Definition
A Latin term from old English law denoting a person who appeared or answered on behalf of another in legal proceedings. The responsalis was not a general representative like an attorney but served a narrower, more contingent function: appointed by a tenant or defendant in circumstances of necessity, the responsalis would allege the cause of the party's absence and certify the court as to how the absent party intended to proceed with their defense or submit to trial.
In ecclesiastical law, the term extended to mean a proctor — a recognized representative before church courts.
Common Confusion
Responsalis is frequently treated as a synonym for attorney in historical sources, but the two offices were legally distinct. Burrill notes that Glanville appears to use responsalis in the sense of attorney, but Bracton drew a clear line between the two roles, a distinction followed by Fleta. The key difference is that an attorney held a formal grant of authority — often requiring the king's special warrant at common law — to act generally for a party. A responsalis, by contrast, was a more limited figure permitted to explain a party's absence and certify the court without the full representative authority of an attorney. Bouvier further emphasizes that a responsalis was "a person, without restrictions as to character" admitted by the judge in the party's presence, underscoring that the office carried no formal qualification requirement. Once general appearance by attorney became available without royal warrant, the responsalis became obsolete.
Why It Matters in Research
Responsalis is a term a researcher will encounter almost exclusively in medieval English legal sources and historical commentaries on early common law procedure. Several navigational points matter:
First, the term is archaic and jurisdiction-specific to early English common law and ecclesiastical practice. It does not survive as a working legal concept in modern common law systems.
Second, source inconsistency is a genuine trap. Glanville uses responsalis where later writers would say attorney, meaning that passages from early sources may appear to describe attorney-client relationships when they are actually describing this narrower office. A researcher reading Glanville without Bracton's clarification could misread the procedural posture of a medieval action.
Third, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry supplies the most operationally precise definition — drawn directly from Coke on Littleton (Co. Litt. 128a) — and is the most useful starting point for understanding the actual procedural function of a responsalis. The Black's entries, while accurate, are too compressed to be useful alone.
Fourth, the obsolescence of the term is itself legally significant. As Rapalje & Lawrence explains, once the common law relaxed the rule requiring the king's special warrant for attorney appearances, the responsalis had no surviving function. Researchers tracing the development of attorney representation in English legal history will find responsalis relevant precisely because its disappearance marks a procedural transition.
Fifth, in ecclesiastical law contexts, responsalis means proctor, and the two terms should not be conflated with the common law usage. Ecclesiastical court records and canon law sources use responsalis in a different institutional setting with different procedural implications.
Historical Dictionary Support
The five source dictionaries agree on the basic meaning but vary considerably in depth and precision.
Black's (both editions) gives an identical two-sentence entry — adequate as a quick reference, but insufficient for research purposes. Neither edition distinguishes the responsalis from an attorney or explains the historical conditions under which the office operated.
Rapalje & Lawrence provides the most actionable entry by quoting Coke's definition directly: the responsalis was appointed "in case of extremity and necessitie" to allege the party's absence and certify the court on trial. This entry also explains why the office disappeared, connecting it to the evolution of attorney practice.
Bouvier adds an important character note — the responsalis required no qualification of character, distinguishing it from a formally admitted officer of court — but the entry appears truncated in available sources, cutting off before the comparison to attorney is completed.
Burrill is the most historically precise, tracing the term's usage through Glanville, Bracton, and Fleta, and flagging the inconsistency between Glanville's usage and later writers. The reference to Bracton fol. 212b and Fleta lib. 4, c. 6 as sources of the attorney/responsalis distinction is genuinely useful for researchers working in medieval legal texts, though verification of those folio references against original sources is advisable given the age of the secondary commentary.
No historical dictionary addresses the ecclesiastical usage with any depth. Researchers working in canon law or ecclesiastical court records will need to consult sources beyond this shelf.
Jurisdictional Note
Responsalis is a term of English legal history and has no recognized modern counterpart in American, English, or Commonwealth law. In ecclesiastical contexts, the term belongs to canon law tradition and should be interpreted within that framework rather than common law procedural doctrine.