Using Movement Lawyering to Advance Social Justice
Maria Imperial interviews Kevin J. Curnin
This past spring, I participated in a new training, “Building Community Power Together: How Organizers and Movement Lawyers Collaborate” at the Feerick Center for Social Justice at Fordham Law School. This innovative course, consisting of eight weekly virtual sessions followed by two immersive in-person days, explored using movement lawyering to advance social justice. The course was conceived by Kevin J. Curnin, a consultant with the Feerick Center and former partner and director of pro bono at a major law firm and past president of the Association of Pro Bono Counsel. Many of the Barbara McDowell Social Justice Center’s grantees describe themselves as engaging in movement lawyering. In the following interview, Kevin defines movement lawyering and how it can be used to advance social justice.
Maria: How do you define “movement lawyering,” and how does it differ from traditional impact litigation?
Kevin: A great place to start, and rather than “define” I will try to “describe,” the reason being that I have not found a universally accepted definition. In my research for Building Movement Justice Together, the description that resonated best with me is from Betty Hung, who I believe was then with Asian Americans Advancing Justice: “Lawyering that supports and advances social movement, defined as the building and exercise of collective power, led by the most directly impacted, to achieve systemic institutional and cultural change.” I’d add that social movement does not imply a fell-swoop but rather a gradual process, with wins and losses, that builds capacity as it goes, always centering the community.
Maria: How did you get involved in this work?
Kevin: I am very fortunate to have attended Fordham Law School, which takes its motto – In Service of Others – quite seriously and not only stoked a desire to use my J.D. to advance the public good, but provided instruction and hands-on opportunities to learn how to do that. After graduating, I joined the Advisory Council of the brand-new Feerick Center for Social Justice. John Feerick was Dean while I was at Fordham. Joining an enterprise that bore his name and commitment to service was a gift. Fast-forward to 2023 when the Center’s Executive Director, Dora Galacatos, who attended the Law School when I did, asked if I’d be interested in helping the Center research, design, and launch a bold new community-based advocacy initiative. That was an easy “Yes.”
Maria: How do movement lawyers navigate tensions between professional/ethical obligations and the goals or strategies of the movement?
Kevin: There are north stars and there are guidelines. North stars are honesty, transparency, consistency, unearthing and clearing conflicts, and clear line of sight to the client. Core principles include humility and accountability. It’s often said that one has to “be comfortable being uncomfortable.” Challenging the status quo is difficult. That’s not an invitation to side-step ethical obligations, but rather to engage directly with the community about exactly what is at stake, where the risks lie, what the objectives are. Issues around the lawyer-client relationship (especially when the client is a group or grassroots organization), decision-making, communication, confidentiality, and settlement can be complicated, but they’re resolvable. It’s helpful to remember that however difficult the challenges of any given movement, campaign or protest is for the lawyers, it’s more difficult for the community living under and working to break oppressive power.
Maria: What role can funders, law schools, bar associations, or legal services organizations play in supporting movement lawyering?
Kevin: Each role is different, but all are related. In reverse order, legal services organizations chart their own levels of engagement in movement lawyering. Getting back to your first question, part of the power of movement work is that it is not monolithic. Yes, there are set, core principles and strategies, but in practice, that looks different for different organizations. There’s a spectrum of practices, from full-out movement work to smaller, more discrete campaigns. Some legal services organizations identify as being in movement work and others engage as they can, according to their capacities. I think now is a great time for bar associations to raise awareness of movement work. Current legal, social and political pressures are dismantling protections for vulnerable and historically marginalized communities, even as due process and rule of law are being universally diluted. These are major offensives against personal and collective health, safety, and liberty. The first step to getting the private bar more engaged in movement work – a powerful anti-authoritarian tool to challenge structural inequities and build grassroots democratic pluralistic power – is to raise awareness. Law schools are doing more than when I attended, for sure. Student interest is on the rise. There are more movement law clinics and courses, and outstanding scholarly writing, all of which is great – while more could still be done. Schools that do this well will attract bright, motivated, community-oriented students. Funders, now there’s a key. Movement work is not part of the traditional funding metric. Direct representations, sometimes referred to as “number served,” is the usual benchmark. That can be a restrictive and frustrating standard. Funders, in my opinion, would profoundly advance social justice by working the longer-term, structural-based impact of movement work into their funding models. Replacing structural inequity with inclusive community-based opportunity gets to the heart of the social problem rather than the symptoms.
Maria: What gives you hope right now in terms of lawyers collaborating with community groups to drive change?
Kevin: Two things in particular. One is the act and art of collaboration itself: lawyers and organizers bringing different but complimentary experiences into a shared space for a common purpose can yield extraordinary results – although not overnight and not always linear, and not without the challenges that can confront any serious collaboration. The second is youth. It’s a generalization, but young people in high school, college, and law school today seem to have less patience with the status quo than my generation had, more dissatisfaction with and less trust of institutional power, and more tools at their disposal (I’m thinking social media) to disrupt inequity, organize, and advance social justice.
