Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli Legal Aid office

Abstract

In contrast to the traditional depiction of lawyers äs providing loyal disinterested Service to clients, analysis of one lawyer-client interaction in a legal aid office revealed that the lawyer used language to control the dient's presentation of the case t and to define it in terms of convenience to the organization rather than the expressed wishes of the dient. Three types of linguistic strategies relating to the control oftalk were examined: (l) management of structural features; (2) choice of instrumentality; and (3) management of international features. Structural strategies of interruptions and topic control served to display the lawyer's expertise, while preventing the dient from enhancing his Status. The form of the directives controlled the dient's responses, forcing him to react to the lawyer's assertions rather than servingas the primary source of Information, while the use of performatives and other elements of the formal register served to highlight the lawyer's control. Frequent challenges to the dient's adherence to the rnaxim ofquality by the use of repetitions, requcsts for outside confirmation, reformulations, repeat questions without waiting for a reply, and unfounded presuppositions combined with the other features to establish a dialogue that is very much like crossexamination.

The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction

“…The most common way of exercising this interpretational privilege is for judges and lawyers to make so-called reformulations (Bogoch and Danet, 1984;Thomas, 1985;'formulations' in Heritage and Watson, 1980). Here are some examples (marked by *):…”

“…A substantial part of it has been concerned with constraints on the contributions by witnesses and defendants. The issue of how different kinds of questions constrain answers in court is an old one (cf., e.g., Muscio, 1915), which has received a great deal of attention lately (Bogoch and Danet, 1984;Danet et al, 1976;Danet and Bogoch, 1980;Harris, 1984;Philips, 1984;Thomas, 1985;Woodbury, 1984). Other studies have demonstrated additional aspects of the fact that judges and lawyers act out of a position of power (Atkinson, 1982;Ceasar-Wolf, 1984;Drew, 1985;Wodak-Engel, 1984).…”

“Well, that’s why I asked the question sir”:Wellas a discourse marker in court

“…O' Barr 1982, Danet 1984, and the New Zealand context (Lane 1988 ). This article expands the picture by looking at all the uses of well by all participants in the examination phases of trials.…”

“He did everything he possibly could for me”: medical malpractice claimants’ experiences of lawyer–client relations

“…Lawyers have been shown to restrict the engagement of clients to the provision of factual information, limit discussion to a narrow focus on legal issues, only involve clients in decision-making when it is absolutely necessary, and present a limited range of options (e.g. Blumberg, 1967;Skolnick, 1967;Rosenthal, 1974;Hosticka, 1979;Bogoch & Danet, 1984;Simon, 1988;Mather et al, 1995;McConville & Mirsky, 1995;Pepper, 1995;Michelson, 2006;Kozin, 2007;Melville & Laing, 2008, 2010.…”