Collective Nouns for Participants in the Legal System

There is a short list of collective nouns for barristers:

1. A “boast” of barristers.
2. A “wiggery” of barristers
3. A “bar” of barristers.
4. A “chamber” of barristers.

Each has a plain origin, alluding to the practices and trappings of counsel. The first two, undoubtedly, are redundant. The last two are part of modern idiom.

For barristers of the rank of silk, the collective noun is a “purse” of silks. This was derived, apparently,  from expensive women’s purses – in the late nineteen century – being manufactured from silk.

Barristers are known to gossip.  The germane collective noun is a “gaggle” (also a “dish”) of gossips.  This has its genesis in the Harley Manuscript of the early fifteenth century, the allusion being to cackling geese.

As to barristers involved in criminal prosecution, “An Exaltation of Larks;  the Ultimate Edition” by James Lipton (Penguin, 1993) identifies – at page 240 – the collective noun as a “presumption” of prosecutors.

There is a raft of collective nouns for lawyers:

1. An “eloquence” of lawyers.
2. An “argument” of lawyers.
3. A “disputation” of lawyers.
4. A “greed” of lawyers.
5. A “huddle” of lawyers.
6. A “quarrel” of lawyers.
7. An “escheat” of lawyers.

The first of these harbours the strongest historical foundation, albeit now – like the others – is redundant.  It has its genesis in the 1486 “The Book of St Albans”.  In “An Unkindness of Ravens – the Book of Collective Nouns” by Chloe Rhodes (Michael O’Mara Books Limited, 2014) a further explanation of such origin – referable, plainly, to lawyer advocates – is furnished:

By the fourteenth century the four Inns of Court – the Inner and Middle Temples, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn – had been founded in London to provide formalised training for lawyers.  By the end of the fifteenth century pleaders had come to be called barristers and a structured system of education in the law was in place. Students would spend 7 years at the Inns of Court, studying, attending lectures and watching established pleaders at work, absorbing both the ethos of their profession and the discursive arguing style it is known for to this day.  With the success of their career depending entirely upon their ability to convince a judge of their point, eloquence was the most important attribute a lawyer could have.

Mediation is a modern sphere of practice for lawyers. The germane collective noun – harbouring plain origin – is a “compromise” or a “caucus” of mediators.

Ms Rhodes goes on to refer to the collective noun of a “sentence” of judges.  She attributes that – at pages 42-43 – to the the appointment of assize judges in the twelfth century, such judges perceived as being harsh in the sentences they delivered, ranging from a stint in the stocks to public execution.  The modern noun is a “bench” of judges.

The Book of St Albans is also identified by Ms Rhodes – at pages 23-24 – as the genesis of the collective noun for jurors:  a “damning”.  Such Book identifies same by the language “a dampnying of jourrouris”.  A “damning” verdict by a jury was one that found the person charged guilty of the crimes the subject of charge.  The word comes from the old French word “dampner”, in turn from the Latin “damnare”, meaning to injure or condemn.  Ms Rhodes writes:

… [I]n the God-fearing Middle Ages, it implied that your crimes made you worthy [only] of eternal damnation.

The modern noun is a ”panel” of jurors.

A group of court witnesses is a “legion”, “stare”, “stand”, “oath” or “blessing” of  witnesses.

There is but one collective noun for lawyers’ clients that the writer’s research can locate:  a “moan” of clients. The less said about that the better!

The collective noun for those in court custody, or criminally convicted, is a “pity” of prisoners. So much is derived from the book “The Hors, Shepe and the Ghoos”: Mr Lipton at page 83. In modern mores, it would be a “dock” or “cell” of prisoners.

Mr Lipton – at page 240 – identifies the collective noun for acquittals is a “deliverance” of acquittals. This was founded, he writes, in bygone UK criminal practice exchange between court clerk and prisoner, whereby in response to the prisoner formally declaring they wished to be tried “By God and country”, the clerk responded “God give you a good deliverance”.   

Finally, as to those involved in the service of legal process, Mr Lipton – at page 83 – identifies a “shadow” of  process servers.

In the premises, the writer ventures that the collective noun for legal practice collective nouns ought be a “judgment”.