries, the government has traditionally exercised tight control over the legal profession in order to ensure a steady supply of loyal judges and bureaucrats. That is, lawyers were expected first and foremost to serve the state, and the availability of counsel for private litigants was an afterthought. Even in civil law countries like Norway which have partially self-regulating professions, the Ministry of Justice is the sole issuer of licenses, and makes its own independent re-evaluation of a lawyer's fitness to practice after a lawyer has been expelled from the Advocates' Association. Brazil is an unusual exception in that its national Order of Advocates has become a fully self-regulating institution (with direct control over licensing) and has successfully resisted government attempts to place it under the control of the Ministry of Labor.

Of all the civil law countries, Communist countries historically went the farthest towards total state control, with all Communist lawyers forced to practice in collectives by the mid-1950s.
In contrast, common law lawyers have traditionally regulated themselves through institutions where the influence of non-lawyers, if any, was weak and indirect (despite nominal state control). Such institutions have been traditionally dominated by private practitioners who opposed strong state control of the profession on the grounds that it would endanger the ability of lawyers to zealously and competently advocate their clients' causes in the adversarial system of justice.
However, the concept of the self-regulating profession has been criticized as a sham which serves to legitimize the professional monopoly while protecting the profession from public scrutiny. Disciplinary mechanisms have been astonishingly ineffective, and penalties have been light or nonexistent.

Voluntary associations of lawyers
Lawyers are always free to form voluntary associations of their own, apart from any licensing or mandatory membership that may be required by the laws of their jurisdiction. Like their mandatory counterparts, such organizations may exist at all geographic levels. In American English, such associations are known as voluntary bar associations. The largest voluntary professional association of lawyers in the English-speaking world is the American Bar Association.
In some countries, like France and Italy, lawyers have also formed trade unions.

Criticism of lawyers
Hostility towards the legal profession is a widespread phenomenon. The legal profession was abolished in Prussia in 1780 and in France in 1789, though both countries eventually realized that their judicial systems could not function efficiently without lawyers. Complaints about too many lawyers were common in both England and the United States in the 1840sGermany in the 1910s, and in Australia, Canada, the United States, and Scotland in the 1980s.

Public distrust of lawyers reached record heights in the United States after the Watergate scandal. In the aftermath of Watergate, legal self-help books became popular among those who wished to solve their legal problems without having to deal with lawyers. Lawyer jokes (already a perennial favorite) also soared in popularity in English-speaking North America as a result of Watergate. In 1989, American legal self-help publisher Nolo Press published a 171-page compilation of negative anecdotes about lawyers from throughout human history.

A 2004 comparative study examined the various legal professions around the world and noted a "remarkable consistency" in complaints about lawyers that transcends both time and locale. The authors then generalized the most common complaints about lawyers as follows:

• abuse of litigation in various ways, including using dilatory tactics and false evidence and making frivolous arguments to the courts;

• preparation of false documentation, such as false deeds, contracts, or wills;

• deceiving clients and other persons and misappropriating property;

• procrastination in dealings with clients; and

charging excessive fees.

Bentham and Austin

One of the earliest legal positivists was Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was an early and staunch supporter of the utilitarian concept (along with Hume), an avid prison reformer, advocate for democracy, and strongly atheist. Bentham's views about law and jurisprudence were popularized by his student, John Austin.

Benthom

Austin was the first chair of law at the new University of London from 1829. Austin's utilitarian answer to "what is law?" was that law is "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience". Contemporary legal positivists have long abandoned this view, and have criticised its oversimplification, H.L.A. Hart particularly.

Legal positivists

Positivism simply means that the law is something that is "posited": laws are validly made in accordance with socially accepted rules. The positivist view on law can be seen to cover two broad principles: Firstly, that laws may seek to enforce justice, morality, or any other normative end, but their success or failure in doing so does not determine their validity. Provided a law is properly formed, in accordance with the rules recognized in the society concerned, it is a valid law, regardless of whether it is just by some other standard. Secondly, that law is nothing more than a set of rules to provide order and governance of society. No legal positivist, however, argues that it follows that the law is therefore to be obeyed, no matter what. This is seen as a separate question entirely.

Analytic jurisprudence

Analytic, or 'clarificatory' jurisprudence is using a neutral point of view and descriptive language when referring to the aspects of legal systems. This was a philosophical development that rejected natural law's fusing of what law is and what it ought to be. David Hume famously argued in A Treatise of Human Nature that people invariably slip between describing that the world is a certain way to saying therefore we ought to conclude on a particular course of action. But as a matter of pure logic, one cannot conclude that we ought to do something merely because something is the case. So analysing and clarifying the way the world is must be treated as a strictly separate question to normative and evaluative ought questions.

The most important questions of analytic jurisprudence are: "What are laws?"; "What is the law?"; "What is the relationship between law and power/sociology?"; and, "What is the relationship between law and morality?" Legal positivism is the dominant theory, although there are a growing number of critics, who offer their own interpretations.