Representing South Carolina

(864) 242-4800

Our Blog Quotable Holmes: Lawyer as Prophet

Quotable Holmes: Lawyer as Prophet

220px-Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_1902Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. played an important part in the evolution of our constitutional law as well as the philosophical underpinnings of American jurisprudence. Before he began his tenure on the Massachusetts Supreme Court or his 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, Holmes wrote The Common Law, which traced the evolution of the common law dating back to the middle ages.  The famous quote “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience,” can be said to be the basis for pragmatic jurisprudence.  The treatise established Holmes as a thought leader in post civil war America and to this day he influences other influencers, not the least of whom is Judge Richard Posner.

In 1897, the Harvard Law Review published the influential essay, The Path of Law, which further elaborated Holmes pragmatic view of law. I was reading it again the other night and wanted to introduce some quotes to the readers of this blog.  So, according to Holmes, what is the practice of law? It is prophecy: Knowing enough to predict what judges (and juries) will do.

When we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well-known profession. We are studying what we shall want in order to appear before judges, or to advise people in such a way as to keep them out of court. The reason why it is a profession, why people will pay lawyers to argue for them or to advise them, is that in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees. People want to know under what circumstances and how far they will run the risk of coming against what is so much stronger than themselves, and hence it becomes a business to find out when this danger is to be feared. The object of our study, then, is prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.

*  *  *

I wish, if I can, to lay down some first principles for the study of this body of dogma or systematized prediction which we call the law, for men who want to use it as the instrument of their business to enable them to prophesy in their turn, and, as bearing upon the study, I wish to point out an ideal which as yet our law has not attained.

The first thing for a businesslike understanding of the matter is to understand its limits, and therefore I think it desirable at once to point out and dispel a confusion between morality and law, which sometimes rises to the height of conscious theory, and more often and indeed constantly is making trouble in detail without reaching the point of consciousness. You can see very plainly that a bad man has as much reason as a good one for wishing to avoid an encounter with the public force, and therefore you can see the practical importance of the distinction between morality and law. A man who cares nothing for an ethical rule which is believed and practised by his neighbors is likely nevertheless to care a good deal to avoid being made to pay money, and will want to keep out of jail if he can.

I take it for granted that no hearer of mine will misinterpret what I have to say as the language of cynicism. The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it, in spite of popular jests, tends to make good citizens and good men. When I emphasize the difference between law and morals I do so with reference to a single end, that of learning and understanding the law. For that purpose you must definitely master its specific marks, and it is for that that I ask you for the moment to imagine yourselves indifferent to other and greater things.

*  *  *

The confusion with which I am dealing besets confessedly legal conceptions. Take the fundamental question, What constitutes the law? You will find some text writers telling you that it is something different from what is decided by the courts of Massachusetts or England, that it is a system of reason, that it is a deduction from principles of ethics or admitted axioms or what not, which may or may not coincide with the decisions. But if we take the view of our friend the bad man we shall find that he does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions, but that he does want to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact. I am much of this mind. The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.

Still Have Questions? Get in Touch

Speak to an Attorney