Lawyers have a terrible reputation.  Popular culture casts the lawyer in the role of the blood sucker; the corrupt, morally bankrupt leech on society, deserving of contempt.  This is hardly a novel observation.  Everyone, most of all the lawyer, is aware of the negative impression commonly held with regard to lawyers.  Parents, family, friends, acquaintances, and that random fellow you met at the bar last week - all of these people recoil when told that you are a lawyer.  In fact, in my experience, it is the lawyers themselves who have most contempt for the profession.  Lawyers are the first people to caution young students from attending law school.  Lawyers are the first to complain about long hours conducting boring and repetitive tasks.  Lawyers are also the first to protest against and be weary of the abominable disrespect given their profession. 

And lawyers do get easily co-opted by procedure and inefficiency.  The same caricature that lawyers (and solicitors and advocates and any other nomenclature you wish to use) object to, is one they easily succumb to themselves.  My wish is not to denigrate the legal profession.  Quite the opposite.  I aim to defend the legal profession, and to remind its practitioners of the responsibilities that come with being a lawyer.  Again, these are not novel observations.  Masters of argument that you are, you will have clearly thought of these before.  However, allow a non-lawyer to make the case for you.

First and foremost, is the special role the lawyer plays in society.  The lawyer, unlike any other private sector professional, has a responsibility for social order.  There is a reason that the advocate is considered an officer of the court.  The role of the lawyer is not only a private sector affair.  A lawyer is both of and responsible for the system.  Unlike policemen, judges and bureaucrats, lawyers are not paid functionaries of the state (I'm speaking now, of course, of the large numbers of lawyers who do not work for the state).  Yet, these same lawyers, while being privately employed, like engineers or bankers or call centre representatives, have an additional professional responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the rights of their fellow citizens.  This is a moral and explicit responsibility of the lawyer.  No other profession has such a public interest role.

And I use the phrase "public interest" deliberately.  In India, the "public interest" role of the lawyer is well understood.  Among lawyers, that is.  Others are unclear on the responsibility that people of the legal profession take upon themselves.  Think of the independence agitation, led almost entirely by lawyers.  Think of Thurgood Marshall and the agitators who protested against racial discrimination in the United States.  Think of Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize winning Iranian lawyer, who has been fighting for over a decade for the rights and due legal redress of her clients.  Think of Asma Jahangir and the lawyers of Pakistan agitating against a military dictatorship.  Think of India's own legal establishment that is fighting to repeal unfair discrimination against homosexual citizens of the country.  Certainly these actions can only be characterized as being in the public interest.

You may not think that what you do on a day to day basis is as courageous.  And you may think your current activities tedious.  After all, reading the latest draft of a MOU could be classified as the most mind-numbing activity available.  But what you read is a document that is underpinned by the system, the process, and the understanding that someone's rights deserve protection.  You act on behalf of someone, and you protect their rights.  To you, what appears banal, is a creation of wonder in the dark places of the world.  Bankers and money-traders exist in all societies and have for thousands of years.  The same goes for the butchers, the bakers and the candle-stick makers (not to forget the tinkers, tailors, soldiers and spies!). 

Lawyers are an altogether different breed.  The existence of a lawyer implies the existence of a rule of law.  The belief in advocacy belies a system built on the presumption of innocence.  And, most importantly, a society of laws is also a society of rights.  The concept of human rights itself is a fundamentally legal one (especially the so-called "negative rights" that are determined by limitations on state action).  Countries where human rights are of little value are also the ones where lawyers are either very weak or non-existent.  People living in unjust societies see the rule of law that exists in just societies and aspire for their own countries to some day be so lucky.  Sure, lawyers can cause inefficiencies, slow down the process and appear to be mooching off of other people's work.  Lawyers can fall victim to that hoary old chestnut that they are oppressive members of the "non-producing classes".  Tell that to the truly oppressed, the dispossessed crying out daily for rights, representation and advocacy.  The very fact that your profession exists, and thrives, is a sign that our society is (or at the very least, aspires to be) a just one.

No other professional can claim that.  Remembering that, carry out your lawyerly duty with due responsibility and (as our parents would remind us) humility.  But not too much humility - you are entitled to a sense of professional pride too!

Vijay Rao is based out of New York and is the co-founder of Jurimatrix, now Clutch Group.

Paginate