Be a Seventh Amendment Lawyer
Jim Vickaryous: 'Every time we insist upon a jury trial for a client entitled to one, we reaffirm the importance of this right in our legal culture.'
James Madison rises from his seat with a bill in his hands at Congress Hall, Philadelphia, ready for debate. It’s 1789, and the U.S. Constitution has only been ratified the year prior. Madison isn’t advocating a pedestrian bill. He will argue for the adoption of a constitutional guarantee of a right to a jury. It’s a portion of what we now call The Bill of Rights. Over the past two decades, the Virginia Congressman’s ideas have helped form a great new nation. He has a lot to lose. Writing as “Publius” in the Federalist Papers, Madison (along with future Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and future Chief Justice John Jay) advocated for and helped create a strong federal government. With the ink still drying on the new constitution, many citizens worry about tyranny from this new government.
In 1789, Madison introduced proposed amendments in the House of Representatives, a compromise that would hopefully keep a possibly tyrannical federal government and its judges in check. He proposed a Bill of Rights, which includes the right to trial by jury and preserves citizens’ ability to resolve civil disputes before a jury of their peers. Democracy in action. Accepting this olive branch, critics of the Constitution joined Madison and his Federalists in supporting the proposal that ultimately became the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment’s text is short.
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Ratified in 1791, it affirms that civil disputes are not meant to be decided only by judges. Citizens have the right to place their controversies before a jury of peers. Importantly, citizens retained the right to have civil disputes decided by a jury rather than solely by judges. At the time, twenty dollars represented a real stake, and the wording makes clear that the jury trial was to be broadly available, not reserved for unusual or high-value cases.
The right to a jury trial appears in the constitutions of virtually every state in the United States. Florida keeps it simple in Art. I, § 22, Fla. Const., stating, “The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.”
The idea of a civil jury was not invented in America. Its roots extend through English common law and back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That document promised that no free man would be punished except by the lawful judgment of his peers. Over centuries, this principle evolved into a system where juries served as a safeguard for fairness. Sir William Blackstone described the jury as “the glory of the English law” and warned that if justice were left entirely to magistrates, bias would follow. The American founders inherited this tradition and deliberately transformed it into a constitutional right.
The tradition of a jury existed long before the Magna Carta. Englishmen fought their King for a written guarantee of a jury trial because Anglo-Saxons believed it was their right stemming from ancient tribal traditions. Saxon tribal leaders would gather people together to listen to the victim and the accused testify. The leader would enter judgment after the people gave their opinion on how the dispute should be resolved. The Vikings had a similar tribal jury tradition where they would get together in a “thing” (an assembly), argue their claims, and come to a group decision enforced by the Earl. These traditions melded together after the Norman Conquest of England. The Roman historian and senator, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, described the Germanic tribal assembly custom as far back as 98 A.D.
The Seventh Amendment does more than create procedure. It expresses a principle. Justice is not only about statutes and courts. It is also about community participation. Juries provide perspective beyond the bench. They bring varied life experiences and ensure verdicts reflect more than legal technicalities. When disputes are tested in front of jurors, decisions carry legitimacy because they draw upon the collective reasoning of citizens.
Civil jury trials, however, have become less common. Many disputes are diverted into arbitration, settlement, or administrative processes. These paths can sometimes resolve cases efficiently, but efficiency alone cannot be the measure of justice. When fewer cases reach juries, the constitutional promise risks being forgotten. Lawyers have a responsibility to resist that drift. Every time we insist upon a jury trial for a client entitled to one, we reaffirm the importance of this right in our legal culture. Indeed, it is summed up well in the old Latin legal saying, “Sat cito si recte,” in English, “Soon enough if done rightly.” This happens to be the motto on the seal of the Florida Supreme Court.
The presence of a jury also keeps the legal system from becoming insular. Judges bring expertise and authority, but expertise does not replace the perspective of citizens. Jurors test evidence against real-world experience. They remind us that justice must resonate with the community, not just with the legal profession. Without juries, courts risk losing legitimacy and connection to the people they exist to serve.
To be a Seventh Amendment lawyer is to make this principle part of daily practice. It means educating clients about why the jury matters, even when the process is uncertain. It means questioning efforts to push disputes into forums where juries are excluded. It means seeing the jury not as a hurdle but as a central element of fairness. Florida’s courts depend on lawyers who are willing to defend that role.
Re-reading the Constitution deepens this perspective. The Seventh Amendment may be brief, but its influence reaches into every case we handle. Whether advising on a contract, litigating an injury claim, or resolving a property dispute, we work within a framework shaped by this guarantee. Remembering it helps us view our role not only as problem-solvers but also as protectors of the constitutional structure that sustains justice.
Patriotism for lawyers is measured by fidelity to the Constitution. Upholding the Seventh Amendment is one of the most practical forms of patriotism we can show. Protecting the right to a civil jury is not symbolic. It is tangible, lasting, and essential to the rule of law.
The legal profession exists to serve people, and juries embody that purpose. When citizens participate directly in the administration of justice, the system gains legitimacy and strength. Lawyers who respect and defend that right are not only serving their clients but also ensuring that Florida and the nation remain faithful to constitutional principles. Let’s all resolve to be Seventh Amendment lawyers.
Jim Vickaryous is the managing partner of the Vickaryous Law Firm in Lake Mary and represents the 18th Circuit on The Florida Bar Board of Governors.
