The author argues against A.L. Smyshlyayev about the nature of the Roman Republican jurisprudence in V–I centuries BC, noting a number of errors of his opponent. So, (1) he cites the modern historiography in favor of the existence of the ius respondendi of Roman lawyers long before August. (2) Wrong he believes and A.L. Smyshlyayev’s understanding of expression disputatio fori, as in the fragment of Pomponius (D. 1. 2 .2. 5) and in modern literature we are talking about the discussion of bills and not of court cases. (3) Claiming the existence in the III–I centuries BC of lawyers–orators, the author rebukes A.L. Smyshlyayev in the wrong understanding of the treatise of Cicero “De oratore”. (4) Further, the author cites a variety of data sources and historiography about the close relationship between trinundinum and “30 legitimate days”. (5) Finally, speaking of the close relationship of the Roman promulgatio with trinundinum , the author notes that A.L. Smyshlyayev just “didn’t notice” the cited sources, grammatical analysis of which simply does not allow another translation than proposed by the author.