Leading through Law – Our Civic Duty in Today’s Society
Lawyers are leaders. As citizens, we all have civic responsibilities to participate in our democratic institutions of governance. As lawyers, these responsibilities are heightened as we have the knowledge to better navigate these systems and the collective impact of our work inevitably shapes our society. Through its current Presidential Transition Lecture Series, Temple Law School is seeking to engage and motivate its future attorneys to have an informed awareness that promotes deliberate and strategic positive action. Mr. David Thornburgh, President and CEO of the Committee of Seventy, presented the second lecture in this series, titled “Answering the Call for Political Renewal.”
Mr. Thornburgh’s message was one of encouragement, challenging us as lawyers to utilize the current energy associated with the recent national election to create positive action that strengthens our democratic institutions both locally and nationally. While I whole-heartedly agree with this directive, I was surprised to find myself at odds with his initial statements regarding his motivations in deciding not to attend law school. Mr. Thornburgh ultimately decided against law school in order to pursue a career in public interest as a “civic entrepreneur” who attempts to address societal problems and challenges. This surprised me because it was nearly identical motivations that informed my decision to attend law school and even more specifically, Temple Law School.
“It is not surprising that many leadership positions are held by attorneys, including political appointees and department heads, legislators, and often times the President. Again, lawyers are clearly leaders.”
How can similar motivations lead to different conclusions for two people? I believe it comes down to timing and can be attributed to the post-recession differences that exist in the legal community today. Many non-attorney positions today are J.D.-preferred, particularly in relation to governance. Washington D.C. has the nation’s highest concentration of lawyers, one in every twelve residents, and this is in addition to the attorneys residing in the greater D.C. metro area. Despite the high numbers, a 2011 New York Times study also indicated D.C. has the largest attorney shortage in our nation. In light of this, it is not surprising that many leadership positions are held by attorneys, including political appointees and department heads, legislators, and often times the President. Again, lawyers are clearly leaders.
I decided in favor of law school after years of working in government administration and recognizing the significant relationship between law and policy. I observed firsthand the increased responsibility and effectiveness of leaders who were also attorneys. I had the desire to effectuate positive change in my community and I knew a law degree would best equip me in this endeavor. Temple was the perfect fit in light of impressive academic and economic considerations. However, the primary draw was its Law & Public Policy Program, which provides an integrated learning experience to gain a first hand understanding of the processes of law and policymaking, while considering its past, present, and future implications for our nation.
As a Scholar, the program allowed me the opportunity to spend a summer in Washington D.C. to study federal governance and pursue individual research of my selection—Increased Arctic Maritime Activity as a Consequence of Climate Change. It provided an unforgettable professional experience through employment with the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the final months of the Obama Administration. I also had the opportunity to study local governance through work with the City of Philadelphia, where I collaborated to research the effectiveness of its tax incentive policies. Perhaps most importantly, the Program offers incredible mentorship and networking, through its dedicated program director and impressive alumni. I think it likely that under these circumstances and with these opportunities, Mr. Thornburgh would have decided to become an attorney.
Turning back to Mr. Thornburgh’s lecture, he demonstrated his recognition of the significant role of lawyers in becoming engaged and advocating to strengthen our democratic systems. This continued in his call to action, which was reminiscent of President Obama’s farewell remarks. First, it included commands to champion personal responsibility in taking action in response to identified problems and injustices. As lawyers, we are specifically trained to issue spot and to argue potential remedies. We also do this with an understanding of the applicable rules and systems. Second, his lecture charged deliberate effort to be educated by unbiased news sources that provide diverse perspectives. As lawyers, we are trained to gather facts and evidence, both the good and the bad, and to be aware of any potential biases in a particular argument. Next, he recommended engagement in actual conversations (not only online) with those who have opposing viewpoints, seeking to listen and understand. As lawyers we are required to communicate with diverse audiences, whether they are a client, witness, technical expert, or member of a jury. Successful communication largely relies on the ability to listen to and understand adversaries, paying special attention to unpacking their arguments and effectively responding in an appropriately persuasive manner.
In the end, it is clear lawyers are well equipped to take on these tasks. Even if not deliberately so, the consequences of our legal work shape society—whether we are structuring a merger, advocating in the courtroom, or proposing a new law or policy. In light of the current post-election divisions, the largest obstacle in doing the above might be the prevalence of an intolerance of dissent that exists on both sides of the debates. As many critics have recently noted, people are accustomed to living in silos where they frequently and exclusively hear similarly positioned opinions that reinforce their own views. Any challenge is met with extreme offense and rejection, without hope of agreement or resolution. Although we are a nation divided, I have no doubt that Americans ultimately want to do good, including those with whom I adamantly disagree. Looking forward, this call to action must recognize our roles as leaders and carefully apply our legal skills to facilitate balanced and productive conversations that employ understanding and compromise while defending and protecting our democratic institutions. Only then can we begin to heal our divisions and have truly representative governance.
