I had the pleasure of attending many interesting panels at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Association of Law, Culture and the Humanities at the University of Syracuse College of Law this past weekend. A paper that stood out for me -- perhaps because it took as its object something I had never considered in my studies of law and culture -- was about the Sissons/Morrow Collection of Canadian Inuit stone carvings. Justice Sissons was a Canadian judge who presided over disputes in the Northwest Territories in Canada. During the adjudication of one dispute (about a man who was accused of murdering his father, but who explained his father's death as a kind of euthanasia and as part of his Inuit tradition), the defendant carved out of stone a sculpture of Judge Sissons and the defendant facing each other across a small bench. Both are dressed in hooded, fur-lined coats. The judge was very big and the defendant very small. The carving (and trial) took place in 1956. The defendant was found not-guilty. The defendant gave the carving to Judge Sissons. The receipt of this carving spurred Sissons' collection of many other such carvings, most of which are on exhibit in Toronto. Shulamit Almog, of the University of Haifa, presented a paper on this collection, analyzing the sculpture as legal cultural objects. She addressed the unique aesthetics of sculpture, generally, and the poetics of these sculptures specifically. In particular, she considered how the collection both constitutes and is one result of the imposition of a new legal order in the Northwest Territories. We can regard these sculptures as a "translation" of the legal process by Inuit populations, newly subject to the Canadian legal system. We can also regard the sculptures -- especially as they form a collection -- as constitutive of the heterogenous community (with its conflicting narratives about right and wrong, necessity and chance) that was forming in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada. Dr. Almog's paper left me very curious about the life of legal sculpture around us, be it "legal architecture" (courthouses, law schools) or art (The Rape of the Sabine Women, comes to mind, as does the David). Questions about how we might theorize the sculpture's "point of view" (an intriguing question posed to Dr. Almog by Professor Naomi Mezey), its capacity to address an audience, its (non)mimetic qualities (texture, size, dimension), and its craft generally make sculpture a rich (and to me, still enigmatic) cultural manifestation of law.