I absolutely agree that some case files are extremely important 
historical documents.  I've had occasion to see some examples from the 
files of Thurgood Marshall, and I thought it was an exceptional 
opportunity to peek into history.   That may even be true when the 
subject matter is pretty mundane. There's a collection of letters 
between an English husband and wife dating back to the 1500s in which 
they chitchat about their daily doings when they are apart.  I've read 
parts of it, and if you're interested in history, and the lives of 
people in the past, it makes very interesting reading indeed.

That said, a couple of points: First, it's only a small fraction of case 
files that have that quality, as is the case with virtually any kind of 
record. Your average contract negotiation, divorce or other legal action 
will be extremely routine, and contain virtually nothing that's terribly 
interesting or distinguishable from other cases of its kind.   I should 
think that an archivist contemplating taking possession of a mass of 
legal files would want to do some pretty careful cherry picking in order 
to find the things that are either historically important, factually 
interesting or otherwise noteworthy.

Second, I don't think that was ever proper for a lawyer to divulge the 
confidences and secrets of their client, even 100 years ago. That's a 
duty that is as old as the legal profession, which as we know is the 
second oldest profession in the world. I think that a few things are at 
work here: First I think that when the file gets to a certain age people 
tend to think the rules don't apply anymore, even though I've never seen 
any ethics authority of any age from any place that states that there is 
a time limit. Second, these archival accessions are often the case of 
somebody's executor trying to figure out what they should do with old 
case files after the lawyer dies and isn't in a position to advise them 
on ethics matters. If the executor is not a lawyer themselves, they're 
probably not thinking about these things. And, back in the old days, I 
think it was the tendency for prominent lawyers to regard themselves as 
historical figures of a sort, and rather above these mundane 
considerations and for others to see them likewise. So, the combination 
of factors tended to cause folks to arrive at the conclusion that the 
client file had somehow evolved from a client file to a generally 
historical document subject to different rules.

As far as a public policy of turning them into public records goes, 
there's probably something to be said for that. In a lot of places in a 
lot of circumstances, classified documents are declassified after some 
period of time during which it is presumed that everybody that would be  
personally involved in or embarrassed by the events documented has died. 
Thus, in Great Britain, they've just in the last few years declassified 
a great many sensitive documents relating to World War II, much to the 
delight of historians. You could certainly do something of the same sort 
with lawyer case files by passing the needed law and shielding lawyers, 
archivists and others from liability, but I don't think anybody has in 
this country.
-- 
Best regards,

John
John Montaña
Montaña & Associates
29 Parsons Road
Landenberg Pennsylvania 19350
610-255-1588
484-653-8422 mobile
[log in to unmask]
www.montana-associates.com
twitter: @johncmontana





Scott, Paul (ITC) wrote:
>
> While I shall not gainsay John's opinion that most legal files are on the whole boring and transitory, some are highly relevant to the development of 20th Century society.  Think the Civil Rights Movement, the oil business, the entertainment industry and other important human pursuits that must be squared with the law.
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]