The Scale of Justice: Observations on the Transformation of Urban Law Practice
John P. Heinz1, Robert L. Nelson2, and Edward O. Laumann3 1American Bar Foundation, Chicago, Illinois 60611
Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, Illinois 60611; e-mail:
j-heinz@northwestern.edu 2American Bar Foundation, Chicago, Illinois 60611
Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201; e-mail:
rnelson@abfn.org 3Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637; e-mail:
ob01@midway.uchicago.edu In the last quarter of the twentieth century, urban law practice changed markedly. Using data from two surveys of Chicago lawyers, the first in 1975 and the second in 1995, the article argues that the most consequential development was the sheer increase in the size of firms. The organization of the delivery of legal services was restructured, and the relationships between lawyers and clients changed. Growth in the power and prestige of corporate inside counsel, greater competition among law firms, and the move by those firms into broader geographic markets precipitated changes in firm management. The recent movement into the international market for legal services of large accounting firms, financial services firms, and consulting firms (creating “multidisciplinary” partnerships) suggests the possibility of more far reaching changes in the next decade or two.
Globalization of Law Firms: A Survey of the Literature and a Research Agenda for Further Study
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14(1):5-28 (2007)
Lawyers as Sanctifiers: The Role of Elite Law Firms in International Business Transactions
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14(1):35-66 (2007)
Social Capital and Constraints on Legal Careers
Law <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Society Review 40(2):445-480 (2006)
Postmodern Professions? The Fragmentation of Legal Education and the Legal Profession
Journal of Law and Society 32(3):473-492 (2005)
Varieties of Social Discipline: Collective Action in a Law Firm
Journal of Law and Society 31(4):610-624 (2005)