The Mandarins of the Law: Pro Bono Legal Work from a Comparative Perspective

Q3 Social Sciences
Daniel Bonilla Maldonado
{"title":"The Mandarins of the Law: Pro Bono Legal Work from a Comparative Perspective","authors":"Daniel Bonilla Maldonado","doi":"10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.1.0131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The right to access to justice is one of the pillars of modern liberal democracies. On the one hand, it allows citizens to solve their conflicts by appealing to courts and to the administration.1 On the other, as argued in the theoretical papers gathered in Part I, it allows citizens to choose and realize their life projects and to be fully included in the political community. Yet, all modern liberal democracies suffer an access to justice deficit to varying degrees. As argued in the introduction of this special issue, class, epistemological and market inequalities create notable obstacles to the materialization of the right to access to justice. Modern liberal democracies have developed four institutions— public defenders’ offices, court-appointed counsel, legal clinics, and pro bono work—to realize the State’s and lawyers’ obligations to securing the right to access to justice for all. This article is focused on only one of these institutions: pro bono legal work. This article pursues two intertwined aims: first, it describes and analyzes the conceptual architecture that supports pro bono work;2 second, using these theoretical tools, it describes and analyzes the pro bono discourse and practices developed in Argentina, Colombia, and Chile.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"27 1","pages":"131 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.1.0131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The right to access to justice is one of the pillars of modern liberal democracies. On the one hand, it allows citizens to solve their conflicts by appealing to courts and to the administration.1 On the other, as argued in the theoretical papers gathered in Part I, it allows citizens to choose and realize their life projects and to be fully included in the political community. Yet, all modern liberal democracies suffer an access to justice deficit to varying degrees. As argued in the introduction of this special issue, class, epistemological and market inequalities create notable obstacles to the materialization of the right to access to justice. Modern liberal democracies have developed four institutions— public defenders’ offices, court-appointed counsel, legal clinics, and pro bono work—to realize the State’s and lawyers’ obligations to securing the right to access to justice for all. This article is focused on only one of these institutions: pro bono legal work. This article pursues two intertwined aims: first, it describes and analyzes the conceptual architecture that supports pro bono work;2 second, using these theoretical tools, it describes and analyzes the pro bono discourse and practices developed in Argentina, Colombia, and Chile.
法律的官吏:比较视角下的公益法律工作
诉诸司法的权利是现代自由民主的支柱之一。一方面,它允许公民通过向法院和行政部门上诉来解决他们的冲突。1另一方面,正如第一部分收集的理论论文所述,它允许市民选择和实现他们的生活项目,并充分融入政治社区。然而,所有现代自由民主国家都在不同程度上存在诉诸司法的赤字。正如在介绍这一专题时所指出的那样,阶级、认识论和市场的不平等为实现诉诸司法的权利制造了明显的障碍。现代自由民主国家建立了四个机构——公设辩护人办公室、法院指定的律师、法律诊所和无偿工作——以履行国家和律师的义务,确保人人享有诉诸司法的权利。本文只关注其中一个机构:无偿法律工作。本文追求两个相互交织的目标:首先,描述和分析支持无偿工作的概念架构;其次,利用这些理论工具,描述和分析了阿根廷、哥伦比亚和智利发展起来的无偿话语和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信