A response to Grayson Alabiso-Cahill’s “Movement Lawyering: Which Side Are You On?”
Although we are told that law degrees are versatile, we are also told that some career choices are better than others. However, the idea that one type of career is superior to another—without regard to an individual’s particular circumstances—is harmful as it shames members of the legal community and fails to alleviate the root causes of injustice.
Grayson Alabiso-Cahill’s op-ed, Movement Lawyering: Which Side Are You On?, reinforces a stereotype we know all too well: that lawyers “facilitate injustice.” To this end, Alabiso-Cahill raises valid points. For example, he notes that public dispute resolution mechanisms are overwhelmed and that legal systems can make unjust rules. Movement lawyering can help transform the legal system to one that is more just.
Until then, we must operate within our current system. No one is above the law. As Alabiso-Cahill points out, this system is largely capitalistic and reliant on corporate activity. Irrespective of one’s views on this system, we live in a society that houses vast corporate infrastructure, and as such, has developed a complex corporate law landscape. Therefore, corporate law firms present many employment opportunities for law students, and students may find themselves drawn to these careers for many reasons.
Although some students are interested solely in the nature of corporate work, some pursue corporate work for a combination of interest-related and financial reasons. While dedicating one’s life to the struggle of working-class people can be noble, many come to law school to lift themselves and their families out of financial hardship. Pursuing high-paying careers to secure better futures is not an unlikely scenario.
By asking readers to evaluate the side they’re on, Alabiso-Cahill implies there is a wrong side to movement lawyering (or the “struggle for justice”). While working for the public interest is undoubtedly important, it seems cruel to ask students to be “part of the struggle” when some have first-hand experience with financial insecurity. Fighting one another also distracts from the real enemy so to speak—stakeholders that preclude access to justice, such as the Ontario government reducing the province’s student financial aid program.
Contrary to the author’s belief, lawyers are not uniquely insulated from the struggles of the working class. Rather, many privileged individuals, lawyers or otherwise, do not want to face the challenges associated with financial insecurity. Movement lawyers even aim to alleviate the effects of income inequality on the working class by fostering more equitable wealth distributions. Given all these factors, choosing a higher-paying career is understandable, and students should not be shamed for doing so.
Further, it is erroneous to believe that law students and lawyers can relate to the same hardship as the working class simply by virtue of choosing a socially-justice oriented career path. On account of our education and network, we have access to opportunities that others don’t and can choose to leave the working-class struggle—a luxury others do not have.
Finally, individuals who work in corporate roles are not precluded from activism in the public sphere. For example, many Big Law firms dedicate themselves to pro bono work and donate to social justice causes; importantly, much of the non-profit work in the legal field depends on grants from corporate law firms. Lawyers can also choose to volunteer their time or donate funds to a cause of their choosing, even if they do not participate in their firm’s pro bono initiatives. Even if lawyers choose to forego the aforementioned initiatives, lifting themselves and their families out of financial insecurity benefits disadvantaged communities—and that is commendable.
As law students and future lawyers, we should be cognizant that we belong to an immensely privileged group. We have access to high-paying careers, job stability, and most importantly, the ability to represent others with their legal issues. Given these privileges, we should be mindful of access to justice in our community. But we should also be mindful of the different circumstances others face that preclude them from pursuing careers perceived to be at the forefront of social change.
My point isn’t that we should never criticize societal shortcomings, but rather that we shouldn’t divide the legal profession based on career choices. As we finish another recruit cycle, and enter another year of the pandemic, we should promote collegiality within the profession and be kind to one another.
