Daniel P. Johnson

2023 Temple Bar Scholar

On October 2, 2023, the legal leadership of England and Wales gathered in Westminster Abbey to mark the start of a new legal year. This annual tradition dates back to the Middle Ages, when English judges—then presiding in Westminster Hall—would seek wisdom in prayer at the Abbey. Continuing the custom, Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor, urged the assembled judges and lawyers to pursue wisdom and knowledge in their duties, reading from Proverbs 8:1–17. The new Chief Justice of England and Wales, Sue Carr, followed, encouraging the congregation to seek truth and excellence in their practice, drawing on Philippians 4:4–9. Adorned in official regalia, the judges and lawyers of England and Wales closely followed the service. Yet all the ceremonial formalities did not obscure the true nature of the circumstance: a simple gathering to reflect on what it means to administer Justice in the coming year.

In many respects, the ceremony reflects the best of the American bond with English law. The application of acquired wisdom and the search for truth, in law and fact, are at the center of our shared common-law heritage. Our nation’s founders studied—and found inspiration in—the high ideals that still underpin the English legal tradition. It is no coincidence that some of the most famous opinions in American legal history, from Chief Justice Marshall’s 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison to Justice Jackson’s 1952 Youngstown concurrence, looked to English commentaries or British practice in their analyses. For centuries, the integrity, competency, and impartiality of English justice has been widely admired. And today, 32 jurisdictions—including 11 independent nations—choose British judges to sit on their court of last resort as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As at the founding of our country, there remains a great deal to learn from the skill and professionalism of the U.K.’s judiciary. Beginning the new legal year in the storied Abbey fit the character of the attendants’ well-earned reputations.

At the same time, the tradition reminded its U.S. observers of the breaks from the English legal tradition that make our system distinctly American. Arguments in the new legal year of the U.S. Supreme Court would start just a few hours after the Westminster service. But—though a benediction may mark the solemnity of some official events—the new U.S. term would not be delineated with a service of a state religion. The responsibility for the independence and efficiency of the federal judiciary is not vested in the hands of a legislative officeholder, like the Lord Chancellor. Our judiciary is an independent and coequal branch of government, in contrast to the English doctrine of “Parliamentary supremacy.” And, of course, our judges do not sing “God Save the King,” even if they stay to its melody in “My Country, ’Tis of Thee.”

With the Westminster service setting the stage, the Temple Bar Scholars Program gave us an unparalleled window into the modern U.K. legal system. In our first week, the scholars met with leading members of the legal profession in England and Wales. These meetings included discussions with the Lady Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the leadership of the Law Society as well as the Bar Council, and many others. The officials graciously volunteered their time to talk about common problems, answer our questions, and come to understand how our similar legal systems can better learn from one another. Over the next two weeks, the Temple Bar Scholars were paired with barristers’ chambers for a “mini-pupilage.” I spent one week with Serle Court and the next with Blackstone Chambers. I am incredibly grateful to the barristers for welcoming me into their chambers, showing me a snapshot of their work, inviting me to their in-court proceedings, and patiently answering my many questions. Later, we were welcomed by the solicitors at Norton Rose Fulbright, who gave us a view into the other side of the U.K.’s “split” legal profession. I greatly enjoyed meeting and learning from the top-flight lawyers in both chambers and at the firm.

In the final week, the scholars were each paired with a Justice of the U.K. Supreme Court. I was assigned to Lord Reed, who serves as the Court’s President after many decades of experience in judicial and public service. Lord Reed has a brilliant command of the law, a dedication to reaching the correct answer in every case, and a true passion for the work of the Court. His generosity with his time and advice cannot be overstated, and I learned a great deal from observing Lord Reed at work. I am sincerely thankful for the opportunity to meet him as well as his incredibly kind and capable Judicial Assistant. The entire experience with the Justices and their Judicial Assistants was exceptional.

A reflection on the Temple Bar Scholarship would be wanting without discussion of the informal—but just as important—highlights of our time in London: dinner with the Justices at the Athenaeum, chatting with barristers over lunch in the halls at the four Inns of Court, catching a Liverpool football match (go Reds!), an authentic afternoon tea experience at 33 Bedford Row, all the theatre the West End had to offer with my fellow scholars, catching up on hearings in a breakroom, and the barristers who took me out for “just one pint” after the close of an appellate argument. These are some of the moments that really brought “Legal London” to life. And they provided an important outlet for informal debate over the many notable differences between our legal systems and lives as lawyers. Are lawyers obligated to represent any client or cause if they have the competence to do so? (U.K.: typically, yes; U.S.: no). When should a litigant or advocacy group have standing to challenge a government policy? (The U.S. Constitution generally imposes a tougher standard). How should the independence of the judiciary be balanced with questions of democratic accountability when selecting judges? (That one is complicated, to say the least). At the end of the day, the discussions served as a reminder that both systems still have much to learn from the other—with our shared legal heritage and history providing a framework for stress testing our ideas.

The scholarship gave me a greater appreciation for our many connections with the U.K. legal system as well as the value of studying comparative international law as one source of wisdom. I will fondly remember my time in London and all that I learned as a Temple Bar Scholar. I owe my sincere thanks to the American Inns of Court and COMBAR for making the scholarship possible. I am also grateful for the friendship of my fellow scholars, who helped make the experience unforgettable, and Cindy Dennis, the American Inns of Court Awards and Scholarships Coordinator, who makes the program happen with her enthusiastic service.