Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:17:34.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Politics and Civic Professionalism: Legal Elites and Cause Lawyers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Section Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Abel, Richard L. American Lawyers. 1989. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, Bruce G., and Terence, C. Halliday. 1998. Rescuing Business: The Making of Bankruptcy Law in England and the United States. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves, and Bryant, G. Garth. 1996. Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terence C. 1982. The Idiom of Legalism in Bar Politics: Lawyers, McCarthyism, and the Civil Rights Era. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1982 (Fall): 911–89.Google Scholar
1983. Knowledge Mandates: Collective Influence by Scientific, Normative, and Syncretic Professions. British Journal of Sociology 36:421–47.Google Scholar
1987. Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crises and Professional Empowerment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1998. Lawyers as Institutional Contractors: Constructing the State, Markets, Civil Society, and Community. In Boundaries and Crossings, ed. Sarat, Austin et al., 242–95. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terence C., and Bruce, G. Carruthers. 1997. Making the Courts Safe for the Powerful: The Politics of Lawyers, Judges, and Bankers in the 1978 Rehabilitation of the United States Bankruptcy Courts. In Halliday and Karpik 1997a, 265304.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terence C., and Karpik, Lucien, eds. 1997a. Lawyers and the Rise of Western Political Liberalism: Legal Professions and the Constitution of Modern Politics, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997b. Politics Matter. In Halliday and Karpik 1997a, 1564.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., and Edward, O. Laumann. 1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago: American Bar Foundation; New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Karpik, Lucien. 1995. Les avocats: Entre ľÉtat, le public, et le marché, XIII-XX siècle. Paris: Gallimard. Forthcoming in English, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1988. Lawyers and Politics in France, 1814–1950: The State, the Market, and the Public. Law and Social Inquiry 13(4):707–36.Google Scholar
Larson, Magali. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ledford, Kenneth F. 1997. Lawyers and the Limits of Liberalism: The German Bar in the Weimar Republic. In Halliday and Karpik 1997a, 229–64.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. C. Philip 1989. Comparison and Change in the Study of Legal Professions. In Lawyers in Society: Comparative Theories, ed. Abel, Richard L. and Lewis, Philip S. C., 2779. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nonet, Philippe, and Selznick, Philip. 1978. Law and Society in Transition: Towards Responsive Law. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, et al. 1950. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pue, Wesley W. 1997. Lawyers and Political Liberalism in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century England. In Halliday and Karpik 1997a, 167206.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart A. 1999. Taking Weber Seriously: Lawyers, Politics, and the Liberal State. Law and Social Inquiry 24(4):10611081.Google Scholar