The conception of simple, informal, lawyerless courts where ordinary people can settle their affairs amicably without expense, delay, technicality, or contentiousness has fascinated Americans since colonial times. This theme can be seen running through the movements to codify the law, simplify legal procedure, open the practice of law to Everyman, create conciliation courts; the creation of the small claims courts and administrative tribunals; and attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to divert small matters out of the courts altogether and into Neighborhood Justice Centers and other informal dispute resolution mechanisms.

The long and complex history of reform has been characterized by cyclical shifts in emphasis between two principal modes of characterizing small claims. One mode characterizes small claims as petty private quarrels and has led to attempts to supply justice by aiding fair outcomes between the particular parties. Since no broader social impact of the dispute is seen, the most efficient possible individual level response is viewed as appropriate. The other mode perceives small claims as particular instances of important systematic injustices between social groups or classes and has led to attempts to use small claims processing as the forum for making important policy. Perceiving broad social impact of the resolution of small claims, one will see a mobilization of aggregate resources to deal with them as important social problems as appropriate.

As a result, entire classes of cases and issues may be skimmed off and dealt with collectively as important social-legal problems. When this occurs the perception of the small claims that remain shifts to the other mode, and they are viewed as less important residual petty quarrels meriting less attention and resources. This periodic skimming off of certain claims and waning of collective attention to the remaining mass of claims has introduced a cyclical element into the development of small claims courts (and other legal reforms). Thus the mode of preceiving small claims itself conditions the mode of legal response which is advocated.

The accomplishments of empirical research are often presented in a context that fails to show the process by which the results came about. This article examines the problems, hitches, and struggles encountered in a research project carried out on the English bar. And emphasis is given to the difficulty of tackling hitherto unexplored occupations that have had a long history of resisting research.

While we know a great deal about the disposition of felony arrests that reach the trial stage, we know little about the details of the dispositions reached without trial. And yet, this latter category forms as a rule over 90 percent, in New York City 98 percent, of all dispositions. Basing his analysis on a study done in the early 1970s, the author describes and presents data on the various stages in the process from arrest to final disposition through plea bargaining, trial, or dismissal of the case. For the first time, this usually opaque disposition pattern prior to trial emerges in the clarity of 23 graphs that illustrate the analysis. Of particular interest are some new insights into the mechanism of the plea bargaining process.

This study describes the development of a questionnaire for measuring instruction and studying the interaction between instruction and learning. Instruments such as the Course Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ) can help identify how different instructional methods affect what and how students learn and thus should help determine whether there is a single best method of instruction that results in the most learning by all students. Also, instruments like the CPQ can provide instructors with information on how their instruction is perceived by students (and, more generally, whether the methods instructors believe they are using are, in fact, the methods they are using) and how students respond to their instruction.