We've tentatively defined lawyering as "making something change in society using words." I think about this a lot, both in and out of class. Obviously, there are many ways to make change in society using words; this is something not only good lawyers, but also good journalists and novelists do. For me, that raises the question: what can lawyers contribute to making social change that novelists and journalists can't? Does our usefulness lie in our knowledge of, and proximity to, structures of power?

I bring this up because the groundwork for many of the prominent social reforms of the last century seems to have been laid by other kinds of writers -- Rachel Carson and Upton Sinclair, for instance. In the realm of foreign policy, simply by showing people what was really going on, journalists helped turn American public opinion decisively against the Vietnam War. This seems to have impacted Vietnam policy, and foreign policy in general, far more effectively than lawyers ever could have.

Of course, these other kinds of writers write for a popular audience, while lawyers seem to write mainly for other lawyers, so it's understandable that their achievements are more visible to someone like me. Still, I wonder if this prominence corresponds with their greater real power to make change happen. In Arnold's terms, they seem to be able to challenge, or even alter, the popular "myths" that lawyers have to operate within. In any case, I want to know what we can accomplish that the novelists and journalists can't. What do you think?

-- MichaelHolloway - 10 Mar 2009

I think what separates us from journalists is both our legitimacy and the ability to make our use of words only the first step of the process. I studied and worked in journalism as an undergraduate and now when lawyers ask why I decided to pursue a legal career, my answer is always the same; as a journalist, I researched the issue, interviewed the sources and crafted the story in a way that would prove most effective to my targeted audience. It was a fun and exciting way to convey a story, but the problem I always ran into was that I didn't want to stop. When addressing a difficult issue, I would write an in-depth piece and submit it under deadline, but there were always questions that remained unanswered, interviews that got cut and issues perhaps too controversial to be addressed. Because the time and monetary constraints on journalists are tremendous, all were left for someone else to take up. In some cases, this was other media and in others, it was the general public. Far too often though, stories having the potential to be influential were buried in the back of the newspaper or ignored even when highlighted. "If it bleeds, it leads," my editor would always say. As for the ongoing problems of covert discrimination, unfair housing policies... injustice in our society, no one cared; they didn't want to hear it from a journalist and most certainly didn't want it to crowd their sports sections.

The difference I see between the professions is that lawyers have far longer to go before stopping. If a lawyer researches an issue and "presents for publication" to a judge or jury, she is advocating for a client at the moment but also had the past opportunity to pursue a class action, negotiate settlement and collect evidence; similarly, she has the opportunity in the future to craft words carefully in an appeal or while advocating for someone in an analogous situation years down the road. As lawyers, I do think we get the layman prestige and the power. When you think about it, what could be more cool than spending your life taking the next step -- waving the red flag, screaming "hey, look what's going on" and actually having people turn around to listen?