Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state: Symbiosis or opposition?

Patricia J. Woods, Scott Barclay

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The traditional and most common conception of cause lawyers has viewed them as necessarily oppositional to the state, leftist, and, at best, transgressive. This conception is significant to our analysis because of its tendency to treat "the state" as a rather singular arena of power - an "it" - rather than a multi-dimensional entity made up of competing institutions and personnel. Following work on the disaggregated and embedded state, we suggest that conflict and competition among state institutions and state personnel allow cause lawyers and state actors to engage in mutually-beneficial action in service of their agendas. Litigation has important benefits for both cause lawyers and state actors: within the arena of law, processes that usually require the backing of large constituencies in the context of majoritarian institutions require, instead, convincing legal arguments. We briefly present evidence from two highly disparate cases of similar processes of interaction among cause lawyers and state actors in Vermont and Israel, which we believe indicates that this type of interaction is far from idiosyncratic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationStudies in Law Politics and Society
EditorsAustin Sarat
Pages203-231
Number of pages29
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 27 2008
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameStudies in Law Politics and Society
Volume45
ISSN (Print)1059-4337

Fingerprint

innovator
lawyer
opposition
cause
personnel
interaction
Israel
Law
present
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Law

Cite this

Woods, P. J., & Barclay, S. (2008). Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state: Symbiosis or opposition? In A. Sarat (Ed.), Studies in Law Politics and Society (pp. 203-231). (Studies in Law Politics and Society; Vol. 45). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8

Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state : Symbiosis or opposition? / Woods, Patricia J.; Barclay, Scott.

Studies in Law Politics and Society. ed. / Austin Sarat. 2008. p. 203-231 (Studies in Law Politics and Society; Vol. 45).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Woods, PJ & Barclay, S 2008, Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state: Symbiosis or opposition? in A Sarat (ed.), Studies in Law Politics and Society. Studies in Law Politics and Society, vol. 45, pp. 203-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8
Woods PJ, Barclay S. Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state: Symbiosis or opposition? In Sarat A, editor, Studies in Law Politics and Society. 2008. p. 203-231. (Studies in Law Politics and Society). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8
Woods, Patricia J. ; Barclay, Scott. / Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state : Symbiosis or opposition?. Studies in Law Politics and Society. editor / Austin Sarat. 2008. pp. 203-231 (Studies in Law Politics and Society).
@inbook{0a897b7a52f345f883e8ffdc1983abe3,
title = "Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state: Symbiosis or opposition?",
abstract = "The traditional and most common conception of cause lawyers has viewed them as necessarily oppositional to the state, leftist, and, at best, transgressive. This conception is significant to our analysis because of its tendency to treat {"}the state{"} as a rather singular arena of power - an {"}it{"} - rather than a multi-dimensional entity made up of competing institutions and personnel. Following work on the disaggregated and embedded state, we suggest that conflict and competition among state institutions and state personnel allow cause lawyers and state actors to engage in mutually-beneficial action in service of their agendas. Litigation has important benefits for both cause lawyers and state actors: within the arena of law, processes that usually require the backing of large constituencies in the context of majoritarian institutions require, instead, convincing legal arguments. We briefly present evidence from two highly disparate cases of similar processes of interaction among cause lawyers and state actors in Vermont and Israel, which we believe indicates that this type of interaction is far from idiosyncratic.",
author = "Woods, {Patricia J.} and Scott Barclay",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781848550902",
series = "Studies in Law Politics and Society",
pages = "203--231",
editor = "Austin Sarat",
booktitle = "Studies in Law Politics and Society",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Cause lawyers as legal innovators with and against the state

T2 - Symbiosis or opposition?

AU - Woods, Patricia J.

AU - Barclay, Scott

PY - 2008/8/27

Y1 - 2008/8/27

N2 - The traditional and most common conception of cause lawyers has viewed them as necessarily oppositional to the state, leftist, and, at best, transgressive. This conception is significant to our analysis because of its tendency to treat "the state" as a rather singular arena of power - an "it" - rather than a multi-dimensional entity made up of competing institutions and personnel. Following work on the disaggregated and embedded state, we suggest that conflict and competition among state institutions and state personnel allow cause lawyers and state actors to engage in mutually-beneficial action in service of their agendas. Litigation has important benefits for both cause lawyers and state actors: within the arena of law, processes that usually require the backing of large constituencies in the context of majoritarian institutions require, instead, convincing legal arguments. We briefly present evidence from two highly disparate cases of similar processes of interaction among cause lawyers and state actors in Vermont and Israel, which we believe indicates that this type of interaction is far from idiosyncratic.

AB - The traditional and most common conception of cause lawyers has viewed them as necessarily oppositional to the state, leftist, and, at best, transgressive. This conception is significant to our analysis because of its tendency to treat "the state" as a rather singular arena of power - an "it" - rather than a multi-dimensional entity made up of competing institutions and personnel. Following work on the disaggregated and embedded state, we suggest that conflict and competition among state institutions and state personnel allow cause lawyers and state actors to engage in mutually-beneficial action in service of their agendas. Litigation has important benefits for both cause lawyers and state actors: within the arena of law, processes that usually require the backing of large constituencies in the context of majoritarian institutions require, instead, convincing legal arguments. We briefly present evidence from two highly disparate cases of similar processes of interaction among cause lawyers and state actors in Vermont and Israel, which we believe indicates that this type of interaction is far from idiosyncratic.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49949088876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49949088876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8

DO - 10.1016/S1059-4337(08)45006-8

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:49949088876

SN - 9781848550902

T3 - Studies in Law Politics and Society

SP - 203

EP - 231

BT - Studies in Law Politics and Society

A2 - Sarat, Austin

ER -