Showing posts with label Lawyers and Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyers and Society. Show all posts

August 31, 2017

Diamond on The Transposition of Power: Law, Lawyers, and Social Movements @GeorgetownLaw

Michael Diamond, Georgetown University Law Center, has published The Transposition of Power: Law, Lawyers and Social Movements at 24 Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 319 (2017). Here is the abstract.
Various groups of people have been the victims of oppression throughout time and across national borders and cultures. Many forms of oppression continue to exist all over the world today, including in the United States. I have been particularly concerned with oppression on the basis of race. The responses to oppression have taken many forms, ranging from passivity and acquiescence to rebellion. Much of the response, however, takes place between these extremes, often in the form of ongoing collective action by more or less organized groups. Broadly speaking, these actions have come to be known as social movements, and they have been the subject of a great deal of scholarly examination. Through this scholarship, we have learned much about the nature of social movements, who joins them, and how they have been able to succeed. We have not learned as much about how the law and lawyers affect such movements and how, if at all, law and lawyers contribute to their success. I would like to examine these issues in an effort to elucidate the relationship between law, lawyers, and social movements and to better understand how lawyers can be helpful (or detrimental) to such movements. My own interest in this field is somewhat more narrowly confined. For example, I have been skeptical of movements and lawyers who set as their goal the establishment of new or expansion of existing legal rights. New rights do not seem to have much social or political impact on subordinated groups, unless the holders of those rights have the power to enforce them. As an alternative to the rights discourse, I have been interested in the acquisition and utilization of power by marginalized and oppressed groups in the United States. Even more narrowly, my research has focused primarily on issues affecting the urban poor. Historically, there has been a significant intersection connecting social movements to urban poverty. The Civil Rights Movement, the Welfare Rights Movement, the Affordable and Fair Housing Movements, the Affordable Health Care Movement and the Black Lives Matter Movement among others, have had significant impetus from and impact on the urban poor. Many of these movements succeeded in creating new rights for various groups. Many were successful in changing, to some extent individual lives and social environments. Nevertheless, we see today a society where wealth and well-being are even more polarized, often on the basis of race, and groups of people who remain subject to the same forms of intergenerational oppression as those faced by their long departed ancestors. These groups continue to exist on the wrong side of what I have previously called the “power deficit.” If this assertion is correct the dedicated and well-intentioned efforts of lawyers have had only marginal results. Thus, I take the position, as do several others, that lawyers who work with oppressed groups must assist them in gaining and using power rather than pursuing rights as an end in themselves. That being said, there is little consensus among social scientists, philosophers, and lawyers on the meaning of power and virtually no legal literature on how it can be obtained and used (although a fair amount exists on the need to obtain and utilize it). “Of all the concepts used by sociologists, few are the source of more confusion or misunderstanding than power.” My intention in this paper is to dispel some of that confusion and to attempt to illuminate some issues concerning power in relation and as a response to oppression.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

July 28, 2016

Wald on Lawyers' Identity Capital

Eli Wald, University of Denver College of Law, is publishing Lawyers’ Identity Capital in volume 22 of the International Journal of the Legal Profession (2016). Here is the abstract.
Lawyers’ commodification of personal identity is nothing new. For generations now, white male lawyers have benefitted from positive racial and gender stereotypes regarding their competence and loyalty to clients and firms to secure job offers, promotions and elevated status within the profession. Yet the concept of identity capital – the value one derives from one’s personal identity – warrants attention for two related reasons. While prevalent, lawyers’ use of identity capital has historically been implicit. As explicit and visible use of identity capital grows, however, lawyers must reckon with the meaning of and consequences of using identity capital in their practice. In addition, because women and minority lawyers are increasingly criticized for undermining professional standards by actively using identity capital or by passively allowing its commodification, fairness dictates that the profession comes to terms with the relationship between merit and capital. This essay examines the commodification of women and minority lawyers’ personal identity in the context of the ongoing commodification of lawyers’ personal identity more generally. Specifically, it explores several qualities of identity capital that ought to inform both the decision-making of individual lawyers who either actively deploy it or passively tolerate its commodification by others in representing clients and of the profession as it assesses the use of identity capital by its members: inevitable and avoidable uses of identity capital, the desirability of lawyers’ commodification of personal identity, active and passive uses of identity capital, the impact of identity capital exchanges on third parties, the interplay of merit and identity capital and the appropriate terms of identity capital transactions.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

September 15, 2015

U. S. Lawyers and Their Ideologies

Adam Bonica, Stanford Univesrity Department of Political Science, Adam S. Chilton, University of Chicago Law School, and Maya Sen, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, are publishing The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers in the Journal of Legal Analysis. Here is the abstract.
The ideology of American lawyers has been a persistent source of discussion and debate. Two obstacles, however, have prevented this topic from being systematically studied: the sheer number of attorneys in the United States and the need for a methodology that makes comparing the ideology of specific individuals possible. In this paper, we present a comprehensive mapping of lawyers’ ideologies that has overcome these hurdles. We use a new dataset that links the largest database of political ideology with the largest database of lawyers’ identities to complete the most extensive analysis of the political ideology of American lawyers ever conducted.
Download the text of the article from SSRN at the link.

July 6, 2015

Lawyers, Taxi Drivers, and the Collaborative Economy, Oh, My

Mark A. Cohen, CEO of Legal Mosiac, compares lawyers and cab drivers, in this post at Bloomberg BNA's Legal Communities Blog.

Mr. Cohen begins:

Lawyers and cabbies have several things in common: (1) if their meter is not down, they are not generating revenue; (2) most cabbies don’t own their medallions, and the vast majority of attorneys are not equity partners in their law firms; (3) both groups operate in economic models that are strikingly similar: owners benefit when their ranks of cabbies — or lawyers — are working “with their meters down” and (4) statistics show that lawyers and cab drivers have disproportionately high rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, and a host of other maladies. And as if that’s not enough, there’s something more to heap on: Uber.

September 22, 2014

Lawyers, Love, and Money

Eli Wald, University of Denver College of Law, and Russell G. Pearce, Fordham University School of Law, have published What's Love Got to Do with Lawyers? Thoughts on Relationality, Love, and Lawyers’ Work in volume 17 of Legal Ethics (2014). Here is the abstract. 

In a new and provocative book, Rob Vischer has challenged the neutral partisan conception of the lawyer and the legal profession’s reductive presumption that all clients wish to pursue atomistic self-interest irrespective of the consequences to others. Vischer’s use of the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and of Christian theology as a foundation for an alternative, and richly relational, account of law practice is both inspiring and effective.
To debunk the presumption that clients seek narrow self-interest, which the book argues is a powerful component of the neutral partisan conception, Vischer compellingly asserts that clients are relational beings often interested in pursuing objectives that take into account the impact of their conduct on other parties and the community. The book’s main contribution is its development of a practical relational account of law practice pursuant to which lawyers can both represent clients loyally and follow a relational ethic. Based on Dr. King’s teachings regarding human dignity, agape, personalism, justice and Christian realism, Vischer puts forward a vision of law practice that calls upon lawyers to treat clients and themselves as subjects in a partnership and to offer counseling to clients that does not shy away from engaging the hard moral dimensions of the clients’ conduct.
The book’s relational framework could gain even greater traction if it offered reasons for practicing relationally not embedded in Christian theology. For example, Vischer’s anthroreligious belief that we are all created as relational human beings leads him to indicate that if institutional, competitive and ideological barriers to relational practice were removed, lawyers and clients would inevitably act more relationally. The cultural dominance of atomistic individualism, however, suggests that even with barriers removed, lawyers and clients will need some additional persuasion before adopting relational perspectives. Similarly, the book’s grounding of relationality in agapic love neglects the potential application of more open-textured concepts, such as mutual benefit, that might conceivably appeal more broadly to lawyers who do not share Vischer’s theological convictions.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. 

June 5, 2013

A New Biography of Gandhi

Charles Richard DiSalvo, West Virginia University College of Law, is publishing M. K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law: The Man Before the Mahatma with the University of California Press (Fall 2013). Here is the abstract.
Students of Gandhi have long recognized that there exists a significant gap in the Gandhi scholarship. None of Gandhi’s many biographers has focused on Gandhi’s extensive practice of law. Similarly, scholars have not examined Gandhi’s experience in the law as a critical factor contributing to the development of his philosophy and practice of nonviolence. This book takes up those tasks. Using previously unexamined archival materials, it brings to light for the first time Gandhi’s ultimately unsuccessful attempt to use the courts to defend Indian rights. It argues that Gandhi’s subsequent disillusionment with litigation as a tool for justice and social change led him to experiment with a new approach — nonviolent civil disobedience.
The book does not conclude that Gandhi abandoned his faith in the rule of law. Rather, it concludes that he discovered within the law the grand dynamic that converts disobedience to change — change even in the law itself.
As it makes this argument, the book does not ignore the person of Gandhi. It demonstrates that it was the practice of law that allowed Gandhi to transform himself from a shy and awkward youth into the competent and confident public person who would later lead India to freedom.
The appendix for the book is available at the following URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268724.
The complete endnotes for the book are available at the following URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268712.
The full text is not available from SSRN.

May 28, 2013

New Reality Show Focusing On Brooklyn Prosecutor's Office Debuts

Legal dramas are perennially popular, and as usual, the networks are already rolling them out for the 2013 season. On Tuesday, May 29, at 10 p.m., 9 Central time, CBS launches a new show, Brooklyn D.A., starring the city itself and the office of the prosecutor, focusing on the ADAs and their work. What is different about this six part series? It's a chance for viewers to look behind the scenes. 

The show is already not without controversy. Abe George, who is running for the office of District Attorney, had attempted to object to the show, arguing that it constitutes election publicity for the office holder, Charles Hynes. A judge denied his motion last week. Today, meanwhile, a man suing the D.A. 's office for wrongful conviction is now attempting to obtain emails exchanged between that office and the show's producers.

More here from the New York Times, here from the New York Daily News.

June 1, 2011

Plain Speaking Outside the Courtroom

Jason Cohen, Rutgers School of Law (Camden), has published Attorneys at the Podium: A Plain Language Approach to Using the Rhetorical Situation in Public Speaking Outside the Courtroom, at 8 Legal Communication &Rhetoric 73 (2011). Here is the abstract.



The general public typically has the unrealistic expectation that all lawyers are effective and persuasive public speakers who, when called upon, have the innate ability to say “just the right thing.” In fact, not all of us have that innate ability. And even though we may have some level of legal genius swirling around in our minds, that genius is sometimes poorly communicated in speeches that ultimately don’t meet audience expectations or needs. Certainly, law school has taught us how to think and write like lawyers, but the ability to effectively communicate orally isn’t as frequently emphasized. This lack of emphasis on effective public speaking is unfortunate because lawyers are frequently forced to engage in some public speaking outside the courtroom, including speaking to lay groups about various matters of legal controversy; making appearances before legislatures, city councils and municipal boards; presenting at bar association luncheons; making client pitches; or participating in media interviews on behalf of clients. All of these occasions require the attorney-speaker to organize content, consider the audience, and deliver the most effective message possible.



Understanding the rhetorical situation - a theoretical concept with huge practical implications - before crafting the response helps the speaker meet these crucial components to effective speaking. Rather than focus merely on the mechanics of speech delivery or the flourishes of theatrical speaking, the speaker should first identify the rhetorical situation, which will force the speaker to concentrate on specific content for the speech.



The good news for those attorneys who want to become more successful public speakers is that if they understand the rhetorical situation, they will be better able to meet audience expectations. This is true because their analysis of the situation gives the attorney-speaker the tools to understand the environmental context of the speech (what is happening in the world outside the speech) and the audiences affected by this context. Together, these understandings ultimately permit the speaker to craft a speech that can aid, persuade, or satisfy those affected.



This short article first introduces the theoretical definition of the rhetorical situation. Translating the theory into plain language, it then offers a checklist for the attorney in preparing for any speaking scenario. These steps embody the rhetorical-situation analysis. Finally, the article illustrates the recommended approach by guiding the reader through an analysis of the rhetorical situation surrounding President Reagan’s Challenger speech.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.