Legal Realism RevisitedFocusing on Jerome Frank

Under the background of the construction of the legal discipline system with Chinese characteristic, it is necessary to revisit legal realism and explore its value to Chinese legal theory and legal practice. There are some limitations concerning legal realism studies in China which include: too much emphasis on the extreme view of Jerome Frank and failure to notice his constructive view, the failure to study the juristic thought in his judicial opinions, the failure to reconsider the distinction between rule-skepticism and fact-skepticism as well a lack of discussion of whether the theory of adjudication is innovative. The judicial opinions written by Jerome Frank show that he focuses on legal reality, pays attentions to the facts of cases, does not deny the role of rules and have a comprehensive view of the role of judges. The distinction between rule-skepticism and fact-skepticism by Jerome Frank is not persuasive. Tamanaha’s argument that the theory of adjudication by legal realism is not innovative cannot sustain. By studying Jerome Frank the insights of legal realism and its value in contemporary China can be indicated.