To understand how a good lawyering paradigm may nevertheless undermine client empowerment and perpetuate disability, it is necessary to appreciate the larger ethical debate about client autonomy. This Article will examine two dominant models of good lawyering and explore their implications for client choice and lawyer autonomy, with an emphasis on poverty lawyering. The Article then turns to a discussion of the lawyering experience in juvenile court to illustrate the ways in which dominant visions of the client as dependent, incompetent, and disabled affect not only the role and responsibilities of the attorney for the child but the extension of the right to counsel itself. Lastly, the lessons learned from lawyers for children are proffered to those who propound a civil right to counsel.

Included in

Civil Law Commons