Talk:Samuel Mattocks

Lawyer cat

He is in this category "Vermont state court judges" which if you check (because every judge is a lawyer because lawyer means learned in the law) is a sub cat of Vermont lawyers. That is, he is already in the lawyer category tree, which means he should be moved down to the city/lawyer cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Mattocks was not a lawyer

@Aboutmovies: Most judges in early Vermont were not lawyers - the lawyers had all been trained in England, or were loyal to the British government, or both. The reason Vermont had (and still has) assistant judges who are usually laypeople stems from that distrust of lawyers. See The Vermont Papers: Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale by Frank Bryan and John McClaughry, pages 110 to 112. Also The Bill of Rights and the States, pages 206-207. Also the Stephen Row Bradley entry on page 152 pf the Connecticut Biographical Dictionary. Also page 78 of Judging Credentials: Nonlawyer Judges and the Politics of Professionalism by Doris Marie Provine.

Billmckern (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have such an ownership issue with your article. As Lawyer tells us: "A lawyer or attorney is a person who practices law, as an advocate, attorney, attorney at law, barrister, barrister-at-law, bar-at-law, counsel, counselor, counsellor, counselor at law, solicitor, or public servant preparing, interpreting and/or applying law[.]" (emphasis added). That is, judges of all types are lawyers because they are "applying law". Many judgeships at the municipal level do not require the judges to be members of the bar. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aboutmovies: Your argument is ridiculous. "Lawyer" or "Attorney" clearly means you have training as a lawyer and a license to practice law. Election or appointment to a legal position, even a judgeship, does not automatically or magically make you a lawyer. If it did, historians wouldn't spend so much time and effort chronicling Vermont's history with lay judges, and every town justice in New York who's not an attorney when he's elected would automatically receive a law license.

Billmckern (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not my argument, it is literally from the lede of the Wikipedia article. And, this is and was very common back before law schools, and would have no relationship as to why people study Vermont's history. As both a historian and a licensed attorney, whether or not being elected or appointed to a judgeship made you a lawyer or not would not cause myself to put extra effort into the topic. Nor would election cause them to get a law license, as those did not exist back then. You did what we call read law and then went to the local court and asked them if you could practice law (literally at what we call the bar in the courtroom, thus passing the bar). As to modern times, it still would not result in licensure, though honestly there would rarely be a time when someone not already admitted to practice would become a judge. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears you were in the Army, I will use an example you may be familiar with. If you are an engineer in the Army, are you an engineer? Outside of the Army you are not unless you have your PE license from your local state. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aboutmovies:You're making MY argument now. Reading law resulted and results in an examination by a judge or a panel of bar examiners so the student can demonstrate proficiency and then receive a license to practice. Serving in an office that is usually filled by an attorney does not automatically make you a lawyer. In fact, Vermont's first 12 or so supreme court justices were all laymen, and none of them became lawyers simply by having served on the bench.

In Vermont's early years (and in the early years of several other former colonies, too), lawyers were either disbarred or scrutinized closely because they had all been trained in England or by American lawyers who had been trained in England, or had been loyal to the British government. The lack of attorneys is why so many judges in early Vermont were laymen, not lawyers. It's also why Vermont allowed for two elected side judges to sit with the presiding judge in civil cases -- to have a control over the newly-trained lawyers who were beginning to ascend the bench.

To this day, almost all side judges in Vermont are laymen, as are some probate court judges. Many town justices in New York are not lawyers. In no case does serving in a judicial position automatically make them attorneys. Hell, Vermont has no qualifications mandated for the position of state attorney general. It's never happened that a non-lawyer has won the job, but it's possible, and if it did happen, serving as AG wouldn't automatically turn a non-lawyer into one.

And no, serving in an Engineer Branch position in the Army doesn't automatically qualify you as an engineer. Engineering in the uniformed Army isn't the same as professional engineering as it's practiced by the Army Corps of Engineers or licensed engineers generally. Army engineering is concerned with tasks related to mobility, counter-mobility, survivability. Mobility includes things like quick road construction or temporary bridges that enables troops to get from place to place. Counter-mobility means preventing an adversary from easily moving, such as by destroying bridges or emplacing obstacles in roads. Survivability enables troops to withstand enemy fire during battle - for example, digging positions for tanks that leave the turret and main gun high enough for the tank crew to shoot, while the hull of the tank is protected because it's below ground. Those tasks are completely different from the work performed by licensed engineers, and you don't automatically become an engineer just because you're trained to do them.

Billmckern (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)