History and the Law: A Panel Discussion
On Wednesday, February 24, 2024, the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest, in collaboration with the Villanova History Department introduced the new History Pre-Law Concertation by hosting a panel conversation that focused on American legal history and the value of studying history to the practice of law. The event featured Ellen Ratigan, JD, Assistant General Counsel, Dechert LLP; Jessica Webb, professor of Law at the Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova University, and Abel Garza, JD, adjunct instructor at both the Charles Widger School of Law and the Villanova University College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The event was moderated by Dr. Elizabeth Kolsky, Associate Professor of History of Villanova University.
As Villanova’s history department launches the new History Pre-Law Concentration, the recent event allowed students of history to discover the important overlap between history and the law. Each panelist brought a unique perspective to the intersection of history and law. Ellen Ratigan spoke as a practicing lawyer, presenting her own story of professional development from her undergraduate degree in history, through law school and her years clerking for circuit courts to her present work as assistant general counsel for the legal firm, Dechert LLP. Professors Abel Garza and Jessica Webb contributed an academic perspective, drawing on their experience as graduates of and professors at Villanova University’s Widger School of Law. Students asked practical questions about law school and the legal profession, while the panelists demonstrated the value of history, its methods and content, for understanding and practicing law.
All three panelists agreed that methods of historical study are a good foundation for legal practice. Ms. Ratigan related that the skills she developed in her bachelor’s degree in history transferred seamlessly into her practice of law. “You are learning analytical skills, reading comprehension, you’re doing a lot of reading, you’re doing research into various different sources,” said Ratigan, “and then you’re putting together the pieces of the argument, your thesis.”[1] She found this is as true for a historical research project as a legal brief. Professor Garza echoed Ms. Ratigan, describing how in the practice of history as in law “you research, you create conclusions, you try to support those conclusions with evidence and your own interpretations, and you make a theory.”
Professor Webb went on to emphasize how the history of judicial rulings and historical research methods are useful for understanding law, especially the judicial decision-making process. While acknowledged that judges in lower courts may be able to decide uncontroversial cases by formulaic applications of laws, Professor Webb went on to argue that there comes a point when cases become too complex such that they can no longer be decided objectively. This happens most visibly at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Professor Webb, in these cases, “judges’ own personal privileges, prejudices, and personal experiences come into play in the decision-making process.” These prejudices are always formed by the historical context in which the judge lived and thus must be understood through historical study.
Beyond using history to understand the prejudices of judges, Professor Webb also presented scenarios in which justices continue to employ past judicial decisions in contemporary decision-making processes. For example, in the 1954 decision, Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared the Jim Crow era precedent of “separate but equal” unconstitutional. Then in 1978, the Supreme Court used the Brown v. Board decision as a precedent to rule in the Bakke decision, which struck down university admissions departments’ use of strict racial quotes in deciding who to admit to college, even as it upheld the use of race as one criterion that could be considered by college admissions committees. The Bakke decision thus allowed for the practice race-based of affirmative action — that set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful, racial discrimination, past and present, via college admissions.[2] Finally, in 2023, in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, the Supreme Court declared race-based affirmative action unconstitutional, even as both sides argued from the precedent of Brown v. Board.
Similarly, Professor Garza presented how differing interpretations of the past have been central to the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding abortion. The justices that decided Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision found the right to an abortion constitutional — reviewed the nation’s past and found precedents for abortion rights in English common law, and other U.S., legal traditions. However, in last year’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the court re-interpreted U.S. history and found that abortion rights were not deeply rooted in this nation’s traditions, and thus ruled that Roe V. Wade was incorrect in its previous understanding of the constitutionality of abortion.
As the above examples indicate, history is particularly important for the practice of civil rights law. According to Professor Webb, lawyers who know the history of the suppression of civil rights in our country are best prepared to make arguments in contemporary civil rights cases. Extending from this insight, a student in the audience asked the panelists about the practicality of practicing civil rights law. Professor Garza provided the important insight that after law school, lawyers often must pay off student debts, meaning that they will usually begin their career in a large firm. However, both he and Ms. Ratigan described the opportunity to do pro bono work working in a large firm offers. Pro bono (literally translated from Latin as “for the public good”) work allows lawyers to continue to work and make money while providing legal services for free. Working pro bono allowed Dr. Garza to litigate immigration cases and Ms. Ratigan to defend a prisoner in a retaliation case.
Students’ questions concerned practical considerations of going to law school and practicing law. The panelists agreed that there can be value in students taking a gap year between undergrad and law school to assess if legal study is the right path for them. Professor Garza emphasized that a gap year should be used to work and gain valuable experience, which might set students apart in future interviews for jobs, and that a gap year should not be used as a vacation. The panelists were joined by Associate Director of Admissions at Villanova’s law school, Susanna Warren to answer what makes a successful law school application. Ms. Warren concurred with the panelists that alongside LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA, law school admissions departments look at the applicant’s community involvement and volunteer and professional experiences to get an idea of the prospective law student’s passions and motivations for pursuing a legal career.
When asked about law students and lawyers’ quality of life, Ms. Ratigan informed students that not all law schools have equally competitive learning environments and that they can look for less competitive academic cultures by finding law schools that do not post class rank and GPAs. Both Professor Garza and Professor Webb corroborated this as they both found their experience at Villanova’s law school a collaborative and encouraging experience. Again, Ms. Ratigan described how having strong work-life boundaries has afforded her not only sustainability but also happiness as a lawyer. By discussing the practicalities of applying and attending law school, and what students can expect from a legal career, this event showcased the deep connections between historical and legal study and the value of VU’s new History Pre-Law Concentration.
[1] Ellen Ratigan at the History and the Law: A Panel Discussion. All quotations are from the event unless otherwise stated.
[2] “Affirmative Action,” LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed March 1, 2024, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action.
