In modern U.S. society, the terms “advocate” and “attorney” are often casually interchanged, but upon closer examination, they represent two very distinct roles, both functionally and philosophically. The distinction between the two isn’t merely about the settings in which they operate—courtroom or public forum—but dives deep into how they perceive justice, their authority, and the ways they enact change.
For the untrained eye, these differences might seem superficial. However, understanding the nuances between the two sheds light on the larger tension between institutionalized justice and the moral imperatives that challenge it.
Attorneys: Guardians of Legal Order
Attorneys in the U.S. operate within a formal, structured legal system. Their role is intricately tied to institutional authority. An attorney earns their title after passing the bar exam and being licensed by the state, which endows them with the right to represent individuals, companies, or even the government in legal matters. Attorneys don’t just engage with laws—they must work within a complex web of statutes, precedents, and court procedures. This professional title binds them to legal codes and ethical guidelines defined by state or federal law.
The Legal Framework
Attorneys are bound to uphold the rule of law, a fundamental concept that posits that society should be governed by established laws, not arbitrary decisions. This concept has philosophical roots in the writings of ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero and was further developed in Enlightenment thinking by figures like John Locke. It is this foundation that forms the backbone of the attorney’s professional life.
In practice, the attorney’s primary goal is to ensure the law is applied fairly and accurately—whether they’re defending a client in a criminal trial, advising a business on compliance with regulations, or advocating for civil rights in a courtroom. Attorneys can only work within the legal system as it exists. Even when they push for change, they rely on the internal logic of the law—filing lawsuits, citing legal precedents, and convincing judges that existing legal principles support their client’s case.
Key Authority: Attorneys derive their legitimacy from the state, and their work is tightly controlled by established rules and precedents. For example, a criminal defense attorney is tasked with ensuring that their client, regardless of guilt or innocence, receives a fair trial. Their job is to apply the law, not to moralize or determine the ultimate justice of a situation.
Practical Role of Attorneys
Let’s consider a real-world example: A large corporation hires an attorney to defend itself against accusations of environmental damage. The company’s actions might be ethically questionable, but the attorney’s role is not to determine that. Instead, their job is to ensure that the corporation is not unfairly prosecuted beyond the confines of the law. This reflects the essence of legal formalism, a philosophical theory that argues the law is its own system of rules that operates independently of broader moral or social concerns.
The role of the attorney here isn’t to address whether the corporation should have engaged in harmful practices, but rather whether they’ve been given proper legal due process. To some, this might seem like a moral abdication, but it reflects the principle that everyone, even corporations, is entitled to the protections of the law.
Advocates: The Moral Crusaders
Where attorneys derive their power and authority from the state and legal codes, advocates draw their strength from social movements, public will, and moral imperatives. Unlike attorneys, who often focus on applying existing laws, advocates might argue that those very laws are unjust and should be challenged or overhauled.
Moral and Social Foundations
The essence of advocacy can be traced to ideas like natural law—the notion that certain rights and principles are inherent to human beings, irrespective of what legal systems dictate. Advocates, operating outside formal legal constraints, often engage in the public sphere to argue for justice as a moral necessity. Their goal is often to transform the status quo by appealing to ethical ideals, even if that means defying the law.
A prime historical example is Martin Luther King Jr. and his leadership during the Civil Rights Movement. King’s famous acts of civil disobedience—like leading the Selma-to-Montgomery marches in 1965—were direct violations of local laws at the time. But his advocacy was predicated on a higher moral authority: the belief that segregation laws were fundamentally unjust, even if they were technically legal.
Key Authority: Unlike attorneys, who seek to navigate and manipulate the law to achieve justice within a pre-existing system, advocates derive their authority from moral legitimacy—the idea that sometimes the law itself must be challenged in the name of a greater social good.
Practical Role of Advocates
In contrast to the courtroom-bound attorney, the advocate is often found organizing grassroots movements, lobbying for legislative changes, or working with the public to shift perceptions on key issues. This doesn’t mean that advocates are always anti-law or chaotic; rather, they understand that legal systems are often slow to change, and they work to accelerate those changes by creating social pressure.
Take the contemporary example of climate change advocacy. Environmental advocates like Greta Thunberg or organizations such as Greenpeace aren’t litigating cases in courtrooms. Instead, they are using public platforms, organizing mass protests, and appealing to global bodies like the United Nations to push for action on a looming global crisis. Their work involves challenging existing laws or calling for the creation of new international standards on emissions, deforestation, and pollution.
Tension Between Legalism and Moral Authority
The core philosophical divide between attorneys and advocates can be distilled into two competing ideas: legal formalism vs. moral activism.
- Legal Formalism (embraced by attorneys) holds that the law is an objective system that must be upheld regardless of moral considerations. The attorney functions within this framework, ensuring that the process is followed, even when the outcome may appear morally ambiguous or even unfair from a public perspective.
- Moral Activism (the domain of advocates) argues that justice cannot always be realized within existing legal systems, especially if those systems are inherently flawed, discriminatory, or outdated. Advocates appeal to a broader conception of justice, often using moral outrage or public pressure to push for systemic change.
Both roles are essential in any functioning democracy. Attorneys ensure that society operates within a system of rules that apply equally to everyone, preventing chaos. Advocates, on the other hand, challenge those rules when they no longer serve the interests of the people, pushing society forward toward new ethical standards.
FAQs: Advocate vs. Attorney
Q1: Can an attorney also be an advocate?
Yes. Many attorneys act as advocates, especially in public interest law. For instance, civil rights attorneys often champion causes related to systemic injustice, but they must still operate within legal frameworks, using existing law to argue for change.
Q2: How is advocacy different from lobbying?
Advocacy focuses on broad societal change, often driven by moral or social concerns, while lobbying is specifically about influencing lawmakers to pass or reject legislation. Lobbyists may work on behalf of corporations, industries, or non-profits, using direct channels of political influence to achieve specific goals.
Q3: Are advocates legally protected like attorneys?
Not always. While attorneys enjoy privileged communications with clients and are protected by legal professional ethics, advocates do not have the same formal protections. In some cases, advocates may face legal consequences for civil disobedience or other forms of protest.
Q4: How do advocates push for changes in law?
Advocates often work through public campaigns, media, and social movements to shift public opinion. Once enough public support is gathered, they may lobby lawmakers to change the law or, in some cases, challenge laws in court with the help of attorneys.
Q5: What is the relationship between advocates and attorneys during social movements?
Attorneys and advocates often work hand-in-hand. During social movements, advocates may raise awareness, build coalitions, and shift public opinion, while attorneys provide the legal expertise necessary to challenge unjust laws or defend protestors and activists.
Q6: Can an attorney choose not to defend a client for moral reasons?
Attorneys are ethically bound to provide competent representation, but they can refuse a case if they believe it conflicts with their personal moral standards—unless the client has no other legal representation, in which case certain state bar rules may compel the attorney to assist.
Q7: What is the long-term impact of advocacy on the legal system?
Over time, successful advocacy efforts can lead to landmark changes in law and policy. The abolition of segregation, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and growing environmental protections are all examples of advocacy-driven changes that later became codified into law.
Conclusion: Balancing Two Forces for Justice
Understanding the relationship between attorneys and advocates reveals a deeper truth about how societies govern themselves and evolve over time. Attorneys, as the formal custodians of legal order, maintain the framework within which disputes are resolved and rights are protected. Advocates, as moral agitators, push society to rethink those frameworks when they become unjust or outdated. Together, these roles balance the scales of justice—one maintaining the integrity of the system, the other pushing it to evolve.
In essence, while attorneys preserve the rule of law, advocates
reshape it, ensuring that law and society progress in tandem with changing moral and ethical standards.
