Definition
A meeting of persons for deliberation, exchange of views, or resolution of differences. In legal contexts, "conference" carries several distinct meanings depending on setting:
1. Counsel conference. A meeting between counsel and solicitor (or attorney and client) to advise on a pending matter, review strategy, or discuss the state of a case. May occur with or without the client present.
2. Pretrial conference. A court-supervised meeting between opposing counsel and the judge, convened to narrow issues, set a scheduling order, explore settlement, or manage discovery. Governed in federal practice by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Legislative conference. When the two chambers of a bicameral legislature pass different versions of the same bill, each chamber appoints a conference committee. The committee meets to reconcile differences and produce a single agreed text for final passage.
4. International law conference. Direct verbal exchanges between representatives of two or more nations, used to resolve disputes or advance negotiations without the formality or delay of written diplomatic channels. Bouvier distinguishes this from written correspondence as a mechanism for accelerating international matters.
5. French/comparative law sense (historical). Bouvier records a specialized use in French legal scholarship: a comparison or parallel analysis between two laws or two systems of law — essentially a doctrinal collation rather than a meeting of persons.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To assess a student through one-on-one conversation rather than a written examination; also generally, any meeting for discussion.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A meeting for consultation, discussion" and "the act of consulting together formally; serious conversation or discussion; interchange of views." Webster also records an obsolete sense meaning simply comparison of two things.
The common meaning and the legal meaning are largely continuous — both involve organized meetings for deliberation — but the legal uses are term-of-art contexts with procedural consequences. A pretrial conference is not merely a meeting; it produces binding scheduling orders and can result in sanctions. A legislative conference committee operates under formal parliamentary rules. Researchers should not treat "conference" as a generic synonym for "meeting" when it appears in procedural rules or legislative history.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Pretrial conference: Court-ordered meeting under Rule 16 or state equivalents to manage civil litigation.
Final pretrial conference: A late-stage conference held close to trial to confirm exhibit lists, witness lists, jury instructions, and stipulations.
Settlement conference: A meeting, sometimes before a magistrate or mediator, focused specifically on resolving the case without trial.
Conference committee (legislative): A joint committee of both chambers convened to reconcile divergent bill versions.
Counsel/solicitor conference: The informal professional meeting between legal representatives and client.
International conference: A structured diplomatic meeting between state representatives.
Why It Matters in Research
The word "conference" in a historical source requires immediate context-checking because it signals entirely different legal mechanisms depending on the era, jurisdiction, and document type.
In legislative history research, references to a "conference report" or "conference committee" are critical: the conference report represents the final negotiated text and often contains the most authoritative expression of congressional intent on contested provisions. Researchers using legislative history must distinguish floor debate (pre-conference) from conference report language (post-conference), as courts have given different weight to each.
In procedural research, the pretrial conference is a modern institution. Rule 16 in its current active form dates to 1938 but was substantially revised in 1983 and again in 1993 to create mandatory scheduling orders and expand judicial case management authority. Historical sources — including older editions of Black's — will not reflect this procedural architecture. A researcher using pre-1983 materials on pretrial practice will find a markedly less interventionist judicial role.
In English common law practice, the "conference" between counsel and solicitor was a professional formality with billing implications. Rapalje & Lawrence situates it within the solicitor's work on a transaction, alongside searches and title verification. This usage is functionally extinct in American practice but appears in historical treatises and English precedents reproduced in early American reporters.
Bouvier's comparative law usage — conference as doctrinal comparison of two legal systems — surfaces in French-derived sources and civil law scholarship. It will confuse researchers who encounter it without warning; it describes a type of legal writing, not a meeting.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence agree on the core definition: a meeting for deliberation, interchange of opinion, or removal of differences, with the counsel-solicitor meeting as the primary practical application. The formulations are nearly identical across editions, suggesting the term was stable in Anglo-American legal usage by the late nineteenth century.
Bouvier adds the two specialized senses — international diplomatic conference and the French comparative law usage — that Black's omits. This divergence reflects Bouvier's broader civil law and international orientation. Neither source is wrong; they are drawing from different traditions.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss is the modern procedural conference: the Rule 16 pretrial conference as an active judicial case-management tool with enforceable orders and sanction authority. No nineteenth-century source anticipates this. The legislative conference committee is acknowledged by Black's but receives minimal treatment, and none of the historical sources addresses the interpretive weight courts give to conference reports in statutory construction.
Jurisdictional Note
Pretrial conference practice varies significantly between federal and state courts. Federal practice under Rule 16 is relatively uniform; state rules range from close analogs to substantially different regimes. In some state courts, pretrial conferences are perfunctory or optional; in others, they carry mandatory disclosure and narrowing obligations comparable to federal practice.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_74: Pretrial Conferences and Scheduling Orders — Rule 16 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)