•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Lawyers wishing to do social change work are placed in the difficult position of trying to provide the legal representation their clients seek while at the same time not undermining their clients' autonomy. This is a difficult position to be in. First, the risks to client autonomy inherent in any attorney-client relationship are exacerbated in social change lawyering, as the client's social subordination may simply replicate itself in the attorney-client relationship. Second, the consequences of subordination are worse in social change lawyering than in other contexts, as such subordination will defeat the social change undertaking. Two models of lawyering, "client-centered lawyering" and the emerging "collaborative" model, offer much insight into the attorney-client relationship and suggest ways to preserve client autonomy. My experience at the New York Law School Civil Law Clinic in representing two Clinic clients involved in social change work leaves me not fully satisfied that either model is appropriate for all lawyers and clients involved in social change work. I suggest "facilitative" lawyering as another model. Facilitative lawyering contains elements of both collaborative and client-centered lawyering. However, it is somewhat less self-consciously political than full collaborative lawyering and seeks to preserve a more clearly defined role for attorneys as attorneys. Facilitative lawyering recognizes more of a risk to client autonomy in social change lawyering than the client-centered model admits, and carves out an appropriately more limited role for attorneys. In addition, facilitative lawyering includes many of what might be considered more collaborative behaviors.

Publication Title

Clinical Law Review

Volume

1

Issue

3

First Page

639

Download

Share

COinS