Massachusetts Lawyers on the Eve of the American Revolution:
The State of the Profession
THE American Revolution placed American lawyers on a world stage. Their names include those of our most revered patriots. Twenty-five of the fifty-six Signers of the Declaration of Independence and thirty-one of the fifty-five members of the Federal Constitutional Convention were lawyers. In the First Congress, ten of twenty-nine Senators and seventeen of sixty-five Representatives were lawyers.1034 What of the profession itself? What stage of “professionalization” had American lawyers reached when their society was shaken by revolution?1035 This essay explores this question by scrutinizing the bar of Massachusetts in the ten years immediately prior to the American Revolution.
The concept of a “profession,” with its aura of hierarchy and elitism, is an inherently difficult subject for objective study.1036 Only after subjective value judgments are put aside does the concept have value as a tool of analysis. Scholars disagree on practically everything relating to “professionalism.” Nevertheless, most scholars share a rather loose consensus as to the salient traits associated with professions. Employing these traits as a starting point, one may gain valuable insights into the way that pre-Revolutionary Massachusetts lawyers viewed themselves and their society.
Perhaps the most obvious trait that has been suggested was that a profession be a full-time occupation providing the professional’s principal source of income.1037 In eighteenth-century Massachusetts, most lawyers were actively engaged in pursuits outside the realm of law and some owed the bulk of their income to extracurricular interests.1038 There was also a sizable group of “amateur” lawyers, or “pettifoggers,” who plied some other trade, but earned money from drafting documents and performing other legal functions.1039 Sometimes the difference between these practitioners and the recognized members of the bar was merely a question of degree. Thus, as far as a full-time commitment to an occupation is concerned, the colonial Massachusetts lawyers fell somewhat short of the “professional ideal.”
Another criteria, which A. M. Carr-Saunders and P. A. Wilson labeled as “the distinguishing mark of a profession,” was that the occupation be founded in esoteric but useful theoretical knowledge and useful skills based upon formal education of exceptional duration and difficulty.1040 While some scholars stress that “professional” knowledge is essentially theoretical and systematized, they do not consider it necessary that it be scientific.1041 Such is the case with clergymen, who start with moral absolutes, and, more to the point, with lawyers, who must deal with man-made social norms and rules.
Much of the respect accorded a profession depends upon the esotericism of the profession’s knowledge base and the society’s appreciation of the specialized services it offers. The apprenticeship training that most colonial Massachusetts lawyers received did not cloak them with a mystique that impressed their lay contemporaries.1042 A practitioner such as Joseph Hawley might be known for his understanding of the mysteries of black letter law or his adroitness in the complexities of special pleading,1043 but such deference or respect was earned on an individual basis. The bar as a collective entity was not generally viewed as possessing mysterious and valued knowledge. This accounts, in part, for the colony’s low fee schedules and relatively high threshold of professional legal services, that is, the willingness of such a notoriously litigious people to utilize amateurs to manage legal matters.1044
A third criteria advanced for a profession was that its members identify with one another and with the profession as a whole.1045 Such identification involves the inculcation and acceptance of appropriate norms, standards, and values or, as Everett Hughes labels it, the profession’s “culture.”1046 It is this culture, composed of “comparatively clear and controlling group values, behavior norms, and symbols,” which, according to Hughes and others, differentiates professional from non-professional occupations.1047 The professional culture involves the group’s fundamental beliefs, especially the belief in the essential worth of the service that the profession renders the community and usually the belief in the need for a professional monopoly.
The establishment of professional group identity must be, at least in part, directly related to the homogeneity of the occupation in question. By 1760 most lawyers in Massachusetts shared a common educational experience as well as similar ethnic, religious, and social backgrounds. With few exceptions they came from the middle class.1048 After attending either Harvard or Yale, they underwent a period of apprenticeship during which they may have learned some or little about law, but probably much about being a lawyer.1049 From his mentor and his mentor’s associates, the clerk learned the mores, the etiquette, and the technique of a lawyer’s role. Equally important in forming group identity was the very drudgery of legal training. This drudgery, experienced by nearly every clerk, often spurred individual ambition, but also formed a bond or “fellowship of suffering” between members of the bar which provided a foundation for group identity.1050
This basis for professional solidarity was strengthened to some extent by the nature of practice in eighteenth-century Massachusetts. As virtually all of the colony’s lawyers were sole practitioners dependent upon fees from litigation, they were interested in representing as many clients as possible. This naturally bred competition detrimental to group identity, but the effect was mitigated because, as practitioners, the lawyers shared common experiences and problems. Appearing in court together day after day as allies or adversaries, facing the same judges, often sleeping at the same inns and sharing the same table, the lawyers had ample opportunity to get to know one another. While this familiarity did not always lead to esteem or even respect, it did lead to an awareness of shared experiences and difficulties.1051
In the years immediately prior to the American Revolution, the lawyers of Massachusetts faced a variety of mutual problems, ranging from the unhappy quality of some of the inns on the judicial circuit to the bar’s standing in the community. Foremost was the growing competition for clients. While realizing that competition was inevitable, some lawyers felt that it had gotten out of hand and were alarmed at the growing number of young men entering the profession. Furthermore, despite legislation and court orders designed to discourage them, unsworn practitioners carried on a flourishing legal business, taking clients away from regular attorneys and, as far as the bar was concerned, bringing dishonor on the profession.1052
Whether or not this fear of growing competition was exaggerated, it was doubtless the primary motive for the attack on unlicensed practitioners that took place in Suffolk County in the 1760’s. In 1763 the Suffolk County bar proposed several rules to the Suffolk County Court of Common Pleas. The lawyers wanted the court to order: 1) that no general powers of attorney be granted; 2) that no attorney’s fee be taxed, unless the declaration was drawn by the plaintiff or a sworn attorney; 3) that no attendance be taxed unless the plaintiff or a sworn attorney attended personally; and 4) that only sworn attorneys be permitted to practice before the court.1053 The plan failed when James Otis refused to support the motion, believing it to be illegal and unjust. This led the court to declare that it could do nothing unless the bar was unanimous.1054
Otis’ colleagues were outraged by his behavior, and the next year plans were afoot for a meeting of the Suffolk bar to “advise Proper Measures for the Supporte of the Honour of the Barr, and to Prevent Irregular admissions for the Future.”1055 While there is no evidence that the projected meeting ever materialized, attorney James Hovey of Plymouth probably reflected the feeling of many of his colleagues when he proposed that all those recommended to the court as attorneys be graduates of a “Regular Course of Study,” well versed in the law, and ready to “Bare-hard (if need be) against the Pettifogger Tribe in order to Suppress that Growing Evill.”1056 Hovey argued that a lawyer should serve time in the lower courts before being admitted to practice before the Superior Court, and then only if he demonstrated proper character, comradeship, and the will to support the bar against all opposition.1057
25. James Otis, Jr. (1725–1783) by Joseph Blackburn (1755), from a photographic copy, courtesy of the Harvard Law School Art Collection.
It was ironic that James Hovey advanced such proposals. In many ways he was the last of a breed. With no college degree, he had joined the labor force as a joiner, picked up enough scraps of law to initiate a practice, and risen to the position of barrister.1058 Safely within the fold, he sought to exclude others by requiring long periods of training and apprenticeship. Hovey was not blind to this irony and might honestly have desired to improve the character of the bar, but obviously stricter control of entry to the bar was bound to reduce the number of successful aspirants, and, consequently, aid the competitive position of those already within the chosen circle.1059
During the next five years, there were more attempts to restrict the practice of law. In 1765 the lawyers obtained an order from the Superior Court that only attorneys admitted to practice before it could secure blank writs.1060 Two years later the lawyers of the York County Inferior Court, plagued by unsworn competitors, agreed not to enter, argue, or in any way assist in the prosecution of cases where the writs were written by persons not regularly admitted and sworn.1061 The Essex County lawyers agreed to a similar rule in March 1768.1062 In September 1769 they tightened their grip on access to the bar:
It is agreed that we will not take any young gentlemen to study with us, without previously having the consent of the bar of this county; that we will not recommend any persons to be admitted to the Inferior Court, as attorneys, who have not studied with some barrister three years at least, nor as attorneys to the Superior Court, who have not studied as aforesaid, and have been admitted at the Inferior Court, two years at least, nor recommend them as barristers till they have been through the preceding degrees and have been attorneys at the Superior Court two years at the least. . . .1063
While it is true that the lawyers of Essex County drew up guidelines and apparently met on a regular basis, there is little evidence as to the nature of their organization. Consequently, the Suffolk County lawyers are credited with forming the first legal organization in Massachusetts. After a few false starts, and limited to attorneys and barristers of the Superior Court, this body first met at the Bunch of Grapes Tavern in Boston on the evening of 3 January 1770. The thirteen lawyers who attended the meeting voted that the oldest barrister present should preside, that John Adams should serve as secretary, and that all transactions of the society should be kept secret.1064
Although the Suffolk Bar Society dealt with some questions relating to practice, its main concern was controlling admission to the profession. In 1771 the Suffolk bar accepted the educational requirements of the Essex bar with the added stipulation that no young gentleman could even begin legal study unless he had the consent of the bar taken at a general meeting and had a college education or “a liberal education equivalent in the judgment of the bar.”1065 Realizing that such measures would have only limited effect unless instituted throughout the colony, the Suffolk lawyers attempted to contact lawyers in other counties in order “to consult and advise together concerning the general affairs of the profession through the province. . . .”1066
It is difficult to ascertain how much of the impulse in the organizing of the Suffolk Law Society was due to a mutual identification of distinctly occupational interests and commitment to a professional culture, and how much was merely an expression of the urge to socialize. Granting that the founding of the society evidences some professional identification, this identification apparently was, at best, sporadic. John Adams’ minutes of the society’s meetings record sixteen meetings in the five years before the hostilities at Lexington, seven of them in 1770.1067 Attendance probably never exceeded the thirteen present at the first organizational meeting, and twice Adams noted that the gathering was so “thin” that no business could be transacted.1068 While such figures are far from conclusive, they cast doubt on the idea that the formal organization of the Suffolk bar was a strong indication of professional identification. The Suffolk bar also failed to generate enthusiasm for organizing in other counties. With the exception of Essex and perhaps Hampshire there were no other bar associations in colonial Massachusetts.1069 There is no evidence that lawyers in other counties even responded to Suffolk’s attempts at communication.
In fact, although lawyers often wrote to one another concerning specific cases, few of them wrote about the profession itself. When they did, it was usually little more than a passing reference.1070 Of course there were exceptions. James Hovey was one; John Adams, another. Adams deserves special attention in this respect. Too often otherwise cautious historians represent him as a typical colonial lawyer with typical experiences and attitudes. No doubt much of the emphasis on Adams stems from the richness of the primary data relating to him and the general paucity of information that exists in this area, but one suspects that the reliance on Adams also reflects an unconscious urge to find in Adams the symbol of emerging professionalism. There are many weaknesses in such an approach. To depict Adams as a typical Massachusetts lawyer runs the same risks as depicting Jefferson as a typical Virginia planter, or Franklin as a typical Philadelphia printer. Obviously all three men had much in common with their colleagues, but they also differed from them in significant aspects. Adams’ feeling of professional identity may be one of these aspects. It is highly likely that Adams had a professional commitment much deeper than that of most of his colleagues. Yet even his identification was far from complete. While most of his writing seems to indicate a strong devotion to his profession, he had his moments of disenchantment, moments when he was ready to abandon the law for other pursuits.1071
Perhaps the most important aspect of any professional culture is what motivates its members. Ideally, a professional is “service oriented,” which means that actions are based not on self-interest, but on the perceived needs of clients and the good of the community.1072 This service orientation should not be confused with altruism. Professionals seek personal gain as much as those of any other occupational group, but must operate in a different institutional setting.1073 They usually seek at least some professional monopoly and autonomy, specifically sole rights to deliver specific services and rights to determine, at least in part, when, how, and by whom these services should be rendered. While their claim to such privileges could rest on their claim to sole possession of the requisite knowledge, this in itself is unlikely to achieve their desired status. Society must be convinced that the profession will not abuse its privileges. Thus professional altruism really represents a bargain between society and a profession. It is the price a profession must pay for monopoly.1074
On the whole, the regular practitioners in Massachusetts seemed to grasp the idea that their position in society was directly dependent upon their maintaining certain standards of ethics and competence, but this recognition was by no means consistent or universal. Shady dealings by members of the bar were not unknown and two rather common practices did the bar no credit. Lawyers were in the habit of purchasing notes, usually at a discount, and then taking the debtor to court for satisfaction. Less frequent, but more odious, was the behavior of some lawyers in taking “hush money.” After hiring the statutory maximum of two lawyers to present his case, a litigant would pay other prominent attorneys a retainer—“hush money”—not to take his opponent’s case, thus depriving his adversary of his choice of legal counsel.1075
While the members of the pre-Revolutionary Massachusetts bar did virtually nothing to check these abuses, they moved in other ways toward reinforcing the service ideal. Demands for strict educational requirements represent the greatest effort in this respect. Although such demands undoubtedly stemmed, in part, from a desire to reduce competition, they also may have resulted from a sincere intention to improve the quality of the bar and thus, indirectly, to improve the position of individual practitioners.
The apprenticeship system of legal training was better than no training. Yet the apprenticeship stage of legal education may not have been as important in establishing the “character” of the bar as were the four years of required liberal education that preceded it. The liberal education that the few colonial colleges offered was designed to instill in their students the values of a gentleman, especially those of virtue and public service.1076 By restricting the supply of new lawyers to such a source, the colonial bar may have assumed that the bar’s character inevitably must improve. Such a faith in liberal education arguably did away with the need for a formal code of ethics for the colonial Massachusetts bar. Establishing such formal rules would have been tantamount to denying a lawyer’s status as a gentleman.1077
The attack on pettifoggers in the early 1760’s, originating in part from a desire to reduce competition, also represented a sincere effort on the part of some lawyers to rid the colony of what they considered a real evil. John Adams set the tone, blaming the “dirty, quacking practice” for multiplying lawsuits, propagating a “brawling, wrangling Temper,” and leading to the destruction of honest men.1078 The bar’s foray against pettifoggers, couched as it was in terms of public service, was a justification for its claim to a monopoly of legal services which it hoped would result.
Success was impossible unless individual lawyers united behind the effort. Such unity was not forthcoming in the 1760’s. James Otis’ violent opposition to the anti-pettifogger resolutions is a case in point. According to John Adams’ jaundiced view, Otis originated the proposals in order to force some of the pettifoggers to work for him and only opposed them to “save his popularity, with the Constables, Justices Story and Ruddock & Co. and Pettifoggers of the town, and with pettifoggers that he uses as tools and Mirmidons in the House.”1079 If Otis did hope to use pettifoggers as “underworkers” to help him in his practice, he was not alone. Several leading lights of the bar apparently employed unsworn attorneys to assist with their business.1080
Unable to present a united front, the Massachusetts lawyers were hamstrung in their pursuit of the “ultimate value for self-identified members of an occupational category—autonomy in their own affairs.”1081 Although they attempted to control education, admission to practice, and the norms of practice, the bar found that it had to share this control with the provincial legislature and judiciary. The bar could set educational requirements, but the courts could and did swear in uneducated attorneys. The bar could recommend young men to practice, but the courts made the final decision. The court could disbar lawyers without the bar’s consent.1082 The fee table was in the hands of the legislature.1083 By 1770 the Massachusetts bar had won a certain degree of autonomy in its own affairs, but this autonomy was tenuous at best and subject to strains and tensions.
The failure to gain autonomy, the uncertain struggles against the pettifoggers, and the halting movement toward better education and organization highlight the degree to which Massachusetts lawyers in the decades immediately prior to the American Revolution defy definition, at least as a collective body, in modern professional terms. Professional practices and attitudes were riddled with exceptions and qualifications. Too often the process of professionalization has been depicted as a professionally attuned leadership driving a less enlightened membership from one discernible professional plateau to another.1084 Whether or not this has been true in recent times, it simply was not the case in eighteenth-century Massachusetts. Not only was the professional impetus spread unevenly among Massachusetts lawyers, but certain individuals were more “professional” in some aspects of their business than in others. Leaders in some areas of professionalization were laggards in others. Otis, the erudite lawyer, allegedly encouraged uneducated amateurs as “underworked.” Benjamin Kent, who presided over meetings of the Suffolk bar, reputedly ignored the interest of his clients.1085 If these lawyers were part professionals, they also were part free-wheeling legal entrepreneurs.
APPENDIX I
Occupation and Education of Judges of the Massachusetts Superior Court: 1692–1774
| Name | Term | Education | Years on Inf. Ct. | Occupation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
William Stoughton |
C.J. 1692–1701 |
*H.C. (1650) |
Minister |
|
|
Thomas Dan forth |
J. 1692–1699 |
Gentleman |
||
|
Waite Winthrop |
J. 1692–1701 |
Physician |
||
|
C.J. 1701 |
||||
|
C.J. 1708–1717 |
||||
|
John Richards |
J. 1692–1694. |
Merchant |
||
|
Samuel Sewall |
J. 1692–1718 |
H.C. (1671) |
Minister |
|
|
C.J. 1718–1728 |
||||
|
Elisha Cooke |
J. 1695–1702 |
H.C. (1657) |
Physician |
|
|
C.J. 1703–1708 |
||||
|
John Walley |
J. 1700–1712 |
Soldier |
||
|
John Saffin |
J. 1701–1702 |
|||
|
Isaac Addington |
C.J. 1702–1703 |
9 years |
Physician |
|
|
John Hawthorne |
J. 1702–1712 |
|||
|
John Leverett |
J. 1702–1708 |
H.C. (1680) |
||
|
Jonathan Curwin |
J. 1708–1715 |
16 years |
Merchant |
|
|
J. 1712–1728 |
H.C. (1686) |
Barrister |
||
|
C.J. 1728–1745 |
||||
|
Nathaniel Thomas |
J. 1712–1718 |
10 years |
||
|
Addington Davenport |
J. 1715–1736 |
H.C. (1689) |
Barrister |
|
|
Edmund Quincy |
J. 1718–1745 |
H.C. (1699) |
Gentleman |
|
|
Paul Dudley |
J. 1718–1745 |
H.C. (1690) |
Barrister |
|
|
C.J. 1745–1751 |
||||
|
John Cushing |
J. 1728–1733 |
26 years |
||
|
Jonathan Remington |
J. 1733–1745 |
H.C. (1696) |
18 years |
Tavern keeper; part-time lawyer |
|
Richard Saltonstall |
J. 1736–1756 |
H.C. (1722) |
Gentleman |
|
|
Thomas Graves |
J. 1738–1739 |
H.C. (1703) |
5 years |
Physician |
|
Stephen Sewall |
J. 1739–1752 |
H.C.(1721) |
Tutor at H.C. |
|
|
C.J. 1752–1760 |
||||
|
Nathaniel Hubbard |
J. 1745–1747 |
H.C. (1698) |
17 years |
|
|
Benjamin Lynde, Jr. |
J. 1746–1771 |
H.C. (1718) |
7 years |
Gentleman |
|
C.J. 1771–1772 |
||||
|
John Cushing, Jr. |
J. 1748–1771 |
8 years |
||
|
Chambers Russell |
J. 1752–1766 |
H.C. (1730) |
5 years |
Gentleman |
|
Peter Oliver |
J. 1756–1772 |
H.C.(1730) |
9 years |
Merchant |
|
C.J. 1772–1775 |
||||
|
Thomas Hutchinson |
C.J. 1760–1771 |
H.C. (1727) |
6 years |
Merchant |
|
Edmund Trowbridge |
J. 1767–1775 |
H.C. (1728) |
Lawyer |
|
|
Foster Hutchinson |
J. 1771–1775 |
H.C. (1743) |
13 years |
Merchant |
|
Nathaniel Ropes |
J. 1772–1774 |
H.C.(1745) |
11 years |
Merchant |
|
William Browne |
J. 1774–1775 |
H.C. (1775) |
4 years |
Gentleman |
|
William Cushing |
J. 1774–1775 |
H.C. (1751) |
Lawyer |
* Harvard College and class hereafter represented as “H.C. (class year).”
APPENDIX II
Professional Choices of Harvard Graduates: 1642–1760
Table A
Professional Choices of Harvard Graduates: 1642–1760
| Year | Graduates | Law (%) | Medicine (%) | Ministry (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1642 |
9 |
2 (22.2) |
4 (44.4) |
|
|
1643 |
4 |
3 (75.0) |
||
|
1644 |
None |
|||
|
1645 |
7 |
4 (57.1) |
||
|
1646 |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
2 (50.0) |
|
|
1647 |
7 |
5 (71.4) |
||
|
1648 |
None |
|||
|
1649 |
5 |
4 (80.0) |
||
|
1650 |
9 |
5 (55.5) |
||
|
1651 |
10 |
5 (50.0) |
||
|
1652 |
1 |
1 (100.0) |
||
|
1653 |
17 |
8 (47.1) |
||
|
1654 |
1 |
|||
|
1655 |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
||
|
1656 |
8 |
1 (12.5) |
7 (87.5) |
|
|
1657 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
5 (71.4) |
|
|
1658 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
5 (71.4) |
|
|
1659 |
10 |
1 (10.0) |
6 (60.0) |
|
|
1660 |
8 |
2 (25.0) |
||
|
1661 |
12 |
2 (16.7) |
4 (33.3) |
|
|
1662 |
6 |
1 (16.7) |
2 (33.3) |
|
|
1663 |
6 |
3 (50.0) |
||
|
1664 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
4 (57.1) |
|
|
1665 |
8 |
3 (37.5) |
||
|
1666 |
4 |
1 (25.0) |
1 (25.0) |
|
|
1667 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
4 (57.0) |
|
|
1668 |
5 |
3 (60.0) |
||
|
1669 |
10 |
1 (10.0) |
7 (70.0) |
|
|
1670 |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
||
|
1671 |
11 |
7 (63.6) |
||
|
1672 |
None |
|||
|
1673 |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
||
|
1674 |
||||
|
9 |
1 (11.1) |
6 (66.6) |
||
|
1676 |
3 |
2 (66.6) |
||
|
1677 |
6 |
4 (66.6) |
||
|
1678 |
4 |
3 (75.0) |
||
|
1679 |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
||
|
1680 |
5 |
1 (20.0) |
3 (60.0) |
|
|
1681 |
9 |
1 (11.1) |
4 (444) |
|
|
1682 |
None |
|||
|
1683 |
3 |
3 (100.0) |
||
|
1684 |
9 |
7 (77.7) |
||
|
1685 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
5 (35.7) |
|
|
1686 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
2 (28.6) |
|
|
1687 |
11 |
1 (9.1) |
6 (54.5) |
|
|
1688 |
None |
|||
|
1689 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
1 (7.1) |
6 (42.8) |
|
1690 |
23 |
1 (4.3) |
13 (56.5) |
|
|
1691 |
8 |
5 (62.5) |
||
|
1692 |
8 |
4 (50.0) |
||
|
1693 |
16 |
2 (12.5) |
11 (68.9) |
|
|
1694 |
8 |
5 (62.5) |
||
|
1695 |
23 |
2 (8.7) |
3 (13.0) |
9 (39.1) |
|
1696 |
9 |
1 (11.1) |
1 (11.1) |
5 (55.5) |
|
1697 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
1 (7.1) |
10 (71.4) |
|
1698 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
7 (50.0) |
|
|
1699 |
12 |
7 (58.3) |
||
|
1700 |
15 |
1 (6.7) |
8 (53.3) |
|
|
1701 |
19 |
9 (474) |
||
|
1702 |
14 |
4 (28.6) |
||
|
1703 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
9 (64.3) |
|
|
1704 |
5 |
1 (20.0) |
1 (20.0) |
2 (40.0) |
|
1705 |
11 |
1 (9.1) |
6 (54.6) |
|
|
1706 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
5 (714) |
|
|
1707 |
19 |
1 (5.3) |
1 (5.3) |
11 (57.9) |
|
1708 |
13 |
1 (7.7) |
8 (61.5) |
|
|
1709 |
10 |
6 (60.0) |
||
|
1710 |
14 |
1 (7.1) |
9 (64.3) |
|
|
1711 |
12 |
5 (41.7) |
||
|
1712 |
20 |
1 (5.0) |
6 (30.0) |
|
|
1713 |
6 |
2 (33.3) |
||
|
1714 |
11 |
1 (9.1) |
6 (54.6) |
|
|
20 |
1 (5.0) |
9 (45.0) |
||
|
1716 |
8 |
1 (12.5) |
3 (37.5) |
|
|
1717 |
17 |
1 (5.9) |
10 (58.8) |
|
|
1718 |
23 |
1 (4.3) |
2 (8.7) |
5 (21.7) |
|
1719 |
27 |
2 (7.4) |
15 (55.6) |
|
|
1720 |
21 |
1 (4.8) |
1 (4.8) |
16 (76.2) |
|
1721 |
31 |
1 (3.2) |
3 (9.7) |
19 (61.3) |
|
1722 |
32 |
3 (9.3) |
1 (3.1) |
9 (28.1) |
|
1723 |
43 |
1 (2.3) |
1 (2.3) |
18 (41.9) |
|
1724 |
40 |
5 (12.5) |
16 (40.0) |
|
|
1725 |
49 |
1 (2.0) |
7 (14.3) |
20 (40.8) |
|
1726 |
34 |
1 (2.9) |
7 (20.6) |
8 (23.5) |
|
1727 |
37 |
1 (2.7) |
1 (2.7) |
6 (16.2) |
|
1728 |
48 |
2 (4.2) |
2 (4.2) |
15 (31.3) |
|
1729 |
28 |
1 (3.6) |
2 (7.1) |
12 (42.9) |
|
1730 |
33 |
1 (3.0) |
2 (6.1) |
15 (45.5) |
|
1731 |
34 |
5 (14.7) |
13 (38.2) |
|
|
1732 |
27 |
1 (3.7) |
2 (7.4) |
11 (40.7) |
|
1733 |
39 |
2 (5.1) |
1 (2.6) |
17 (43.6) |
|
1734 |
27 |
1 (3.7) |
4 (14.8) |
9 (33.3) |
|
1735 |
38 |
2 (5.3) |
4 (10.5) |
12 (31.6) |
|
1736 |
31 |
3 (9.7) |
10 (32.3) |
|
|
1737 |
32 |
2 (6.3) |
5 (15.6) |
17 (53.1) |
|
1738 |
35 |
3 (8.6) |
4 (11.4) |
12 (34.3) |
|
1739 |
32 |
2 (6.3) |
5 (15.6) |
9 (28.1) |
|
1740 |
23 |
6 (26.1) |
||
|
1741 |
25 |
2 (8.0) |
12 (48.0) |
|
|
1742 |
26 |
2 (7.7) |
6 (23.1) |
|
|
1743 |
31 |
3 (9.7) |
4 (12.9) |
11 (35.5) |
|
1744 |
30 |
4 (13.3) |
9 (30.0) |
|
|
1745 |
24 |
1 (4.2) |
1 (4.2) |
6 (25.0) |
|
1746 |
12 |
1 (8.3) |
4 (33.3) |
3 (25.0) |
|
1747 |
29 |
1 (3.4) |
7 (24.1) |
10 (34.5) |
|
1748 |
24 |
2 (8.3) |
3 (12.5) |
8 (33.3) |
|
1749 |
22 |
1 (4.5) |
3 (13.6) |
7 (31.8) |
|
1750 |
19 |
1 (5.3) |
2 (10.5) |
7 (36.8) |
|
1751 |
35 |
7 (20.0) |
3 (8.6) |
10 (28.6) |
|
1752 |
30 |
2 (6.7) |
4 (13.3) |
15 (50.0) |
|
1753 |
17 |
1 (5.9) |
1 (5.9) |
7 (41.2) |
|
1754 |
20 |
1 (5.0) |
4 (20.0) |
9 (45.0) |
|
1755 |
24 |
3 (12.5) |
2 (8.3) |
9 (37.5) |
|
1756 |
25 |
2 (8.0) |
4 (16.0) |
4 (16.0) |
|
1757 |
26 |
4 (15.4) |
4 (15.4) |
6 (23.1) |
|
1758 |
32 |
1 (3.1) |
3 (9.3) |
12 (37.5) |
|
35 |
2 (5.7) |
4 (11.4) |
15 (42.9) |
|
|
1760 |
26 |
4 (15.4) |
3 (11.5) |
10 (38.5) |
Source: Sibley and Shipton, Harvard Graduates, i–xiv.
Table B
Professional Choices of Harvard Graduates: 1696–1760
Percent Per Five Year Period
| Years | Graduates | Law (%) | Medicine (%) | Ministry (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1696–1700 |
64 |
2 (3.1) |
4 (6.3) |
37 (57.8) |
|
1701–1705 |
63 |
2 (3.2) |
2 (3.2) |
30 (47.6) |
|
1706–1710 |
63 |
2 (3.2) |
2 (3.2) |
39 (61.9) |
|
1711–1715 |
69 |
3 (4.3) |
28 (40.6) |
|
|
1716–1720 |
96 |
2 (2.1) |
7 (7.3) |
49 (51.0) |
|
1721–1725 |
195 |
6 (3.1) |
17 (8.7) |
82 (42.1) |
|
1726–1730 |
180 |
6 (3.3) |
14 (7.8) |
56 (31.1) |
|
1731–1735 |
165 |
11 (6.7) |
11 (6.7) |
62 (37.6) |
|
1736–1740 |
153 |
7 (4.6) |
17 (11.1) |
54 (35.3) |
|
1741–1745 |
136 |
4 (2.9) |
13 (9.6) |
44 (32.3) |
|
1746–1750 |
106 |
6 (5.7) |
19 (17.9) |
35 (33.0) |
|
1751–1755 |
126 |
14 (11.1) |
14 (11.1) |
50 (39.7) |
|
1756–1760 |
144 |
13 (9.0) |
18 (12.5) |
47 (32.6) |
Source: Sibley and Shipton, Harvard Graduates, iv–xiv.
APPENDIX III
Geographical Distribution of the Three Classes of Massachusetts Lawyers in 1775, Together with Loyalty Patterns by Geographical Area and Age
For a detailed analysis, see McKirdy, “A Bar Divided: The Lawyers of Massachusetts and the American Revolution,” American Journal of Legal History, xvi (1972), 205.
Table A
Geographical Distribution of the Three Classes of Massachusetts Lawyers
| Maine (12.3%)a | North (19.8%) | Suffolk (19.8%) | West (33.3%) | South (14.8%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sup. Ct. Bar. |
5 (12.2)b |
10 (24.4) |
11 (26.8) |
8 (19.5) |
7 (17.1) |
|
Sup. Ct. Att. |
0 |
1 (10.0)c |
1 (10.0) |
6 (60.0) |
2 (20.0) |
|
Inf. Ct. Att. |
5 (16.7)d |
5 (16.7) |
4 (13.3) |
13 (43.3) |
3 (10.0) |
a Percent of total lawyers in Massachusetts in 1775 (taking 81 lawyers as 100%).
b Percent of total barristers in Massachusetts in 1775 (taking 41 as 100%).
c Percent of Superior Court attorneys in Massachusetts in 1775 (taking 10 as 100%).
d Percent of Inferior Court attorneys in Massachusetts in 1775 (taking 30 as 100%)
Table B
Loyalty Patterns of the Three Classes of Massachusetts Lawyers by Geographical Area: 1775
| Maine | North | Suffolk | West | South | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ta | P | T | P | T | P | T | P | T | P | |
|
Sup. Ct. Bar. |
1 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
Sup. Ct. Att. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
Inf. Ct. Att. |
0 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
a T represents those lawyers who were Loyalists; P represents those who were rebels. Neutral lawyers or those of unknown loyalty are not represented in the table.
Loyalty Patterns of the Three Classes of Massachusetts Lawyers by Age: 1775
| Age Group | 25–35 | 36–45 | 46–55 | 56–65 | Over 65 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyalty | Ta | P | T | P | T | P | T | P | T | P |
|
Sup. Ct. Bar. |
7 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
Sup. Ct. Att. |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Inf. Ct. Att. |
2 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
a Neutral lawyers or those of unknown loyalty are not represented in this table.
APPENDIX IV
Biographical Sketches of Lawyers Practicing in Massachusetts in 1775
