法律英语_何家弘编_第四版课文翻译(1-20课)

Lesson 1 法律制度Part One Featuers and Characteristics 第一部分特征与特点The United States is at once a very new nation and a very old nation.美国既是一个非常新的国家也是一个非常老的国家。

It is a new nation compared with many other countries, and it is new, too, in the sense that it is constantly being renewed by the addition of new elements of population and of new States.与许多别的国家相比它是一个新的国家。

同时，它还因新人口成分和新州的加入而持续更新，在此意义上，它也是新国家。

But in other senses it is old. It is the oldest of the "new" nations--the first one to be made out of an Old World colony.但是在其它的意义上它是老国家。

它是最老的“新”国家——第一个由旧大陆殖民地脱胎而出的国家。

It has the oldest written constitution, the oldest continuous federal system, and the oldest practice of self government of any nation.它拥有最古老的成文宪法、最古老的持续的联邦体制以及最古老的民族自治实践。

One of the most interes ting features of America’s youth is that the whole of its history belongs in the period since the invention of the printing press.美国的年轻（性）有一个很有意思的特点就是它的历史肇始于印刷机发明之后。

第一课美国法律制度介绍第一部分特征与特点美国既是一个非常新的国家也是一个非常老的国家。

与许多别的国家相比它是一个新的国家。

同时，它还因新人口成分和新州的加入而持续更新，在此意义上，它也是新国家。

但是在其它的意义上它是老国家。

它是最老的“新”国家——第一个由旧大陆殖民地脱胎而出的国家。

它拥有最古老的成文宪法、最古老的持续的联邦体制以及最古老的民族自治实践。

美国的年轻（性）有一个很有意思的特点就是它的历史肇始于印刷机发明之后。

因此它的整个历史都得以记录下来：确实可以很有把握地说，任何其它国家都没有像美国这样全面的历史记录，因为像在意大利、法国或者英国过去的传说中湮没的那样的事件在美国都成了有文字记载的历史之一部分。

而且其记录不仅全面，还非常浩繁。

不仅包括这个国家自1776 年以来的殖民时期的记录，还有当前五十个州以及各州和联邦（nation）之间错综复杂的关系网络的历史记录。

因此，据一个非常简单的例子，美国最高法院判例汇编有大约350 卷，而一些州的判例汇编也几乎有同样多的卷数：想研究美国法律史的读者要面对的是超过5000 巨卷的司法案例。

我们不能说一个文件或几个文件就能揭示出一国人民或其政府的特性。

但如果横跨一百多年的千百万个文件敲出始终如一的音调，我们就有理由说这就是其主调。

当千百万个文件都以同样的方式去解决同样的中心问题，我们就有理由从中得出可以被称为国民特定的确定结论。

第二部分普通法和衡平法同英国一样，美国法律制度从方法论上来说主要是一种判例法制度。

许多私法领域仍然主要是由判例法构成，广泛而不断增长的制定法一直受制于有约束力的（解释制定法的）判例法。

因此，判例法方法的知识以及使用判例法的技巧对于理解美国法律和法律方法是极其重要的。

从历史的角度来看，普通法就是由英国皇家法院的巡回法官的判决所得出的普通的一般法——优于地方法。

采纳或执行某项诉讼请求是以存在法院令状这种特殊形式的诉为前提的，而这就使最初的普通法表现为由类似于古罗马法的“诉”所构成的体系。

Lesson One: Legal System 法律制度Background背景自从哥伦布(Christopher Columbus)于1492年航行至美洲之后，大批欧洲人便开始拥向这片"新大陆"。

不过，人们通常把第一批英国定居者(the first English settlers)于1607年到达弗吉尼亚(Virginia)的詹姆斯顿(Jamestown)视为美国法律制度历史的起点。

美国法制史可以大体上分为两个时期，即英属殖民地时期(the Period of the English Colonies)和美利坚合众国时期(the Period of the United States)。

虽然美国的法律制度是在英国法律传统的基础上形成和发展起来的，但是在近四百年的历史进程中，美国的法律制度也形成了一些不同于英国法律制度的特点，如公诉制度(public prosecution)等。

美国属于普通法系(Common Law Legal System)国家，其法律制度有两个基本特点：其一是以分散制(decentralization)为原则；其二是以判例法(case law)为主体。

美国除联邦政府外，还有州政府、县政府、市政府、镇政府等等，而且这些政府都是相互独立的，各自在其管辖范围内享有一定的立法权和执法权。

因此，有人说美国是"一个有许多政府的国家"(a country of many governments)；而美国的法律体系则是一个"零散的无系统"(fragmental no system)。

诚然，美国现在也有很多成文法(written law)或制定法(statutory law)，但是其法律制度仍是以判例法为主体的。

换言之，"遵从前例"(stare decisis)仍然是美国司法活动中最重要的原则之一。

以上两点对于理解美国的法律制度具有重要意义。

高教指定教材《法律英语》译文第一部分特点与特点美国既是一个专门新的国家也是一个专门老的国家。

与许多别的国家相比它是一个新的国家。

同时，它还因新人口成分和新州的加入而连续更新，在此意义上，它也是新国家。

然而在其它的意义上它是老国家。

它是最老的“新”国家——第一个由旧大陆殖民地脱胎而出的国家。

它拥有最古老的成文宪法、最古老的连续的联邦体制以及最古老的民族自治实践。

美国的年轻（性）有一个专门有意思的特点确实是它的历史肇始于印刷机发明之后。

因此它的整个历史都得以记录下来：确实能够专门有把握地说，任何其它国家都没有像美国如此全面的历史记录，因为像在意大利、法国或者英国过去的传奇中湮没的那样的事件在美国都成了有文字记载的历史之一部分。

而且其记录不仅全面，还专门浩繁。

不仅包括那个国家自1776年以来的殖民时期的记录，还有当前五十个州以及各州和联邦（nation）之间错综复杂的关系网络的历史记录。

因此，据一个专门简单的例子，美国最高法院判例汇编有大约350卷，而一些州的判例汇编也几乎有同样多的卷数：想研究美国法律史的读者要面对的是超过5000巨卷的司法案例。

我们不能说一个文件或几个文件就能揭示出一国人民或其政府的特性。

但假如横跨一百多年的千百万个文件敲出始终如一的音调，我们就有理由说这确实是其主调。

当千百万个文件都以同样的方式去解决同样的中心问题，我们就有理由从中得出能够被称为国民特定的确定结论。

第二部分一般法和衡平法同英国一样，美国法律制度从方法论上来说要紧是一种判例法制度。

许多私法领域仍旧要紧是由判例法构成，广泛而不断增长的制定法一直受制于有约束力的（说明制定法的）判例法。

因此，判例法方法的知识以及使用判例法的技巧关于明白得美国法律和法律方法是极其重要的。

从历史的角度来看，一般法确实是由英国皇家法院的巡回法官的判决所得出的一般的一样法——优于地点法。

采纳或执行某项诉讼要求是以存在法院令状这种专门形式的诉为前提的，而这就使最初的一般法表现为由类似于古罗马法的“诉”所构成的体系。

法律英语课文汇总-何家弘————————————————————————————————作者：————————————————————————————————日期：Lesson One: Legal System 法律制度Part OneThe United States is at once a very new nation and a very old nation. It is a new nation compared with many other countries, and it is new, too, in the sense that it is constantly being renewed by the addition of new elements of population and of new States. But in other senses it is old. It is the oldest of the "new" nations--the first one to be made out of an Old World colony. It has the oldest written constitution, the oldest continuous federal system, and the oldest practice of self-government of any nation.One of the most interesting features of Americans youth is that the whole of its history belongs in the period since the invention of the printing press. The whole of its history is, therefore, recorded: indeed, it is safe to say that no other major nation has so comprehensive a record of its history as has the United States, for events such as those that are lost in the legendary past of Italy or France or England are part of the printed record of the United States. And the American record is not only comprehensive; it is immense. It embraces not only the record of the colonial era and of the Nation since 1776, but of the present fifty States as well, and the intricate network of relationships between States and Nation. Thus, to take a very elementary example, the reports of the United States Supreme Court fill some 350 volumes, and the reports of some States are almost equally voluminous: the reader who wants to trace the history of law in America is confronted with over 5,000 stout volumes of legal cases.No one document, no handful of documents, can properly be said to reveal the character of a people or of their government. But when hundreds and thousands of documents strike a consistent note, over more than a hundred years, we have a right to say that is the keynote.When hundreds and thousands of documents address themselves in the same ways, to the same overarching problems, we have a right to read from them certain conclusions which we can call national characteristics.Part TwoThe American legal system, like the English, is methodologically mainly a case law system. Most fields of private law still consist primarily of case law and the extensive and steadily growing statutory law continues to be subject to binding interpretation through case law. Knowledge of the case law method as well as of the technique of working with case law therefore is of central importance for an understanding of American law and legal methodology.The Common Law is historically the common general law -- with supremacy over locallaw--which was decreed by the itinerant judges of the English royal court. The enforcement of a claim presupposed the existence of a special form of action, a writ, with the result that the original common law represented a system of "actions" similar to that of classical Roman law. If a writ existed (in 1227) a claim could be enforced; there was no recourse for a claim without a writ, the claim did not exist. This system became inflexible when the "Provisions of Oxford" (1258) prohibited the creation of new writs, except for the flexibility which the "writ upon the case" allowed and which later led to the development of contract and tort law.The narrow limits of the forms of action and the limited recourse they provided led to the development of equity law and equity case law. "Equity", in its general meaning of doing "equity", deciding ex aequo et bono, was first granted by the King, and later by his Chancellor as "keeper of the King's conscience", to afford relief in hardship cases. In the fifteenth century, however, equity law and equity case law developed into an independent legal system andjudiciary (Court of Chancery) which competed with the ordinary common law courts. Its rules and maxims became fixed and, to a degree, inflexible as in any legal system. Special characteristics of equity law include: relief in the form of specific performance (in contrast to the common law award of compensatory damages), the injunction (a temporary or final order to do or not to do a specific act), the development of so called maxims of equity law which permeated the entire legal system and in many cases explain the origin of modern legal concepts. However, equitable relief regularly will lie only when the common law relief is inadequate. For instance, specific performance for the purchase of real property will be granted because common law damages are deemed to be inadequate since they cannot compensate the buyer in view of the uniqueness attributed to real property.As the common law, equity law became part of American law either through judicial acceptance or through express statutory provision. Today, both legal systems have been merged in many American jurisdictions (beginning with New York in 1848), with the result that there is only one form of civil suit in these jurisdictions as well as in federal practice. Only few States continue to maintain a separate chancery court. Nevertheless, the reference to the historical development is important because, on the one hand, it explains the origin and significance of many contemporary legal concepts (for instance the division of title in the law of property) and, on the other hand, it is still relevant for the decision of such questions whether, for instance, there is a right to a trial by jury (only in the case of common law suits, in other cases only before the judge). In addition, the differentiation will determine whether the "ordinary" common law relief of damages applies or whether the "extraordinary" equity remedy of specific performance is available."Case law" describes the entire body of judge-made law and today includes common law and equity precedents. In imprecise and confusing usage the terms "common law" and "case law"are often used synonymously, with the term "common law" in this usage connotingjudge-made law in general as contrasted with statutory law. "Case law" always connotesjudg-made law, while "common law" in contrast--depending on the meaningintended--describes either the judge made law in common law subject matters or,Lesson Two：Legal Profession 法律职业Part One：The BarThe regulation of the legal profession is primarily the concern of the states, each of which has its own requirements for admission to practice. Most require three years of college and a law degree. Each state administers its own written examination to applicants for its bar. Almost all states, however, make use of the Multistate Bar Exam, a day long multiple choice test, to which the state adds a day long essay examination emphasizing its own law. No apprenticeship is required either before or after admission.A lawyer's practice is usually confined to a single community for, although a lawyer may travel to represent clients, one is only permitted to practice in a state where one has been admitted. However, one who moves to another state can usually be admitted without examination if one has practiced in a state where one has been admitted for some time, often five years.A lawyer may not only practice law, but is permitted to engage in any activity that is open to other citizens. It is not uncommon for the practicing lawyer to serve on boards of directors of corporate clients, to engage in business, and to participate actively in public affairs. A lawyer remains a member of the bar even after becoming a judge, an employee of the government orof a private business concern, or a law teacher, and may return to private practice from these other activities. A relatively small number of lawyers give up practice for responsible executive positions in commerce and industry. The mobility as well as the sense of public responsibility in the profession is evidenced by the career of Harlan Fiske Stone who was, at various times, a successful New York lawyer, a professor and dean of the Columbia School of Law, Attorney General of the United States, and Chief Justice of the United States.There is no formal division among lawyers according to function. The distinction between barristers and solicitors found in England did not take root in the United States, and there is no branch of the profession that has a special or exclusive right to appear in court, nor is there a branch that specializes in the preparation of legal instruments. The American lawyer s domain includes advocacy, counselling, and drafting. Furthermore, within the sphere broadly defined as the "practice of law" the domain is exclusive and is not open to others. In the field of advocacy, the rules are fairly clear: any individual may represent himself or herself in court but, with the exception of a few inferior courts, only a lawyer may represent another in court. Nonlawyers are, however, authorized to represent others in formal proceedings of a judicial nature before some administrative agencies. The lines of demarcation are less clear in the areas of counselling and drafting of legal instruments, as for example between the practice of law and that of accounting in the field of federal income taxation. However, the strict approach of most American courts is indicated by a decision of New York s highest court that a lawyer admitted to practice in a foreign country but not in New York is prohibited from giving legal advice to clients in New York, even though the advice is limited to the law of the foreign country where the lawyer is admitted. A foreign lawyer may, however, be admitted to the bar of one of the states and may, even without being admitted, advise an American lawyer as a consultant on foreign law.Part Two：Lawyers in Private PracticeAmong these fifteen lawyers in practice, nine, a clear majority, are single practitioners. The remaining six practice in law firms, which are generally organized as partnerships. Four or five of these six are partners and the others are associates, a term applied to salaried lawyers employed by a firm or another lawyer. This trend toward group practice is of relatively recent origin. Throughout most of the nineteenth century law practice was general rather than specialized, its chief ingredient was advocacy rather than counselling and drafting, and theprototype of the American lawyer was the single practitioner. Marked specialization began in the latter part of that century in the large cities near the financial centers. With the growth of big business, big government, and big labor, the work of the lawyer accomodated itself to the needs of clients for expert counselling and drafting to prevent as well as to settle disputes. The best lawyers were attracted to this work and leadership of the bar gravitated to persons who rarely if ever appeared in court and who were sought after as advisors, planners, and negotiators. Today the lawyer regards it as sound practice to be continuously familiar with clients business problems and to participate at all steps in the shaping of their policies. Major business transactions are rarely undertaken without advice of counsel.Part Three: House CounselOut of every twenty lawyers, two are employed by private business concerns, such as industrial corporations, insurance companies, and banks, usually as house or corporate counsel in the concern s legal department. The growth of corporations, the complexity of business, and the multitude of problems posed by government regulation make it desirable for such firms to have in their employ persons with legal training who, at the same time, are intimately familiar with the particular problems and conditions of the firm. In large corporations the legal department may number one hundred or more. The general counsel, who heads the office, is usually an officer of the company and may serve on important policy making committees and perhaps even on the board of directors. House counsel remain members of the bar and are entitled to appear in court, though an outside lawyer is often retained for litigation. However, it is the house counsel s skill as advisor rather than as advocate that is a valued asset. Constantly in touch with the employer s problems, house counsel is ideally situated to practice preventive law and may also be called upon to advise the company on its broader obligation to the public and the nation.Part Four：Lawyers in GovernmentA parallel development has taken place in government and two out of twenty lawyers are now employees of the federal, state, county, and municipal governments, exclusive of the judiciary. Many of those entering public service are recent law graduates who find government salaries sufficiently attractive at this stage of their careers and seek the training that such service may offer as a prelude to private practice. Limitations on top salaries, however, discourage some from continuing with the government. The majority serves by appointment in the legal departments of a variety of federal and state agencies and local entities. The United StatesDepartment of Justice alone employs more than two thousands, and the Law Department of the City of New York more than four hundreds. Others are engaged as public prosecutors. Federal prosecutors, the United States attorneys and their assistants, are appointed by the President and are subordinate to the Attorney General of the United States. State prosecutors, sometimes known as district attorneys, are commonly elected by each county and are not under the control of the state attorney general. As a rule, lawyers in government are directly engaged in legal work, since law training is infrequently sought as preparation for general government service. However, a small but important minority that constitutes an exception to this rule consists of those who have been appointed to high executive positions and those who have been elected to political office. Though the participation of lawyers in government has declined recently, for two centuries lawyers have made up roughly half of the Congress of the United States and of the state governors. These figures bear out the comment of Chief Justice Stone that, "No tradition of our profession is more cherished by lawyers than that of its leadership in public affairs."Lesson Three: Legal Education 法律教育In 1983, over 125,000 law students were studying in more than 170 ABA accredited law schools including public law schools supported in part by government funds; private law schools supported by contributions from individuals and foundation funds; and local or national schools offering full time or part time legal study programs. As virtually the only way to prepare for membership in the legal profession, law schools in the United States fulfill several functions including professional training and socialization of future lawyers and screening and gatekeeping for entrance to the profession. Since there is no central institution where all lawyers practice, the only institutional experience which lawyers have in common is law school.The criticisms which range from "mild to caustic" of the way in which law schools have carried out these functions and of the functions themselves have been persistent, diverse and rooted in the historical and political development of the profession. These criticisms have focussed on the curriculum and the dominance of the case method; the distribution of power and prestige reflected in the hierarchy within and among the law schools; and the imbalance in terms of women and minorities in the student body and faculty in the law schools.Part One：Curriculum and the Case MethodThe traditional first-year program offered in virtually all American law schools includes contracts, torts, property, criminal law and civil procedure. Duncan Kennedy has described the traditional first-year curriculum as basically teaching the ground rules for late 19th century laissez-faire capitalism. The second year and third year course expound the moderate reformist New Deal program and the administrative structure of the modern regulatory state. The peripheral subjects, if they are offered, include legal philosophy, legal history, legal process, and clinical education, a "kind of playground or finishing school for learning the social art of self presentation as a lawyer".However, as new areas of the law continue to develop in response to contemporary issues and problems, some law schools have expanded curricula to include courses and clinical programs in environmental law, housing and urban development, women`s rights, health in the workplace, welfare rights and consumer protection. There are also increasing efforts to teach law in interdisciplinary contexts, drawing on other disciplines such as history, psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics.In teaching the traditional curriculum, law teachers in almost all the law schools use to some extent the case method or the Socratic method. Developed in the 1870s by Christopher Columbus Langdell at the Harvard Law School, the case method looked to the common law as the source of legal priniciples and focussed on the teaching of an abstract conception of the law as a science. The legal principles elicited were to be taught divorced from the "grubby world of practice--and also from politics, history, economics, and social contexts". This narrow formalistic approach was justified on the ground that it taught students how to state, analyze, evaluate and compare concrete fact situations thus developing their powers and skills of analysis, reasoning, and expression.However, this process of learning "how to think like a lawyer" has been criticized as having an adverse impact both on the students and the quality of future lawyering. Students, law teachers, and others have pointed to the alienation, anxiety, hostility and aggression caused by use of the case method or Socratic method. The narrow and destructive interaction of this dialogue, or often "no dialogue", contributes to the impairment of the ability to care about otherpeople, a professional unemotionalism and cynicism on the part of law students. And it is not only the law students who suffer from this narrowing of their professional selves. The work of a lawyer involves continuous contacts with clients, associates, other lawyers, judges, witnesses, others affected by the law, and involves the lawyer’s own goals, attitudes, performance, and sense of satisfaction.Part Two：Law School HierarchyDuncan Kennedy has described the law schools as "intensely political places", characterized by a "trade school mentality, the endless attention to trees at the expense of forests." The law schools function as the institution for "ideological training for willing service in the hierarchies of the corporate welfare state". In the ranking and evaluation of students, students learn to accept their place in a hierarchy which is presented as just and inevitable and "so prepare themselves for all the hierarchies to follow". In the law teachers modeling of hierarchical relationships with students, colleagues, secretaries and support staff, students learn a particular style of condescension towards perceived inferiors and deference towards perceived superiors. And under the subtle but intense pressure to conform to the "white, male, middle class tone" set by law faculties which are overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class, law students adapt, "partly out of fear, partly out of hope of gain, partly out of genuine admiration for their role models". In these ways, "legal education is one of the causes of legal hierarchy. Legal education supports it by analogy, provides it a general legitimating ideology by justifying the rules that underlie it, and provides it a particular ideology by mystifying legal reasoning. Legal education structures the pool of prospective lawyers so that their hierarchical organization seems inevitable, and trains them to look and think and act just like all the other lawyers in the system" .In addition to the hierarchy within the law schools suggested by Kennedy, other analyses of the law schools functions and relationship to the profession suggest the existence of a hierarchy among the law schools. The top dozen or so elite law schools occupy a position of power and prestige which is partially reflected in the professional career paths of their graduates and in the "old boy networks" connecting the law schools and the rest of the legal profession. The models of the "law school as the gateway to the American power elite became possible with the New Deal". Felix Frankfurter’s placement n etwork for the "best and the brightest" into influential public policy positions during the New Deal in the 1930s was anearly example of this kind of network. During his tenure at Harvard and later while on the Supreme Court, Frankfurter developed an "old boy network" which was intimately involved with the placement of many of the "elite" lawyers, all of whom were white and male, into public service. The typical Frankfurter recruit was "a graduate of Harvard Law School, politically liberal, usually ranked high in his class, and either an obvious product of upper class gentile culture or an obvious product of a radically different culture who was 'comfortable' in the upper class gentile world".In the current hiring practices of the major law firms and in the competition for judicial clerkships, and in the appointments to law faculties, the graduates of the elite schools continue to have an advantage over graduates of other schools. In a recent study of Chicago lawyers, Zemans and Rosenblum found that lawyers who attended "high-prestige law schools and graduated in the top 20 percent of their classes were much more likely to practice in large firms and specialize in high-prestige fields of law". In terms of appointments to law faculties, 60% of the legal prof ession’s teaching specialists are produced by fewer than 15% of the nation s accredited law schools. These law teacher producer schools are mostly national, located in urban locations, and include schools such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Michigan, Chicago, New York University, Northwestern University, and Georgetown. If it is true that the full time faculty of the law schools "have a virtual monopoly on who will and will not enter the (legal) profession" and "on the power to mold future generations", then the existence of a hierarchy among the law schools suggests that an elite group of schools is primarily responsible for staffing the law schools, which in turn produce lawyers for the hierarchies within the profession.Lesson Four：Judicial System 司法系统Part One：CourtsThere are fifty-two separate court systems in the United States. Each state, as well as the District of Columbia, has its own fully developed, independent system of courts and there is a separate federal court system. The federal courts are not superior to the state courts; they are an independent, coordinate system authorized by the United States Constitution, Art. Ⅲ,§2, to handle matters of particular federal interest. The presence of two parallel court systems often raises questions concerning the relationship of the state and federal systems, presentingimportant issues of federalism. The United States Supreme Court, composed of nine justices, sits as the final and controlling voice over all these systems.Although a few states, such as Nebraska, have a two-tiered system, most states, as well as the federal courts, are based on a three-tiered model. That means that for any litigant there will be the opportunity to plead his case before a trial court and then, should he lose, there are two levels of appeal at which he ultimately may succeed. For example, in the federal system the trial court is the United States District Court, of which there is at least one in every state. Many larger states are divided into two, three or even four judicial districts, depending on population, geography and caseload. There are ninety-four districts in the United States and each district court has one judge, or more commonly two or more. After an adverse judgment in the district court, a litigant may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located. There are eleven numbered intermediate appellate courts in the federal system, each including anywhere from three to ten states and territories. Additionally, there is a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, hearing appeals from the federal district court there, and one for the Federal Circuit, taking appeals from various specialized federal tribunals, such as the Claims Court. Each court of appeals has four or more judges who sit in panels of three to review district court decisions, as well as some decisions of administrative agencies. A losing litigant in the court of appeals may, in some cases, be able to obtain review by the United States Supreme Court. Cases in the state courts similarly may proceed through a trial court, a state appellate court, and then the state supreme court. If a federal constitutional question is involved the decision of the state Supreme Court may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. Since 1988, review by the Supreme Court in civil cases is discretionary; virtually all civil appeals as of right to the highest court have been abolished.Three-tiered systems vary on the role which the highest court plays. The approaches taken reflect differing philosophies with regard to what the highest court should do. For example, in California only criminal cases in which capital punishment has been imposed are appealable as of right to the state supreme court. Similarly, in the federal courts, except in a few very limited circumstances, appeals to the United States Supreme Court are discretionary, by writ of certiorari. The Court decides for itself what are the most important questions that deserve its attention and will refuse to review decisions raising issues that it feels are not as crucial. In this way it supervises the administration of law by the lower courts on an ad hoc basis. At the other end of the spectrum, such as in New York, appeals to the state s highest court are as of rightin a great many cases provided for by statute. The primary function of the highest court in New York appears to be to assure that cases are correctly decided. It is necessary to check carefully the statutes of the system in which you are appearing to determine the specific rules regarding review by those appellate courts.Part Two：JudgesFewer than one in twenty of those admitted to practice law is a federal, state, county, or municipal court judge. Except for some inferior courts, judges are generally required to be admitted to practice but do not practice while on the bench. There is so little uniformity that it is difficult to generalize further than to point out three salient characteristics that relate to the ranks from which judges are drawn, to the method of their selection, and to their tenure.Judges are drawn from the practicing bar and less frequently from government service or the teaching profession. There is in the United States no career judiciary like that found in many other countries and there is no prescribed route for the young law graduate who aspires to be a judge, no apprenticeship that must be served, no service that must be entered. The outstanding young law graduates who act for a year or two as law clerks to the most distinguished judges of the federal and state courts have only the reward of the experience to take with them into practice and not the promise of a judicial career. While it is not uncommon for a vacancy on a higher court to be filled by a judge from a lower court, even this cannot be said to be the rule. The legal profession is not entirely unaware of the advantages of a career judiciary, but it is generally thought that they are outweighed by the experience and independence which American lawyers bring to the bench. Many of the outstanding judges of the country s highest courts have had no prior judicial experience. Criticism has centered instead on the prevalent method of selection of judges.State court judges are usually elected, commonly by popular vote, but occassionally by the legislature. Popular election has been the subject of much disapproval, including that of the American Bar Association, on the ground that the public lacks interest in and information on candidates for judicial office and that therefore the outcome is too often controlled by leaders of political parties. The situation has been somewhat improved since many local bar associations have undertaken to evaluate the qualifications of candidates and to support or oppose them on this basis.。

完整法律英语第四何家弘主编完整法律英语（第四版）何家弘主编在当今全球化的时代，法律英语的重要性日益凸显。

何家弘主编的《完整法律英语》（第四版）无疑为法律英语的学习者和从业者提供了一本极具价值的教材。

这本书的编排独具匠心，内容涵盖广泛且系统。

从基础的法律英语词汇、语法，到复杂的法律文书写作、案例分析，一应俱全。

对于初学者来说，它是打牢基础的基石；对于有一定基础的学习者，它则是提升能力的阶梯。

在词汇部分，该书不仅罗列了常见的法律专业术语，还详细解释了其含义、用法及在不同语境中的细微差别。

通过丰富的例句和实际应用场景，帮助学习者真正理解并掌握这些词汇。

例如，“burden of proof”（举证责任）、“mens rea”（犯罪意图）等词汇，书中不仅给出了清晰的定义，还通过实际案例中的运用，让学习者明白其在具体法律情境中的准确含义。

语法方面，它结合法律英语的特点，对常见的语法结构和句型进行了深入剖析。

法律英语中的长句、复杂句较多，该书通过拆解和分析这些句子的结构，帮助学习者理清句子成分，从而准确理解句子的意思。

同时，还对容易混淆的语法点进行了对比和区分，让学习者能够避免常见的语法错误。

法律文书写作是法律英语学习中的重要环节。

《完整法律英语》（第四版）在这方面着墨颇多。

它详细介绍了各类法律文书的格式、结构和写作要点，包括合同、诉状、判决书等。

书中提供了大量的范文和模板，并对其进行了细致的分析和点评，让学习者能够模仿和借鉴，逐步提高自己的写作能力。

案例分析部分则让学习者能够将所学的知识应用到实际的法律场景中。

通过对真实案例的研究和分析，学习者可以锻炼自己的法律思维能力，学会从法律的角度去思考问题、解决问题。

同时，案例分析也有助于学习者更好地理解法律条文和法律原则在实践中的运用。

此外，该书还注重培养学习者的跨文化交际能力。

在国际法律事务中，不同国家的法律体系和文化背景存在差异，理解和尊重这些差异对于有效的沟通至关重要。

法律英语汉译英（专业词汇部分）Unit One第一课美国联邦下的法律1.成文法 statutory law★2.普通法 common law3.判例法 case law4.立法机构 legislature5.法院 court6.宪法 Constitution7.立法权 law-making power8.私法 private law9.合同法 contract law10.侵权法 tort law11.商法 business law12.公司法 corporate governance law13.专利和版权 patent and copyright14.合同/契约争议 contractual disputes15.刑事案件 criminal case16.民事案件 civil case17.民事侵权诉讼 civil tort actions18.家庭法 family law19.法律选择 choice of law20.多个司法管辖区 multi-jurisdiction21.诉讼 litigation/lawsui t/suit/action★22.实体权 substantive right23.准据法/适用法 applicable/governing/proper law★24.签订 conclude25.证券欺诈案件 a case include claims of securities fraud26.履行 perform27.履行地 performance28.受理/处理案件 to hear the case★29.原告 plaintiff★30.被告defendant★31.与合同最密切联系most involved with the contract32.选择法庭 choice of forum第二课双重法院体系1.司法的 judicial2.初审法庭 trial court3.终审法院 court of last resort★4.上诉法院 court of appeals5.上诉，申诉 appeal…to6.证人 witness7.证据 evidence8.陪审团 jury9.查明事实的人，事实发现者 fact-finder10.上诉的，有权受理上诉的 appellate11.遗嘱 probate12.小额诉讼法院 small claims court13.律师 attorney14.程序 procedure15.提出（申请） file★16.申请小额索赔 file claims for small sums of money17.定罪 conviction★18.仲裁人，公断人，裁决人 arbiter19.最高法院 the Supreme Court20.先例 procedureUnit Two第一课抗辩制1.上诉人 appellant2.被上诉人 appellee3.诉由,案由 cause of action★4.向某人提起诉讼，到法院告某人 to bring an action/lawsuit against sb.5.第三那人被告 third-party defendant6.庭审程序 trial procedure★7.英美法系国家的司法程序 Anglo-American judicial procedure8.认定事实 find the fact9.证据 submission10.抗辩制 adversary system11.提起诉讼 begin suit12.界定争议 shape the issues13.出示证据 produce evidence14.争议当事人 parties to the controversy15.纠问的 inquisitorial16.庭前调查 pre-trial investigation17.大陆法传统 civil law tradition18.庭辩风格 style of presentation and argument19.有利害关系的当事人 interested parties第二课开启一个诉讼1.起诉 sue2.诉讼当事人 litigant3.司法救济，救济；减轻，缓解 relief4.提供法律救助 to furnish a relief5.纠正，补偿 redress6.诉诸法院 bring to court★7.和解 settlement★8.仲裁 arbitration9.自力救济 self-help10.搁置纠纷 let matters rest11.损害赔偿 damages★12.实际履行 specific performance13.对事管辖权 jurisdiction over the subject matter14.对人管辖权 jurisdiction over the parties15.管辖权 jurisdiction16.违约之诉 damages for breach of contract17.法庭 forum18.最低限度联系 minimum contacts19.实体公正 substantial justice20.审判地 venue21.规定（援引法条） provide/read第三课诉状和对抗诉状的动议1.诉状 pleading2.起诉状 complaint3.向法院提交诉讼状或答辩状/办理立案 to file a pleading/lawsuit with the court4.陈述，阐明 to set forth5.书记员 clerk6.传票 summons7.出具传票 to issue a summons8.向某人送达传票、起诉书、法律文书to serve a summons, complaint, legaldocument on sb.9.通知 notify10.同意出庭 an entry of appearance11.指控，声称 allegation12.成为争议问题 put in issue13.积极抗辩 affirmative defense14.反诉 counterclaim15.(用辩解)减轻 extenuate16.未到庭，未履行义务 to be in default17.驳回 dismiss18.传票送达 service of process/service of summons19.法律上的充分性 legal sufficiency20. 提出异议，反对 challenge第四课调查取证1.庭前取证，调查 pre-trial discovery2.录取证词，宣誓证明 depose3.证词笔录,书证 deposition4.宣誓 under oath5.书面质询 written interrogatories6.人身伤害案件 personal injury case7.保持中立 take no part8.意外因素 surprise element9.争议 controversy10.律师 counsel11.庭前会议 pretrial conference12.即决判决，简易判决 summary judgment13.书证，书面陈述 affidavit14.提出请求即决判决的动议 make a motion for summary judgment15.（证据）允许提出的，可采纳的 admissible16.扰乱对方 harassment of an opponent17.要求对争议进行庭审的申请 notice of trial/issue第五课庭审1.主张…..权利 assert the right to2.将……列入陪审员名单 impanel3.组成陪审团 to impanel the jury4.绝对异议权 peremptory challenge★5.候选陪审员 prospective juror6.以明确的理由对陪审员候选人提出异议 to challenge a prospective juror forcause7.发誓 swear8.开案陈词 make opening statements9.询问证人 examine the witness10.出示文书 produce the document11.证据，物证 exhibit12.直接质证 direct examination13.交叉质证 cross examination14.不允许出示的证据 inadmissible evidence15.举证完毕 rest16.指令裁定（法官指令陪审团作出的裁定） directed verdict17.否决，驳回 overrule18.（法官）对陪审团的指导 jury instruction/jury charge/charge to the jury19.结案辩论 final argument20.判决某人胜诉 to enter a judgment for sb.21.判决某人败诉 to enter a judgment against sb.22.举证责任 burden of proof23.有分量的证据，占优势的证据 preponderance of the evidence24.退庭 retire25.（陪审团）未能达到足够多数人赞同的，未能做出决定的 hung26.法官推翻陪审团才定的判决 judgment notwithstanding the verdict(judgmentn.o.v)27.达成裁定 reach verdict第六课上诉和执行1.执行 enforcement2.复审 review3.中级法院 intermediate court4.初审法院 trial court5.下级法院 lower court6.斟酌，自由裁量 discretion7.由……斟酌决定，由…..自由裁量 at the discretion of8.推翻原判，逆转 reverse9.维持原判，确认，确信 affirm10.认定事实 determination in question11.上诉担保书 appeal bond12.抄本，复本，文字记录 transcript13.命令 decree14.(不服下级法官判决)进行上诉 to appeal from (a decision of a lower court)15.口头辩论 oral argument16.判决（意见）书 opinion17.败诉方 losing party18.债权人 creditor19.重新审理 rehear20.执行令 writ of execution21.行政司法长官，县治安官 sheriff22.发回重审 remand23.动产 personal property24.判决债务人 judgment debtor25.收益 proceeds26.不动产 real estate/real property27.未清偿判决债务由司法行政官主持的拍卖 judicial sale28.留置权，扣留权 lien29.对…..有司法留置权 to have a judicial lien on30.留置，扣押（动词） garnish31.留置，扣押（名词） garnishment32.扣押（动词） attach33.扣押（名词） attachment。

第一课美国法律制度介绍第一部分特征与特点美国既是一个非常新的国家也是一个非常老的国家。

与许多别的国家相比它是一个新的国家。

同时，它还因新人口成分和新州的加入而持续更新，在此意义上，它也是新国家。

但是在其它的意义上它是老国家。

它是最老的“新”国家——第一个由旧大陆殖民地脱胎而出的国家。

它拥有最古老的成文宪法、最古老的持续的联邦体制以及最古老的民族自治实践。

美国的年轻（性）有一个很有意思的特点就是它的历史肇始于印刷机发明之后。

因此它的整个历史都得以记录下来：确实可以很有把握地说，任何其它国家都没有像美国这样全面的历史记录，因为像在意大利、法国或者英国过去的传说中湮没的那样的事件在美国都成了有文字记载的历史之一部分。

而且其记录不仅全面，还非常浩繁。

不仅包括这个国家自1776年以来的殖民时期的记录，还有当前五十个州以及各州和联邦（nation）之间错综复杂的关系网络的历史记录。

因此，据一个非常简单的例子，美国最高法院判例汇编有大约350卷，而一些州的判例汇编也几乎有同样多的卷数：想研究美国法律史的读者要面对的是超过5000巨卷的司法案例。

我们不能说一个文件或几个文件就能揭示出一国人民或其政府的特性。

但如果横跨一百多年的千百万个文件敲出始终如一的音调，我们就有理由说这就是其主调。

当千百万个文件都以同样的方式去解决同样的中心问题，我们就有理由从中得出可以被称为国民特定的确定结论。

第二部分普通法和衡平法同英国一样，美国法律制度从方法论上来说主要是一种判例法制度。

许多私法领域仍然主要是由判例法构成，广泛而不断增长的制定法一直受制于有约束力的（解释制定法的）判例法。

因此，判例法方法的知识以及使用判例法的技巧对于理解美国法律和法律方法是极其重要的。

从历史的角度来看，普通法就是由英国皇家法院的巡回法官的判决所得出的普通的一般法——优于地方法。

采纳或执行某项诉讼请求是以存在法院令状这种特殊形式的诉为前提的，而这就使最初的普通法表现为由类似于古罗马法的“诉”所构成的体系。

完整法律英语第四何家弘主编21课22课翻译在当今全球化的时代，法律英语的重要性日益凸显。

何家弘主编的《完整法律英语》为我们提供了系统学习法律英语的宝贵资源。

接下来，让我们一同走进第 21 课和第 22 课的翻译世界。

第 21 课主要围绕着一些特定的法律概念和案例展开。

其中，涉及到了合同法中的关键条款以及相关的法律解释。

比如，对于“consideration”（对价）这一概念，原文中进行了详细的阐述和分析。

在翻译时，我们需要准确理解其含义，并将其转化为清晰明了的中文表述。

“Consideration is the price paid for a promise” 可以翻译为“对价是为一项承诺所付出的代价。

” 这样的翻译既忠实反映了原文的意思，又符合中文的表达习惯。

再比如，在描述某个合同案例时，原文中出现了大量的法律术语和复杂的句子结构。

“The defendant alleged that the contract was void due to lack of mutual assent” 我们需要将其翻译为“被告声称由于缺乏双方的同意，该合同无效。

” 这里，对于“void”（无效）和“mutual assent”（双方同意）等术语的准确翻译至关重要。

第 22 课则侧重于法律程序和司法实践方面的内容。

其中，对于“judicial review”（司法审查）这一重要的法律程序，原文进行了深入的探讨。

“Judicial review is a process by which the courts examine thelegality of decisions made by public authorities” 可以翻译为“司法审查是法院审查公共当局所作决定合法性的一个过程。

” 这一翻译清晰地传达了“judicial review”的核心含义。

在翻译法律英语时，我们需要特别注意一些常见的问题。