ANTILAWYER MOVEMENT
Throughout early U.S. history, legal practitioners were the subject of ambivalence on the part of the general public. The attitude against lawyers reached its peak after the Revolutionary War and remained hostile until the beginning of the nineteenth century.
During the early days of the colonies, the system for the administration of justice was based on ARBITRATION and religious principles, and lawyers specially educated and skilled in the law were presumably not needed and were often restricted or prohibited from practicing. Judges were ordinary men who used unpolished methods of questioning to determine the facts of each case; defendants were their own lawyers. This system remained successful as long as the population of each community remained small and manageable, and the people were clear about their rights and obligations to their neighbors and the community.
By the end of the seventeenth century, the
colonies experienced a period of growth, and the
original judicial system became unsatisfactory.
Formal PLEADING and skilled lawyers began to
replace the primitive methods of earlier colonial
times.
After the Revolutionary War, Americans
sought a new form of JURISPRUDENCE to inter-
act with their newly gained freedoms. Laws were
less confining, due to the belief that moral fiber
was more important to satisfactory conduct
than legislation.
During this period, the antilawyer move-
ment gained momentum. Historians speculate
that it evolved as a result of former prejudices
and conflicts toward the legal profession.
Although lawyers in the past had not been
viewed favorably, they achieved prominence and
esteem as strong proponents of freedom from
England during the Revolutionary War. After
the war, lawyers were once again an important
part of the legal system but were used primarily
by the wealthy. As a result, they were often in
conflict with those who were poor and could not
pay their debts, which led to a resurrection of
the old negative attitudes against them.
Lawyers were regarded with suspicion. They
were accused of initiating unnecessary lawsuits,
impeding the justice system, and prolonging tri-
als to secure additional fees from unsuspecting
clients. They were also criticized for the use of
legal jargon, causing simple matters to seem
complicated.
Despite these attacks, lawyers managed to
attain political power. They were regarded as
conspirators, however, for people could not
accept the idea that lawyers who served as politi-
cians made the laws by which they secured a liv-
ing as legal practitioners. It was also feared that
lawyers, judges, and legislators would band
together to control society, depriving the com-
mon people of some of their hard-won free-
doms. Although the fears were exaggerated, they
were true to some degree, for lawyers did earn a
living from the ramifications that legislation had
upon the general public.
Two remedies were recommended to recon-
cile the proponents of the antilawyer sentiment
and lawyers. The first suggestion was an updated
version of the early colonial justice system,
which prohibited lawyers from practicing. A
judge representing the interests of the commu-
nity would preside over the court and instruct
the jury. Judges were educated aristocrats who
could be impeached if their conduct so war-
ranted. If a legal representative was deemed nec-
essary, a friend of the defendant could
participate in the arbitration.
The second suggestion provided for a small
group of professional lawyers to practice as pub-
lic servants. Their salaries and actions would be
controlled by the state, and their chief function
would be to clarify legal principles of each case
for the jury.
The conflicting feelings toward lawyers cul-
minated in several incidents, the most notewor-
thy of which was known as SHAYS’S REBELLION.
The rebellion began in 1786 when Massachu-
setts voters elected a majority of nonlawyers to
the General Court. This action led to a riot, and
hostile agrarian mobs overran the courthouses,
closing them down. The governor dispatched
the state army, which successfully quelled the
agitators.
Shays’s Rebellion did not stop the people of
Massachusetts from electing lawyers to political
positions. The very tactics they feared in the
courtroom were highly desirable in politics to
control government officials; in spite of their
conflicting feelings, voters were still attracted to
legal skills.
The new methods of justice proved to be
inefficient. Arbitration was fruitless, and laymen
were fallible as lawyers. By 1790,most cases were
again tried by lawyers, and the antilawyer move-
ment began to wane.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Shays’s Rebellion.
