There is no neutrality in the law, and every single lawyer plays an essential role in upholding or combatting this oppressive system
My decision to not participate in the 2L recruit was a political choice in the same way that every decision we—as law students and lawyers—make is a political choice.
Everyone has different reasons for coming to law school. Maybe it was a goal you strived for over years while finishing a political science degree, or maybe it was an idea that arose later in your life after you felt unfulfilled in other professions. Maybe you hoped to reach long-sought financial stability, or maybe you wanted to please your parents. Maybe it was a decision that “just made sense” after years of hearing from others that you liked to argue a little too much.
Regardless of our motivations, from the moment we set foot in this institution, we all became political actors. We may have held diminished amounts of power in our previous positions (as workers, tenants, and students), and it may still be hard to consider ourselves as people with influence when we spend our days at the whims of professors or stressing about spending money we don’t have. But the reality is that our system is designed to mediate class relations in favor of the oppressor. By practicing law, we are either mitigating the harms of the legal apparatus or pushing for outcomes favouring the capitalist elite.
Law school classes, especially in 1L, would have us believe that the law is a neutral set of rules developed by parties with, by and large, equal bargaining power. Justice, therefore, depends on putting the rules together correctly in order to prove to judges that one party has been unfairly disadvantaged (as if one side owning a mansion and the other sleeping on the streets wasn’t enough of a clue). In reality, our legal system does not deliver justice: all legal decisions, even the ones that are more sympathetic to marginalized people, uphold class hierarchy.
Our legal system is oppressive because it allows evictions that leave tenants homeless in order for landlords to obtain passive income on multiple properties. It is oppressive because it jails poor people for shoplifting much-needed necessities while corporations can obtain record profits by raising prices out of reach of the majority of the population. It is oppressive because even unionized workers with collective bargaining rights will never receive a deal that will redistribute the vast and obscene wealth in the hands of their CEOs. It is oppressive because it allows employers to repatriate migrant farmworkers as soon as they are injured due to their appalling working conditions, with no hope of return. It is oppressive because it prevents Indigenous land defenders from blockading oil companies who drill on stolen land. It is oppressive because it still claims a right to determine what any individual can choose to do with their own body, whether that be obtaining an abortion or receiving a surgery to live as their true gender.
Our legal system will not be able to eliminate these injustices, because these injustices must exist in order for capitalist elites to maintain their wealth. If the legal system prevented dominant classes from hoarding houses, land, and resources—at the expense of lower classes—we would not be living under capitalism. Unfortunately, even the most well-intentioned judges in our legal system are not prepared to dismantle capitalism. They rose to their high position by working within the system, which has left them unprepared to consider options outside of it. We will never receive a Supreme Court ruling that says we must eradicate wealth inequality or class hierarchy, but that is the revolutionary change our society desperately requires.
While the law’s ability to enact meaningful social change is limited, I do believe that lawyering can be an important tool for harm reduction. While lawyers, on their own, will never be able to convince our traditional, risk-averse judges to end deportations, evictions, prisons, and other oppressive practices, public interest lawyers can help reduce the suffering of poor people. These legal remedies are short-term solutions to systemic problems, but they allow marginalized people to survive another day and continue leading the collective fight for transformative change and true justice.
Unfortunately, law schools have effectively convinced students that we must accept and remain complicit in the injustices of the legal system. One part of this indoctrination is making it extremely difficult for law students to work in support of marginalized communities.
Law schools deploy numerous strategies to ensure that most students choose to work for either the state or capitalist elites. First, law schools demand high tuition rates that compel students to take on large levels of debt, which increases the pressure to work for high-paying corporate law firms on Bay Street. Second, law schools structure their entire education around students’ participation in corporate recruits; their career development resources suggest that forgoing participation in these recruits will have catastrophic career consequences. This system incorrectly convinces students that there are no legitimate career options outside of corporate law. Finally, law schools tell students who possess some financial flexibility that they can achieve social justice by working in government, even though departments like the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice primarily litigate cases that enable the state’s oppression of the working class.
While law schools convince many students that it is not possible to practice public interest law without living on the poverty line, many people may be surprised to learn that a starting salary at a legal clinic after articling can be $70,000 per year, which is far from destitute. If a Legal Aid job is financially out of reach, there are other employment options that are more ethical than corporate law, including working for a union, a union-side labour firm, or other firms that practice criminal defense, family, or immigration law.
Capitalism prevents people from making ethically pure choices. I am not writing this article to suggest I possess a moral high ground over my peers who take a corporate job to pay off mountains of student loan debt or to support a family. People, first and foremost, must survive.
That being said, I am asking every law student to recognize that where they work is a political choice. There is no neutrality in the law, and every single lawyer plays an essential role in upholding or combatting this oppressive system. It is our duty, as law students and future lawyers, to recognize this power.
I did not participate in the 2L recruit because I do not want to use my legal career to uphold our systems of domination. If you have the ability to make the same choice, I would implore you to do so.
Editor’s Note: Peeha Luthra is a member of the University of Toronto Law Union Steering Committee.
