Social Justice and Public Service: Not the Same Thing

As a person who articled and practiced with a provincial government, and now teaches at a law school that defines itself in part by “the Weldon tradition of unselfish public service”, I encourage my students to consider a career of legal practice in the public service – but to do so with their eyes open. While I have written elsewhere about how government practice is different than other legal practice,[1] here I want to discuss the important but sometimes overlooked difference between the concepts of “social justice” and “public service”.

There is plenty right, and nothing wrong, with the choice to pursue social justice as a career or a calling. As I sometimes tell my students, it may be that while a legal education is an excellent preparation for a life lived in pursuit of social justice, becoming a lawyer comes with constraints that may impede folks in that pursuit.

Public service is different and may admittedly be less satisfying from some viewpoints. I firmly believe that there is or can be honour in many legal careers. One particular honour is joining the non-partisan civil service and thus embracing the idea that all governments, regardless of their political affiliation, should have access to the best possible legal advisors providing the best possible legal advice. That advice is for the government of the day to adopt, reject, or not even consider, as they see fit. (Admittedly, the idea that the advice may not even be considered is more palatable in the abstract than in reality.) And once a decision is made, the pursuant instructions should be implemented as effectively as possible, subject of course to the overriding professional obligations of lawyers. Nonetheless, any illusion of “improving things from the inside” overlooks that substantive change comes with the democratic legitimacy of holding office.

I say this because some law students join the civil service with the expectation of saving the world, and then find out that they are on the wrong side of every file. There are surely some parts of government that tend to improve life for the vulnerable and so pursue social justice to some extent, within set boundaries and constraints – such as the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the Public Guardian and Trustee, and the Family Responsibility Office. And there are surely some governments whose platforms or even actions are intended to improve things for vulnerable folks. But governments change. Moreover, no government or political party has a monopoly on bad ideas or bad implementation of those ideas. Some governments of the day clearly exude meanness and hostility. Some are simply inept or in over their heads. Many over-promise in opposition and under-deliver in government.

“Public service” practice may sometimes promote social justice, albeit often coincidentally or accidentally. It always does so in the narrow or idealistic sense that democratic governments are entitled to the best possible legal advice and legal services and that a non-partisan civil service is an important way for lawyers to contribute to society. “Public service” may similarly be promoted – though in a different way – by political staffers who are specifically partisan. But at the end of the day, a government lawyer who implements regressive instructions antithetical to social justice nonetheless engages in public service.

__________

[1] Andrew Flavelle Martin, “Loyalty, Conscience, and Withdrawal: Are Government Lawyers Different?” (2023) 46:2 Man LJ 1, online: <http://themanitobalawjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/MLJ_46.2/462-Loyalty-Conscience.pdf>.