Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T16:18:15.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Judges Street-Level Bureaucrats? Evidence from French and Canadian Family Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Émilie Biland  and
Hélène Steinmetz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although judges were included in the street-level-bureaucracy (SLB) group by Lipsky (1980), sociolegal scholars have barely used this theoretical framework to study them. This article aims to specify their position with respect to SLB in order to bridge the gap between public administration and sociolegal research. Specifically, using a cross-national ethnography of judicial institutions, it compares family trial judges' practice on the ground in France and Canada. General conditions separate them from the core SLB group: encounters with clients are less direct; discretion is more legitimate. However, French judges are far closer to the SLB group than their Canadian counterparts regarding public encounters and case processing. As such, the accuracy of the SLB framework depends on professional and cultural patterns that combine differently in these two national contexts.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Spring 2017 , pp. 298 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2017 

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

References

Atkinson, Paul A., Delamont, Sara, Coffey, Amanda, Lofland, John, and Lofland, Lyn H., eds. 2001. Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bastard, Benoit. 2010. Family Mediation in France: A New Profession Has Been Established, But Where Are the Clients? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 32:135–42.Google Scholar
Bastard, Benoit, and Mouhanna, Christian. 2007. Une justice dans l'urgence. Le traitement en temps réel des affaires pénales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Belmokhtar, Zakia. 2012. Divorces: une procédure à deux vitesses. Infostats Justice 117:1–8.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg, and Feinblatt, John. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem‐Solving Justice. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Bessière, Céline, and Mille, Muriel. 2014. The Judge is Often a Woman: Professional Perceptions and Practices of Male and Female Family Court Judges in France. Sociologie du travail 56:43–68.Google Scholar
Biland, Emilie, Gollac, Sibylle, and Schütz, Gabrielle. 2014. Les barèmes de pension au Canada: incidences sur le niveau des pensions et le travail des juges. Paper presented at the conference La Justice au 21e siècle, Paris, January 10–11.Google Scholar
Blankenburg, Ehrard. 1990. Cultures juridiques comparées. Droit et société 16:321–33.Google Scholar
Boigeol, Anne. 1989. La formation des magistrats: de l'apprentissage sur le tas à l'école professionnelle. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 76:49–64.Google Scholar
Cardia‐Vonèche, Laura, Liziard, Sylvie, and Bastard, Benoit. 1996. Juge dominant ou juge démuni? La redéfinition du rôle du juge en matière de divorce. Droit et Société 33:277–98.Google Scholar
Cartier, Marie. 2003. Les facteurs et leurs tournées: Un service public au quotidien. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Christin, Angèle. 2008. Comparutions immédiates: Enquête sur une pratique judiciaire. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Commaille, Jacques. 2000. Territoires de justice: une sociologie politique de la carte judiciaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Report on European Judicial Systems. 2016. Efficiency and Quality of Justice 23. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2016/publication/CEPEJ%20Study%2023%20report%20EN%20web.pdf (accessed October 11, 2016).Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and O'Barr, William M. 1998. Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, Dave, and Hitchings, Emma. 2007. “Pretty Boring Stuff”: District Judges and Housing Possession Proceedings. Social & Legal Studies 16:363–82.Google Scholar
Darbyshire, Penny. 2011. Sitting in Judgment: The Working Lives of Judges. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella. 2008. Comparative Analysis: Case‐Oriented versus Variable‐Oriented Research. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Della Porta, Donatella and Keating, Michael, 198–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewar, John. 2000. Family Law and Its Discontents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 14 (1): 59–85.Google Scholar
Dubois, Vincent. 2010. The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Eekelaar, John. 1991. Regulating Divorce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eekelaar, John, and Maclean, Mavis. 2013. Family Justice: The Work of Family Judges in Uncertain Times. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Ehrmann, Henry W. 1976. Comparative Legal Cultures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James, and Jacob, Herbert. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Tony. 2010. Professional Discretion in Welfare Services. Beyond Street‐Level Bureaucracy Offices. Ashgate: Farnham.Google Scholar
Fielding, Nigel G. 2011. Judges and Their Work. Social & Legal Studies 20:97–115.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M. 1983. The Bureaucratization of the Judiciary. Yale Law Journal 92:1442–68.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., Nardulli, Peter F., and Eisenstein, James. 1992. The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Court Communities. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Freidson, Eliot. 1970. The Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galligan, Denis J. 1986. Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and Kagan, Robert A., eds. 2005. Institutions and Public Law. Comparative Approaches. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Guillonneau, Maud, and Moreau, Caroline. 2013. La résidence des enfants de parents séparés. De la demande des parents à la décision du juge. Exploitation des décisions définitives rendues par les juges aux affaires familiales au cours de la période comprise entre le 4 juin et le 15 juin 2012. Paris: Ministère de la Justice.Google Scholar
Guinchard, Serge, ed. 2008. L'ambition raisonnée d'une justice apaisée, rapport de la Commission sur la Répartition des contentieux remis au Garde des Sceaux. Paris: La documentation française.Google Scholar
Harris, Alexes. 2007. Diverting and Abdicating Judicial Discretion: Cultural, Political and Procedural Dynamics in California Juvenile Justice. Law & Society Review 41 (2): 387–428.Google Scholar
Hughes, Everett C. 1951. Work and the Self. In Social Psychology at the Crossroads, ed. Rohrer, John H. and Sherif, Muzafer, 313–23. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Hunter, Rosemary. 2008. Can Feminist Judges Make a Difference? International Journal of the Legal Profession 15:7–36.Google Scholar
Hupe, Peter, and Hill, Michael. 2007. Street‐Level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability. Public Administration 85:279–99.Google Scholar
Hupe, Peter, Hill, Michael, and Buffat, Aurélien. 2015a. Introduction: Defining and Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucracy. In Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucracy, ed. Hupe, Peter, Hill, Michael, and Buffat, Aurélien, 3–24. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hupe, Peter, Hill, Michael, and Buffat, Aurélien. 2015b. Conclusion: The Present and Future Study of Street‐Level Bureaucracy. In Understanding Street‐Level Bureaucracy, ed. Hupe, Peter, Hill, Michael, and Buffat, Aurélien, 315–38. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Herbert. 1988. Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Herbert, Erhard, Blankenbourg, Herbert H, Kritzer, Doris, Marie Provine, and Joseph, Sanders. 1996. Courts, Law, and Politics in Comparative Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Collectif Onze, Le. 2013. Au tribunal des couples. Enquête sur des affaires familiales. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Lens, Vicky. 2007. In the Fair Hearing Room: Resistance and Confrontation in the Welfare Bureaucracy. Law & Social Inquiry 32:309–32.Google Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mack, Kathy, and Roach Anleu, Sharyn. 2007. “Getting Through the List”: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts. Social & Legal Studies 16:341–61.Google Scholar
Mack, Kathy, and Roach Anleu, Sharyn. 2010. Performing Impartiality: Judicial Demeanour and Legitimacy. Law & Social Inquiry 35 (1): 137–73.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi‐Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:95–117.Google Scholar
Mather, Lynn. 1991. Policy Making in State Trial Courts. In American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A., 119–57. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Mattei, Ugo, and Pes, Luca G. 2010. Civil Law and Common Law: Toward Convergence. In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Whittington, Keith E., Kelemen, R. Daniel, and Caldeira, Gregory A., 267–80. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard‐Moody, Steven, Musheno, Michael, and Palumbo, Dennis. 1990. Street‐Wise Social Policy: Resolving the Dilemma of Street‐Level Influence and Successful Implementation. Western Political Quarterly 43:833–48.Google Scholar
Maynard‐Moody, Steven, and Portillo, Shannon. 2010. Street‐Level Bureaucracy Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, ed. Durant, Robert F. and Edwards, George C. III, 252–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mileski, Maureen. 1971. Courtroom Encounters: An Observation Study of a Lower Criminal Court. Law & Society Review 5:473–538.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Kornhauser, Lewis. 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal 88:950–97.Google Scholar
Moorhead, Richard, and Cowan, Dave. 2007. Judgecraft: An Introduction. Social & Legal Studies 16:315–20.Google Scholar
Morton, Frederick Lee, ed. 2002. Law, Politics and the Judiciary in Canada, 3d ed. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Mulcahy, Linda. 2011. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Normand, Sylvio. 2011. La culture juridique et l'acculturation du droit: le Québec. ISAIDAT Law Review 1:779–816.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Portillo, Shanon, and Rudes, Danielle S. 2014. Construction of Justice at the Street‐Level. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10:321–34.Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith. 1982. Managerial Judges. Harvard Law Review 96:374–448.Google Scholar
Rolland, François. 2011. L'indépendance judiciaire et l'intégrité des juges. Le Devoir, September 21. http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/justice/331805/libre-opinion-l-independance-judiciaire-et-l-integrite-des-juges (accessed March 25, 2014).Google Scholar
Roussel, Violaine. 2003. L'indépendance de la magistrature en France: l'émergence d'une notion à contenu variable. Revue suisse de science politique 9:113–53.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2008. Creating Comparability Differently: Disassembling Ethnographic Comparison in Law‐in‐Action. Comparative Sociology 7 (3): 286–310.Google Scholar
Siblot, Yasmine. 2006. Faire valoir ses droits au quotidien: Les services publics dans les quartiers populaires. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Spire, Alexis. 2008. Accueillir ou reconduire: Enquête sur les guichets de l'immigration. Paris: Raisons d'agir.Google Scholar
Tancelin, Maurice. 1980. Comment un droit peut‐il être mixte? In Le domaine et l'interprétation du Code civil du Bas‐Canada, ed. Parker Walton, Frederick, 1–33. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Tata, Cyrus. 2007. Sentencing as Craftwork and the Binary Epistemologies of the Discretionary Decision Process. Social & Legal Studies 16:425–47.Google Scholar
Théry, Irène. 1993. Le démariage: Justice et vie privée. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Troper, Michel. 2007. Judicial Power and Democracy. European Journal of Legal Studies 1:2–17.Google Scholar
Vauchez, Antoine. 2008. Le chiffre dans le “gouvernement” de la justice. Revue française d'administration publique 125:111–20.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, Hendrik. 2004. Knowing the Rules: Administrative Work as Practice. Public Administration Review 64:643–55.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Droit de la famille – 073502, 2007 QCCS 6601.Google Scholar
Droit de la famille ‐ 3228, 1999 CanLII 13173 (QC CA).Google Scholar
L.(T.) c. L.A.P., 2002 CanLII 41252 (QC CA).Google Scholar
Statutes of Québec 1997, c. 42.Google Scholar
Decree no. 2011‐1202, 09/28/2011 (France).Google Scholar
Droit de la famille – 073502, 2007 QCCS 6601.Google Scholar
Droit de la famille ‐ 3228, 1999 CanLII 13173 (QC CA).Google Scholar
L.(T.) c. L.A.P., 2002 CanLII 41252 (QC CA).Google Scholar
Statutes of Québec 1997, c. 42.Google Scholar
Decree no. 2011‐1202, 09/28/2011 (France).Google Scholar