Lesson 4DO NOT PLACE YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS OR EGO ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENT.

One of Lincoln’s most extraordinary qualities was his ability to temper his own fi nancial and emotional needs in the interests of fairness or eff ective service to his client. Although Lincoln believed in charging fair fees and would oft en ask for a retainer before rendering services, he professed that “an exorbitant fee [or retainer] should never be claimed” and his own rates tended to be

suffi ciently low that he was once brought before a kangaroo court of circuit-riding lawyers presided over by his friend Judge David Davis and “fi ned” for taking such small fees. On occasion he would also off er to relinquish all or part of his fee in order to bring about a sett lement.16

Most remarkable, perhaps, was Lincoln’s capacity to overlook slights and humiliations if the interests he was serving required it. In 1854 Lincoln was retained in connection with a case of considerable national signifi cance: Cyrus McCormick had sued John Manny for infringing one of the patents on his famous reaper, and Lincoln was retained by the defense. He engaged in extensive study and analysis before traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, in order to meet with the client and make fi nal preparations for what promised to be one of the most important trials of his career. When he arrived in Cincinnati, however, he was confronted by two other eastern lawyers, both highly prominent and experienced in business litigation, who had also been retained by Manny. It quickly became clear that they had their own ideas about how to conduct the case and that they regarded their Illinois colleague as an interloping ignoramus.

Th e lawyers made a point of excluding Lincoln from their deliberations and even their meals. Later, when Lincoln tendered a carefully prepared memorandum summarizing his arguments for the defense, it was returned to him unopened. Lincoln was relegated to the role of spectator at the trial, but despite his wounded feelings took the opportunity to watch and learn. Some years later, in the dark days of 1861, Lincoln realized that he—and the country—needed a highly intelligent, forthright and well-organized individual to help supervise the Union’s war eff ort. Despite all, he turned to none other than one of the lawyers who had treated him with such callous disrespect in the McCormick litigation—and Edwin M. Stanton became Lincoln’s Secretary of War for the remainder of the Civil War.17

1 Abraham Lincoln, Notes for a Law Lecture, [hereinaft er Notes] in 1 The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases 12 (Daniel W. Stowell et al. eds., 2008)[hereinaft er PAL].

2 Take, for example, a lett er writt en to a would-be suitor late in Lincoln’s practice: Yours of Feb. 28, 1859, is received. I do not think there is the least use of doing any more with the law-suit. I not only do not think you are sure to gain it, but I do think you are sure to lose it. Th erefore the sooner it ends the bett er.

Lett er from Abraham Lincoln to Haden Keeling (Mar. 3, 1859), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 15.

3 See, e.g., ch.2 Cannan v. Kenney, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 27, 40 (claim to recover possession of horse resulting in four years of legal proceedings); ch.12 James Bell & Company for the use of Speed v. Hall, in id., at 251, 258 (last of debts collected fi ve years aft er court judgment).

4 Ch. 30 Oldham and Hemingway v. Lincoln et al, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, at 355.

5 Lett er from Stuart & Lincoln to Th omas Bohannan (Aug. 7, 1839), in 4 PAL, supra note 1, at 199.

6 Notes, supra note 1, 12-13.

7 Historical Introduction, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at xli.

8 See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins/Perkins v. Hall, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 73, 88.

9 Lett er of Abraham Lincoln to Abraham Bale (Feb. 22, 1850), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 5.

10 Lett er of Abraham Lincoln to Mason Brayman (Mar. 31, 1854), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 8.

11 Sometimes the parties employed arbitration without agreeing to be bound by the result; in such cases either party might refuse to abide by the award. See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins, 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 70, 83.

12 See ch. 54, Lincoln the Lawyer Outside the Courtroom, in 4 PAL, supra note 1, 193, at 207-208.

13 Julie M. Fenster, The Case of Abraham Lincoln (2007) 46-47 (discussing the case of Webster v. Angell and Rhodes).

14 See Steiner, supra note 11, at 98.

15 Ch. 26 A Tour of the Circuit with Lincoln, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, 211, at 225-226 (discussing Gill and Rupert v. Webster).

16 See supra note 14.

17 William Lee Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography 410-426 (2002).

Reprinted from Pepperdine Law Fall 2009 Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution • htt p://straus.pepperdine.edu/ • 310-506-4655

by Th omas J. StipanowichWilliam H. Webster Chair in Dispute Resolution

and Academic Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution

Illustration of Lincoln by Th omas J. Stipanowich

“Discourage litigation.

Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.

Point out to them how the nominal winner is oft en a real loser, in fees,

expenses, and waste of time.

As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.

Th ere will still be business enough.”1

–Abraham Lincoln

FOR LAWYERS

L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U1P E P P E R D I N E L AW 1

t a time when much att ention is focused on the roles and responsibilities of att orneys outside the courtroom and American trial dockets have contracted signifi cantly, the foregoing admonition is oft en quoted. Its potency derives not only from its strong and succinct prose, but from the fact that it sprang from the pen of a trial lawyer more than 150 years ago. And not just any trial lawyer, but one whose career embraced the full spectrum of practice—from the humdrum of frontier circuit courts to the role of “lawyer’s lawyer” before his state’s highest tribunal. One who in later years, as president of the United States, led his country through its ultimate, defi ning crisis.

Th ere is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the lecture for which he committ ed these

words to paper in the 1850s, but there is no doubt they were a touchstone of his own practice. Th e recent publication of the Lincoln Legal Papers comprises extant documents relating to more than 5,400 legal matt ers handled by Lincoln and his partners and a wave of new scholarship mining new or rediscovered sources provide us with a vast array of information about how Lincoln approached legal confl ict. His att itudes and practices are to some extent refl ective of the legal community of which he was a part, but also evince the extraordinary character of one who believed he was called to great things. Th e principles that animated his practice—summarized below—are just as relevant today as they were in Lincoln’s day, and off er valuable guideposts for modern lawyers.

Lesson 1USE LITIGATION AS A LAST RESORT—AND BE FRA NK WITH YOUR CLIENT ABOUT ITS COSTS AND RISKS.

A veteran of many years of rough-and-tumble advocacy around frontier Illinois’ Eighth Judicial Circuit, Lincoln could be a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Besides having a way with a jury, he was comfortable wielding any and all procedural arguments or technical devices that might avail a client of victory or postpone or ameliorate defeat. His law partner William Herndon asserted that Lincoln was

even bett er in a “set piece batt le” before appellate judges, where his intense emphasis on preparation and well-developed logic came to the fore. And yet, time and again, Lincoln discouraged clients from pursuing litigation or strongly cautioned them about the costs and

risks of vouchsafi ng their cause to a judge or jury.2 One who espoused such great faith in the power of reason and logic and himself exhibited great precision of mind must have keenly discerned the limitations of legal process: crowded circuit court dockets, with court sessions in most counties limited to a few days a year; the diffi culties of procuring evidence and witnesses; the unpredictability of local tribunals and juries; and the diffi culties of executing on a debt in the face of a determined recalcitrant debtor.3

Lincoln was also aware in a very personal way of the reputational cost of being sued. He experienced extreme indignation and anguish when two surviving partners of his father-in-law’s business brought what turned out to be an unjustifi ed cause of action against Lincoln for withholding monies due the partnership that he had allegedly collected—in essence charging him with fraud.4 Furthermore, he lived in a society which depended less upon banks than upon personal credit evidenced by promissory notes, and individuals were accustomed to functioning both as creditors and debtors. In times of economic downturn—including nationwide panics in 1837 and 1857—many a promissory note would remain unpaid by its due date, and for a variety of reasons the most rational solution for a creditor was usually to make appropriate accommodations rather than seek foreclosure. Lincoln favored such adjustments wherever possible—perhaps calling to mind his own years of toil to repay the obligations of a failed business that he ruefully labeled “the National Debt.” In a lett er to one Louisville wholesaler who had retained him to collect debts from central Illinois merchants, Lincoln explained,

We have been receiving promises fr om time to time of the payment of those notes, but which payment has not yet been made. Unless payment is soon made we shall commence suits, though this course we shall regret, for they are honest and honorable men, but they are hard pressed.5

Not surprisingly, Lincoln reserved his greatest contempt for those who would “stir up litigation”:

A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fi end than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.6

P E P P E R D I N E L AW 2

Lesson 2BEGIN NEGOTIATING COOPERA TIVELY AND ENCOURA GE THE RELIANCE OF OTHERS

BY BEHAVING IN A LOGICAL AND PREDICTABLE WAY. LOOK FOR TRA DE-OFFS.

In the frontier communities in which Lincoln practiced, a cooperative approach to negotiating legal disputes was facilitated by the bonds of familiarity. Th e uncertainties of negotiation were reduced because many of the lawyers Lincoln negotiated with were well known to him—even to the point of sharing beds while riding the circuit. Lincoln would regularly serve alongside att orneys who would, the

next day, appear against him in another case. He also had occasion to appear for and against some clients, including the Illinois Central Railroad.7 In a few cases he appeared for both sides at diff erent times!8 Relational connections also reinforced the likelihood of a collaborative solution; Lincoln and his peers could avoid extreme positional bargaining and the posturing that goes with it. In some cases, personal familiarity with both parties encouraged Lincoln to play the role of mediator, as refl ected in the following message to a suitor client:

I understand Mr. Hickox will go . . . for the purpose of meeting you to sett le the diffi culty about the wheat. I sincerely hope you will sett le it. I think you can if you will, for I have always found Mr. Hickox a fair man in his dealings. If you sett le, I will charge nothing for what I have done, and thank you to boot. By sett ling, you will most likely get your money sooner, and with much less time and trouble.9

Lincoln understood the power of a meaningful trade-off —the quid pro quo—in achieving a bargain. As a youthful member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln became adept at “logrolling”—the practice of obtaining another legislator’s vote on a particular bill in exchange for support on another matt er of consequence to the other. Lincoln’s political acumen was demonstrated by his successful eff ort to bring the state capital to Springfi eld. Th e same skills were of great value in the negotiation of legal disputes where, to use Lincoln’s metaphor, “a stitch in time may save nine.”10

Of course, if a cooperative approach failed to produce a positive response, Lincoln was capable of shift ing tactics. As a competitive bargainer he would be in a position to draw upon his formidable trial advocacy skills; at the same time, his innate objectivity would render him less susceptible to an opponent’s eff orts to manipulate or mislead him and his client.

Lesson 3SEEK CREATIVE WAYS OF BRIDGING THE GAP TO AN AGREEMENT THAT ACHIEVES A

CLIENT’S KEY GOALS AND PRIORITIES IN A SIMPLE, STRA IGHTFORWARD MANNER.

The creative use of consent judgments to resolve slander cases was only one example of Lincoln’s penchant for inventive methods of resolving disputes. Lincoln and other lawyers made regular resort to binding arbitration—consigning legal disputes to judgment by private persons outside the courts. In a society where circuit courts met only a few days a year, with long gaps between sessions,

arbitration was probably an appealing alternative for deciding cases of all kinds.11 In addition to serving as an advocate in arbitrations, Lincoln had experience as an arbitrator. In one matt er regarding a boundary dispute between adjoining property owners, Lincoln drew upon his earlier experience as a surveyor to render an arbitration award in the form of a drawing depicting the decreed boundary.12

In a case involving a client with what Lincoln considered a less-than-stellar case, he persuaded the parties to engage in an abbreviated arbitration procedure in a hotel room before the presiding circuit judge on the eve of trial. When the defendant was unable to come up with the full $125 cash down payment to pay Lincoln’s client, as directed by the judge in his award, Lincoln loaned him the balance—sixteen dollars—in order to complete the transaction.13

Not surprisingly, Lincoln oft en found himself playing the role of informal mediator.14 In another legal dispute negotiations had resolved all issues save for one. Lincoln and opposing counsel—who apparently had a good working relationship—bridged this fi nal gap by gett ing the parties to agree that the matt er would be resolved by the lawyers themselves acting as “referees.” Th e fi nal writt en sett lement agreement incorporated the term refl ecting the lawyers’ mutual resolution.15

L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U3

t a time when much att ention is focused on the roles and responsibilities of att orneys outside the courtroom and American trial dockets have contracted signifi cantly, the foregoing admonition is oft en quoted. Its potency derives not only from its strong and succinct prose, but from the fact that it sprang from the pen of a trial lawyer more than 150 years ago. And not just any trial lawyer, but one whose career embraced the full spectrum of practice—from the humdrum of frontier circuit courts to the role of “lawyer’s lawyer” before his state’s highest tribunal. One who in later years, as president of the United States, led his country through its ultimate, defi ning crisis.

Th ere is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the lecture for which he committ ed these

words to paper in the 1850s, but there is no doubt they were a touchstone of his own practice. Th e recent publication of the Lincoln Legal Papers comprises extant documents relating to more than 5,400 legal matt ers handled by Lincoln and his partners and a wave of new scholarship mining new or rediscovered sources provide us with a vast array of information about how Lincoln approached legal confl ict. His att itudes and practices are to some extent refl ective of the legal community of which he was a part, but also evince the extraordinary character of one who believed he was called to great things. Th e principles that animated his practice—summarized below—are just as relevant today as they were in Lincoln’s day, and off er valuable guideposts for modern lawyers.

Lesson 1USE LITIGATION AS A LAST RESORT—AND BE FRA NK WITH YOUR CLIENT ABOUT ITS COSTS AND RISKS.

A veteran of many years of rough-and-tumble advocacy around frontier Illinois’ Eighth Judicial Circuit, Lincoln could be a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Besides having a way with a jury, he was comfortable wielding any and all procedural arguments or technical devices that might avail a client of victory or postpone or ameliorate defeat. His law partner William Herndon asserted that Lincoln was

even bett er in a “set piece batt le” before appellate judges, where his intense emphasis on preparation and well-developed logic came to the fore. And yet, time and again, Lincoln discouraged clients from pursuing litigation or strongly cautioned them about the costs and

risks of vouchsafi ng their cause to a judge or jury.2 One who espoused such great faith in the power of reason and logic and himself exhibited great precision of mind must have keenly discerned the limitations of legal process: crowded circuit court dockets, with court sessions in most counties limited to a few days a year; the diffi culties of procuring evidence and witnesses; the unpredictability of local tribunals and juries; and the diffi culties of executing on a debt in the face of a determined recalcitrant debtor.3

Lincoln was also aware in a very personal way of the reputational cost of being sued. He experienced extreme indignation and anguish when two surviving partners of his father-in-law’s business brought what turned out to be an unjustifi ed cause of action against Lincoln for withholding monies due the partnership that he had allegedly collected—in essence charging him with fraud.4 Furthermore, he lived in a society which depended less upon banks than upon personal credit evidenced by promissory notes, and individuals were accustomed to functioning both as creditors and debtors. In times of economic downturn—including nationwide panics in 1837 and 1857—many a promissory note would remain unpaid by its due date, and for a variety of reasons the most rational solution for a creditor was usually to make appropriate accommodations rather than seek foreclosure. Lincoln favored such adjustments wherever possible—perhaps calling to mind his own years of toil to repay the obligations of a failed business that he ruefully labeled “the National Debt.” In a lett er to one Louisville wholesaler who had retained him to collect debts from central Illinois merchants, Lincoln explained,

We have been receiving promises fr om time to time of the payment of those notes, but which payment has not yet been made. Unless payment is soon made we shall commence suits, though this course we shall regret, for they are honest and honorable men, but they are hard pressed.5

Not surprisingly, Lincoln reserved his greatest contempt for those who would “stir up litigation”:

A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fi end than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.6

P E P P E R D I N E L AW 2

Lesson 2BEGIN NEGOTIATING COOPERA TIVELY AND ENCOURA GE THE RELIANCE OF OTHERS

BY BEHAVING IN A LOGICAL AND PREDICTABLE WAY. LOOK FOR TRA DE-OFFS.

In the frontier communities in which Lincoln practiced, a cooperative approach to negotiating legal disputes was facilitated by the bonds of familiarity. Th e uncertainties of negotiation were reduced because many of the lawyers Lincoln negotiated with were well known to him—even to the point of sharing beds while riding the circuit. Lincoln would regularly serve alongside att orneys who would, the

next day, appear against him in another case. He also had occasion to appear for and against some clients, including the Illinois Central Railroad.7 In a few cases he appeared for both sides at diff erent times!8 Relational connections also reinforced the likelihood of a collaborative solution; Lincoln and his peers could avoid extreme positional bargaining and the posturing that goes with it. In some cases, personal familiarity with both parties encouraged Lincoln to play the role of mediator, as refl ected in the following message to a suitor client:

I understand Mr. Hickox will go . . . for the purpose of meeting you to sett le the diffi culty about the wheat. I sincerely hope you will sett le it. I think you can if you will, for I have always found Mr. Hickox a fair man in his dealings. If you sett le, I will charge nothing for what I have done, and thank you to boot. By sett ling, you will most likely get your money sooner, and with much less time and trouble.9

Lincoln understood the power of a meaningful trade-off —the quid pro quo—in achieving a bargain. As a youthful member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln became adept at “logrolling”—the practice of obtaining another legislator’s vote on a particular bill in exchange for support on another matt er of consequence to the other. Lincoln’s political acumen was demonstrated by his successful eff ort to bring the state capital to Springfi eld. Th e same skills were of great value in the negotiation of legal disputes where, to use Lincoln’s metaphor, “a stitch in time may save nine.”10

Of course, if a cooperative approach failed to produce a positive response, Lincoln was capable of shift ing tactics. As a competitive bargainer he would be in a position to draw upon his formidable trial advocacy skills; at the same time, his innate objectivity would render him less susceptible to an opponent’s eff orts to manipulate or mislead him and his client.

Lesson 3SEEK CREATIVE WAYS OF BRIDGING THE GAP TO AN AGREEMENT THAT ACHIEVES A

CLIENT’S KEY GOALS AND PRIORITIES IN A SIMPLE, STRA IGHTFORWARD MANNER.

The creative use of consent judgments to resolve slander cases was only one example of Lincoln’s penchant for inventive methods of resolving disputes. Lincoln and other lawyers made regular resort to binding arbitration—consigning legal disputes to judgment by private persons outside the courts. In a society where circuit courts met only a few days a year, with long gaps between sessions,

arbitration was probably an appealing alternative for deciding cases of all kinds.11 In addition to serving as an advocate in arbitrations, Lincoln had experience as an arbitrator. In one matt er regarding a boundary dispute between adjoining property owners, Lincoln drew upon his earlier experience as a surveyor to render an arbitration award in the form of a drawing depicting the decreed boundary.12

In a case involving a client with what Lincoln considered a less-than-stellar case, he persuaded the parties to engage in an abbreviated arbitration procedure in a hotel room before the presiding circuit judge on the eve of trial. When the defendant was unable to come up with the full $125 cash down payment to pay Lincoln’s client, as directed by the judge in his award, Lincoln loaned him the balance—sixteen dollars—in order to complete the transaction.13

Not surprisingly, Lincoln oft en found himself playing the role of informal mediator.14 In another legal dispute negotiations had resolved all issues save for one. Lincoln and opposing counsel—who apparently had a good working relationship—bridged this fi nal gap by gett ing the parties to agree that the matt er would be resolved by the lawyers themselves acting as “referees.” Th e fi nal writt en sett lement agreement incorporated the term refl ecting the lawyers’ mutual resolution.15

L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U3

Lesson 4DO NOT PLACE YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INTERESTS OR EGO ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENT.

One of Lincoln’s most extraordinary qualities was his ability to temper his own fi nancial and emotional needs in the interests of fairness or eff ective service to his client. Although Lincoln believed in charging fair fees and would oft en ask for a retainer before rendering services, he professed that “an exorbitant fee [or retainer] should never be claimed” and his own rates tended to be

suffi ciently low that he was once brought before a kangaroo court of circuit-riding lawyers presided over by his friend Judge David Davis and “fi ned” for taking such small fees. On occasion he would also off er to relinquish all or part of his fee in order to bring about a sett lement.16

Most remarkable, perhaps, was Lincoln’s capacity to overlook slights and humiliations if the interests he was serving required it. In 1854 Lincoln was retained in connection with a case of considerable national signifi cance: Cyrus McCormick had sued John Manny for infringing one of the patents on his famous reaper, and Lincoln was retained by the defense. He engaged in extensive study and analysis before traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, in order to meet with the client and make fi nal preparations for what promised to be one of the most important trials of his career. When he arrived in Cincinnati, however, he was confronted by two other eastern lawyers, both highly prominent and experienced in business litigation, who had also been retained by Manny. It quickly became clear that they had their own ideas about how to conduct the case and that they regarded their Illinois colleague as an interloping ignoramus.

Th e lawyers made a point of excluding Lincoln from their deliberations and even their meals. Later, when Lincoln tendered a carefully prepared memorandum summarizing his arguments for the defense, it was returned to him unopened. Lincoln was relegated to the role of spectator at the trial, but despite his wounded feelings took the opportunity to watch and learn. Some years later, in the dark days of 1861, Lincoln realized that he—and the country—needed a highly intelligent, forthright and well-organized individual to help supervise the Union’s war eff ort. Despite all, he turned to none other than one of the lawyers who had treated him with such callous disrespect in the McCormick litigation—and Edwin M. Stanton became Lincoln’s Secretary of War for the remainder of the Civil War.17

1 Abraham Lincoln, Notes for a Law Lecture, [hereinaft er Notes] in 1 The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases 12 (Daniel W. Stowell et al. eds., 2008)[hereinaft er PAL].

2 Take, for example, a lett er writt en to a would-be suitor late in Lincoln’s practice: Yours of Feb. 28, 1859, is received. I do not think there is the least use of doing any more with the law-suit. I not only do not think you are sure to gain it, but I do think you are sure to lose it. Th erefore the sooner it ends the bett er.

Lett er from Abraham Lincoln to Haden Keeling (Mar. 3, 1859), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 15.

3 See, e.g., ch.2 Cannan v. Kenney, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 27, 40 (claim to recover possession of horse resulting in four years of legal proceedings); ch.12 James Bell & Company for the use of Speed v. Hall, in id., at 251, 258 (last of debts collected fi ve years aft er court judgment).

4 Ch. 30 Oldham and Hemingway v. Lincoln et al, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, at 355.

5 Lett er from Stuart & Lincoln to Th omas Bohannan (Aug. 7, 1839), in 4 PAL, supra note 1, at 199.

6 Notes, supra note 1, 12-13.

7 Historical Introduction, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at xli.

8 See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins/Perkins v. Hall, in 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 73, 88.

9 Lett er of Abraham Lincoln to Abraham Bale (Feb. 22, 1850), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 5.

10 Lett er of Abraham Lincoln to Mason Brayman (Mar. 31, 1854), in 1 PAL, supra note 1, at 8.

11 Sometimes the parties employed arbitration without agreeing to be bound by the result; in such cases either party might refuse to abide by the award. See, e.g., ch. 5 Hall v. Perkins, 1 PAL, supra note 1, 60, at 70, 83.

12 See ch. 54, Lincoln the Lawyer Outside the Courtroom, in 4 PAL, supra note 1, 193, at 207-208.

13 Julie M. Fenster, The Case of Abraham Lincoln (2007) 46-47 (discussing the case of Webster v. Angell and Rhodes).

14 See Steiner, supra note 11, at 98.

15 Ch. 26 A Tour of the Circuit with Lincoln, in 2 PAL, supra note 1, 211, at 225-226 (discussing Gill and Rupert v. Webster).

16 See supra note 14.

17 William Lee Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography 410-426 (2002).

Reprinted from Pepperdine Law Fall 2009 Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution • htt p://straus.pepperdine.edu/ • 310-506-4655

by Th omas J. StipanowichWilliam H. Webster Chair in Dispute Resolution

and Academic Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution

Illustration of Lincoln by Th omas J. Stipanowich

“Discourage litigation.

Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.

Point out to them how the nominal winner is oft en a real loser, in fees,

expenses, and waste of time.

As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.

Th ere will still be business enough.”1

–Abraham Lincoln

FOR LAWYERS

L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U1P E P P E R D I N E L AW 1