New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

LSJ 363 Week 3 Notes

by: Nicole Goodfliesh

LSJ 363 Week 3 Notes LSJ 363

Nicole Goodfliesh
GPA 3.7

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover everything in lectures 5 and 6 (week 3).
Law in Society
Erin Adam
Class Notes
Law, In, Society, LSJ, UW, lsj363, zemans
25 ?




Popular in Law in Society

Popular in Law and Legal Studies

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Nicole Goodfliesh on Tuesday April 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to LSJ 363 at University of Washington taught by Erin Adam in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 26 views. For similar materials see Law in Society in Law and Legal Studies at University of Washington.


Reviews for LSJ 363 Week 3 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 04/19/16
T  4/12/2016   WEEK  3:  Lecture  #5       Today’s  Agenda   Complete  Scheingold  (Same-­‐Sex  Marriage  Example  &  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers)   Legal  Mobilization:  In  the  Shadows  of  the  Courts     Recent  Example:  Same-­‐Sex  Marriage  Rights   1)   2008  Gerald  Rosenberg:  litigating  for  same-­‐sex  marriage  was  “hollow  hope”  (CLS)   2)   2015…Supreme  Ct  heralded  for  endorsing  rights  of  same  sex  marriage.  Court  was  the   “pinnacle  of  justice”  in  Obergefell  v.  Hodges  (Myth  of  Rights)   3)   But  struggle  for  LGBTQ  rights  goes  back  100  years  –  Subculture  of  male  sex  workers  and   “cross  dressers,”  “public  interest  in  women  passing  as  men”  1881-­‐1935  (Eskridge)   (Politics  of  Rights)   2)   Further  -­‐-­‐-­‐  Protests  (Homophile  Movement  of  1950s/1960s;  Stonewall)  &  Long  history  of   legislation,  referenda,  initiatives,  lawsuits  (Politics  of  Rights)   3)   Losing  in  court/legislature  often  key  to  winning  (Politics  of  Rights)   3)   Battle  won  in  popular  culture  decades  earlier.    Supreme  Court  just  declared  the  change   as  final  (politics  of  Rights/CLS)     4)   Was  a  core  inclusionary  rights  issue,  but  required  many  types  of  politics  over  long  time   to  leverage  change  (Politics  of  Rights)   5)   “Myth  of  Rights”  would  have  us  believe  that  Same-­‐Sex  marriage  solved  all  LGBTQ   struggles.  Politics  of  Rights  à  Hardly  the  end  of  LGBTQ  struggles….   A.   2015  =  over  100  anti-­‐LGBT  bills  introduced   B.   2016  =  over  175  anti-­‐LGBT  bills  introduced,  44  specifically  target  transgender   people   The  Politics  of  Rights:  Conclusion   Politics  of  Rights  views  law  as  political,  but  must  look  beyond  law  as  litigation  to  other  forms   &  sites  of  the  law   Law/courts  are  political  –  part  of  gov’t,  reflect  interests  and  power   Litigating  in  court  achieves  little  -­‐  limited  direct  &  indirect  effects   Must  resort  to  other  political  tactics  in  other  institutional  venues   Legal  mobilization  –  politics  of  rights  via  litigation  and  other  tactics     Scheingold:  The  Trouble  with  Lawyers   1)   Lawyers  are  final  part  of  analysis  –  at  once  representatives  of  legal  system  (myth)  and   advocates  for  citizen’s  claims  of  right  (Lawyer’s  World  View)   A.   Lawyer  –  unreliable  “tails  that  wag  dog,”  litigation  diverts  from  politics  of  rights.   Ex:  SSM  cases,  Atticus  Finch   B.   Divided  loyalty  (process  and  profession  vs.  people).     2)   Professional  code  of  responsibility  –  discourages  questioning  legal  impacts  &  politics  of   rights  (Basic  Law  School  Skills)   A.   Legal  procedure  over  ends/impacts   B.   Legal  skills  over  political  skills     3)   Legal  education  –  “training  for  hierarchy,”  to  serve  legal  and  economic  system   A.   Legal  analysis  skills  >  thinking  “within  the  game,”  rule-­‐mongering.  Discourages   questioning  of  system.   B.   Lawyers  socialized  to  think  legal  ways  are  best;  defer  to  elite  experts   C.   Debt  &  intern  system  discourages  advocacy  for  unrepresented­‐stanford-­‐prison-­‐and-­‐ kingsfields-­‐harvard-­‐law/  ß  Stanford  Prison  Experiment     4)   Changes  in  legal  education  last  25  yrs.   A.   Far  more  women  –  change  of  values?  Law  not  just  abstract,  deductive  reason.   1)   1970s:  there  were  very  few  women  in  law  school   2)   Ruth  Bader  Ginsberg  talks  about  what  it  was  like  graduating  from  law   school  in  the  70s   B.   Less  legalistic,  less  tied  to  legal  doctrine,  to  “paper”  and  text.  Critical  legal/race   studies  focus  on  power.  More  social  science;  more  clinical.   C.   Less  authoritarian,  elitist   D.   Public  interest  law  training  and  roles   1)   Require  individuals  to  devote  certain  amount  of  hours  to  public  interest   jobs  ß  fallout  to  that  is  there  are  now  very  little  public  interest  jobs   available  because  they  are  filled  by  law  school  students  who  are  required   to  get  their  hours  in   E.   Still…training  for  hierarchy  (corporate,  criminal)   F.   Public  interest  lawyers  –  declining  interest  because  of  declining  job  positions   i.   Popular  culture  –  novels,  movies   1)   Erin  Brockovich;  Runaway  Jury:   2)   High  debt,  few  jobs  >  squeezed:­‐ Tracker/   G.   Contemporary  “existential  crisis”  of  law  schools  –  old  training  serves  poorly,  but   what  to  do  in  global  market  for  specialized  skills?   ii.   Big  Firm:  Young  Attorneys  as  Paralegals   iii.   Human  Rights  –  Lawyers  not  big  need   iv.   So  much  debt  with  law  school  that  lawyers  have  to  work  for  corporate  so   they  get  money  to  pay  off  the  debt   Th  4/12/2016   WEEK  3:  Lecture  #6     Today’s  Agenda   •   Announcement:   –   Midterm  Study  Guide  will  be  Posted  Early  Next  Week  (By  Tuesday)   •   Legal  Mobilization:  In  the  Shadows  of  the  Courts  (Scheingold;  Zemans;  Miller  and  Sarat)   •   Sally  Merry:  Rights  Talk  and  the  Experience  of  Law     Legal  Mobilization…In  the  Shadows  of  the  Courts   1)   Scheingold’s  “politics  of  rights”   A.   Urges  group  politics  to  mobilize  rights  >  reconcile  legal  justice  with  social  justice   i.   Legal  mobilization  =   ii.   Activation  (transforming  individual  discontents  into  political  demands)   iii.   Organization  (form  legal  organizations)   iv.   Realignment  (implementing  change)   B.   Historic  legal  mobilization  campaigns  are  episodic  Most  of  time  we  are  subjects   “before”  law  (before  the  myth)  –  Kafka   C.   Capacities  to  mobilize  reflect  social  inequalities,  different  capacities  (“resigned,”   not  duped)   D.   Political  contexts  where  rights  traditions  are  weak  >  few  legal  resources   i.   Human  rights  activism  by  NGOs/lawyers  >  aim  to  build  rights  culture,  cut   for  and  against  inequality  (Beth  Simmons’  Mobilizing  for  Human  Rights)     2)   Zemans  -­‐-­‐“Legal  mobilization”   A.   Civil  (and  criminal)  law  is  mobilized  by  individual  citizens  in  ordinary  life   i.    Gideon  v.  Wainwright  –  individual  (not  political  organization  established   basic  right  to  a  criminal  attorney)   ii.   Defined  as  rights  claiming  (act  of  invoking  legal  claims  to  regulate   behavior),  need  not  litigate  (p.700)   B.   Law  enforced  everyday  by  ordinary  legal  subjects  as  well  as  officials  –  Laws  R  Us,   as  individuals…   C.   Law’s  power  in  social  life  as:   i.   Practical  knowledge   •   Everybody  has  some  sort  of  practical  knowledge  of  the  law   ii.   Ethical  authority  (want  >  entitlement)  (Ex:  Creation  of  Domestic  Violence   Claim)   iii.   Threat  of  coercion     iv.   Actual  coercive  enforcement  (Citizen  and  state)   D.   Law’s  power  enables  &  constrains  is  greatest  when  law  goes  unnoticed  (Child   abuse  claims  as  example)   E.   Law  is  “all  over”  in  our  fragmented  social  system  (enforcement  comes  from   individuals  who  chose  to  file  cases)   i.   Enforcement  of  rights  and  enforcement  of  law  doesn’t  come  from  state   actors  at  all;  most  rights  are  enforced  through  individual  complaints/   litigating   F.   Zemans  –  a  bottom-­‐up,  democratic  view  of  individual  legal  practice  =  individual   legal  claims  originate  from  bottom-­‐up  rather  than  top-­‐down   i.   Access  &  empowerment  for  ordinary  people  are  the  measure  of  law’s   performance   ii.   Law  as  democratic  =  through  initiating  legal  cases,  everyday  ordinary   people  become  state  actors     3)   Citizen  mobilization  of  law  >  disputes.  5  Stages  (Miller  and  Sarat)   A.   Grievance  (belief  in  right  to  denied  resource)   B.   Claim  (acting  on  belief  by  asking  for  remedy  to  denied  right)   C.   Dispute  (person/group  allegedly  responsible  for  grievance  denies  remedy)   D.   Formalization  (involve  lawyer/police/mediator)   E.   Resort  to  courts/state  (open  a  court  case  for  judge/jury/legal  process  to  resolve   dispute)     4)    “Shadow  of  courts”  shapes  action  of  disputant  (Miller  and  Sarat)   A.   Cost/risk  of  formalization  encourages  informal  disputing  activity  (in  society,  not   state  actors)   B.   Different  pyramid  patterns  (p.  544)  –     i.   Discrimination  (14%  of  grievances,  least  likely  to  become  claims  due  to   greatest  risk  of  social  costs  –  lack  of  resources,  loss  of  job,  social  stigma)   ii.   Torts  (15%  of  grievances,  85.7%  of  tort  disputes  become  claims  because   of  insurance  companies,  most  claims  settled  before  reach  courts)   iii.   Post-­‐Divorce  (10.9%  of  all  grievances,  76.9%  use  lawyers,  59%  reach   courts  likely  due  to  high  social  cost  of  loss  +  state  requirements  to  go  to   court)   C.   Overall  –  Americans  are  not  litigious  (contrary  to  common  belief)  –  lawyers  used   in  less  than  1/4  of  disputes   D.   Americans  do  not  regularly  engage  in  our  adversarial  legal  system.     i.    Adversarial  =  two  sides  of  a  court  case  fight  for  win  (as  opposed  to  the   inquisitorial  system  in  many  European  countries  where  courts  are  more   engaged  in  fact-­‐finding)    


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.