Prompt: (1) In terms of effecting social change with words, what can lawyers accomplish that novelists or journalists cannot? (2) If lawyers possess a unique ability to effect social change, does it stem from their knowledge of, and proximity to, power structures?

Authors and journalists effected grand-scale change by laying the groundwork for many prominent social reforms and by successfully shaping American public opinion Examples: (a) Rachel Carson - environmentalism, (b) Upton Sinclair – federal regulation of food items, (c) Broadcast journalism and the Vietnam War

Authors and journalists seemingly possess greater power than lawyers to effect change; in Arnold's terms, they seem to be able to challenge, or even alter, the popular "myths" that lawyers have to operate within

Alternatively, this perception may have less to do with actual power than with the relative visibility of writer/journalist achievements vis-a-vis attorney achievements

-- MichaelHolloway - 10 Mar 2009

---

One reason lawyering might be more effective in enacting social change is its proximity to enforcement. Many journalists have facilitated change, but ultimate enforcement is difficult. While the lawyer has the potential to use the power of the state against the majority, the journalist might need to convince the majority that change is required. For instance, assuming Professor Roubini had solutions as well as predictions, a lawyer might have been able to enforce change against the majority that believed the economy was in fine shape. As it turned out, of course, his ideas in 2006 fell on mostly deaf ears and little was done.

The lawyer must, of course, also be persuasive. Also, the journalist can shed light on issues and help the lawyer's cause. But when push comes to shove, it appears that the lawyer can more readily utilize the power of the state.

-- KeithEdelman - 28 Mar 2009

---

Attorneys possess more legitimacy and lay prestige than journalists which makes audiences more receptive to their attempts at societal change

Tremendous temporal and monetary constraints, as well as consumer preferences, which prevent journalists from engaging in the comprehensive treatment afforded by attorneys and required for the rectification of the most pressing injustices.

In journalism, stories with the potential to be influential are buried in the back of newspapers or ignored when highlighted

Attorneys are provided with more tools and opportunities to, not merely identify a need for, but realize change

Examples: advocating for a client at the present, pursuing class actions, negotiating settlements, collecting evidence, carefully crafting appeals, applying past experiences to future analogous experiences.

-- UchechiAmadi

---

********************

Eben mentioned an article in the NYT about medical students who did something very risky and courageous.

Medical students saw something that was not right and collectively advocated for change using words

Eben recognized the same potential in law students (e.g. changing the grading curve) but noted their inaction.

If law students are risk-averse, isn’t it reasonable to assume they would continue their risk-aversion after becoming lawyers?

-- AlfianKuchit - 13 Mar 2009

---

Lawyers are trained to understand the intricacies of society that most people do not care about

Generally, this arrangement relegates lawyers to a place outside the public eye which explains the broader influence of journalists

Fortunately, this arrangement creates a significant role for lawyers that could reflect positively on the profession: explaining the relationship of these intricacies to normal life in a way that clarifies complexities for laymen.

I'm drawing on the interview Jon Stewart had with Jim Cramer about the role CNBC could have had during the recent economic crisis. -- AaronShepard - 24 Mar 2009

---

In seeking to crystallize their differences, we must not over-simplify the careers in unhelpful ways

The law is compromised by its close proximity to authority and the conservative pressures emanating from it.

The law is the state speaking and legal battles are waged over the precise meanings of words whose content was largely determined by narrow interests (lobbyists etc…)

The law contains an essential paradox: on the one hand it possesses a coercive power to adjudicate the problems of a people, which gives it a capacity to effect change perhaps superior to journalism; on the other, the various limitations (e.g. standing, political question doctrine) and highly specific language of the law, itself shaped by the conservative energies we oppose, hinder its operation in ways from which journalism is immune.

Ultimately, effective advocacy has to move over multiple channels, and meditation on what law can or can’t do in relation to journalism risks othering one of the occupations and reducing our own abilities to think creatively and work towards change.

-- ScottThurman - 25 Mar 2009

The restrictions on the use of language lawyers face, which Scott identifies, are the source of the power and legitimacy attorneys wield

When lawyers speak, their legitimacy is based in the idea that they are constrained by the law to be precise, and to have some established principle, precedent, doctrine, (the state, as you rightly say) to back up their claims. That’s why anyone listens to lawyers (when and if they do) at all.

When attempting to effect social change, lawyers must be at their most creative

If social change, as Scott says, “moves over multiple channels,” effective lawyering may be indispensible

Example: the immediate result of Sinclair’s Jungle critique of the institutionalized exploitation of the working class was public outcry – the lasting result was the passage of the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts (1906);

Understanding the potential and limitations of lawyering can help us work more effectively with other worthy occupations to advance our aims.

-- LeslieHannay - 26 Mar 2009

When lawyers speak, their legitimacy is based in the idea that they are constrained by the law to be precise, and to have some established principle, precedent, doctrine, (the state, as you rightly say) to back up their claims. That’s why anyone listens to lawyers (when and if they do) at all.

At the same time, Leslie, using simple and concise language is often considered to be mark of an effective attorney from a trial advocacy perspective. Attorneys in trial practice are usually instructed to abandon their formalistic, overly-precise lawyerspeak to better make things happen for their side. I'd imagine lawyers attempting to communicate with the general public would adopt a similar strategy.

-- MolissaFarber - 26 Mar 2009

using simple and concise language is often considered to be mark of an effective attorney

Yes, that is what I meant by "precise" - if "precise" may be taken to connote "turgid, hyper-technical, or inaccessible to a lay audience," I was not aware of it and did not intend that meaning.

-- LeslieHannay - 28 Mar 2009