COURT SYSTEMS AND LAWdisputes brought to lawyers are settled with vary-
ing degrees of satisfaction, lawyers often function-
ing to persuade the aggrieved that they should
accept a settlement and move along with their
lives. Whether persons are willing to pursue a
grievance depends on technology and the ability
to find a causal agent, as well as the existence of
such legal devices as no-fault automobile insur-
ance or divorce, which have the effect of diverting
cases out of the legal system (see Kritzer, Bogart,
and Vidmar 1991). Some countries, such as many
on the European continent, have special labor
tribunals and other systems that also divert cases
out of what would, in the United States, be a legal
case. The United States has fewer such alternative
forums than is the case in the civil law world.
Jacob (1996, p. 52) speculates that the United
States is, perhaps, more a nation of strangers,
leading to a greater willingness to pursue disputes
than is the case in countries with a stronger sense
of community. In general, it may be said that the
closer persons are, whether as family, neighbors or
co-religionists, the less likely are they to sue one
another. On the other hand, that does not mean
there are fewer conflicts in such groups. Rather,
there are internal mechanisms for settling them
within such groups.
A final point about common law systems that
contrasts with civil law systems is the widespread
availability of appeal, particularly within the judi-
cial systems. Although much of this is perfunctory
and may involve little more than an attempt to
satisfy clients with the appeals court routinely
affirming the lower court, still appeal is possible,
much more so than in civil law countries. Appel-
late judges often lack experience and are not
required to have experience as trial judges. In
some cases, judges have discretion on whether to
hear an appeal, leading to selection of cases that
may be controversial or present novel points of
law. The extreme is presented by the U. S. Su-
preme Court which, in the 1990s, has elected to
consider around 100 out of some 5,000 cases
presented to it, usually reserving to hear constitu-
tional cases and conflicts between the states or
foreign governments. It is difficult to assess the
impact of appeals on the civil or criminal process.
Unlike trial judges, appeals judges do not merely
decide cases but also give reasons. Such reasons
are often examined by elite lawyers and are now
routinely discussed in the ‘‘legal’’ columns of popu-
lar magazines. It is not clear that the reasons affect
policy in any obvious way. But the language of the
court enters common discourse and affects think-
ing. School boards, church councils, Boy Scout
boards, and even teachers’ decisions on classroom
discipline become legalistic, with persons being
given notice of charges, given chances to answer,
and allowed to bring witnesses in their defense. In
the United States, as in common law countries, the
law seems to be everywhere (Galanter 1983), even
if not formally invoked.THE CIVIL LAW TRADITIONIn drawing comparisons between the common law
and civil law traditions, it is important not to
dismiss variations as due simply to ‘‘historical ex-
perience’’ or to even vaguer influence of ‘‘cul-
ture.’’ History and culture are, of course, operative
at all times, but we seek not simply a description
but a sociological explanation. We must begin with
the recognition of what Zweigert and Kotz (1987)
call ‘‘functionalism.’’ By that they mean that all
legal systems deal with generally similar problems
as, say, medical systems do. Whether the society
employs witchcraft, herbs, appeals to the gods,
leeches, hot baths, or Western-style x-rays and
surgery, they all deal with illnesses of the body. So,
too, legal systems concern themselves with trouble
presented by the fact that humans live in society
and must deal with each other. In Chiangmai,
Thailand, for example, it is not surprising to find
that three main classes of law suits appear: crimes
as offenses against public order or the state, which
are dealt with seriously by the courts; private wrongs,
such as those arising from marital disputes, which
are settled by negotiation; and those conflicts
involving contracts and property rights, which are
settled by careful examination of written and espe-
cially certified documents (Engel 1978). The de-
tails are indeed ‘‘cultural,’’ involving what Watson
(1977) speaks of as ‘‘legal transplants,’’ by which a
society adopts some procedure borrowed from
another society because it is accessible, written in a
language the elite can read (such as Latin for
Roman law), or more commonly simply the law of
a conquering power as with England or India. One
wastes one’s time if one looks for rational reasons
or tries to account for such transplants on grounds
of ‘‘efficiency,’’ although often people come to