Current LSR Issue

Using Cambodia as a case study, this article examines cause lawyering in a repressive political environment. It focuses on “closeted” cause lawyering, a practice that we define as the intentional pursuit of change through the legal process that is concealed for strategic purposes. Situated within the wider scholarship on (cause) lawyering in general and authoritarian Southeast Asia and China in particular, the article draws upon interviews conducted over seven years in Cambodia with 37 lawyers and human rights defenders working in practice areas considered politically controversial by the authoritarian state. We identify how closeted cause lawyers operate in such a way as to ensure professional and personal survival while quietly advancing their goals across three settings, including dignity restoration work with clients, legal professionalism in court and sustaining a moral community of like-minded lawyers. The article underscores the ongoing relevance of cause lawyering even where intentionality must be hidden, as well as the enduring importance of cause lawyers’ efforts to preserve an ideal of the rule of law. We conclude by suggesting that the authoritarian turn in a range of democracies, including the Unites States, suggests that closeted cause lawyering may be required to defend democracy even among conventional lawyers.

This article investigates the interplay between legal consciousness and legal mobilization in Chinese workplace sexual harassment cases. Drawing on 78 in-depth interviews with victims and fieldwork observations, it argues that second-order legal consciousness – the understanding of law derived from observing others’ experiences within relational networks – acts as a lens through which experiences of harassment are interpreted, inhibiting formal legal mobilization. Findings reveal that Chinese employees, facing a legal framework with limited protections and workplace hierarchies that discourage dissent, often strategically avoid formal reporting to safeguard their positions. This calculated inaction is informed by second-order legal consciousness, reinforced by the belittling of grievances, where complaints are minimized, dismissed, or normalized. Consequently, grievances are channeled away from formal, employment-based reporting toward individualized or gender-based remedies, which fail to address the systemic nature of workplace harassment. Bridging legal consciousness and mobilization literatures, this study reveals how the two concepts interact within Chinese workplaces. It further demonstrates that the belittling of employee grievances is not only a barrier to mobilization but also a crucial source of second-order legal consciousness, thus shaping victims’ decisions and perpetuating a cycle of non-reporting.

Despite symbolic boundaries between civil and criminal law, sociolegal scholars note their conceptual and operational overlap, or hybridity. Values (e.g., restoration vs. punishment) and practices (e.g., monetary compensation vs. incarceration) thought distinct to each manifest in both, and contact with one legal system can generate involvement with the other. Scholars typically attribute hybridity’s emergence to top-down mechanisms like legislation. This article presents interviews with sexual violence plaintiffs’ attorneys who describe their efforts to improve case outcomes by incorporating criminal legal artifacts like police reports, police evidence and criminal convictions into civil litigation and inserting civil legal artifacts, including costly evidence, victim support and monetary compensation, into criminal prosecutions. Building on organizational theories of boundary work, this article argues that attorneys, in taking purposive action to win their cases, blur distinctions between civil and criminal law from the bottom-up, a distinct mechanism through which civil-criminal hybridity emerges.

Research informed by sociological neoinstitutionalism often frames organizational reactions to legal norms as either loose coupling, where formal legal commitments are only weakly aligned with actual practices, or tight coupling, where strong internal or external compliance pressures drive close alignment. This article introduces a third pattern – contentious coupling – where some organizational members attempt to realign practices with legal commitments, but these very efforts provoke pushback from others, resulting in substantive yet constrained success. This paradox is key to understanding the widespread yet limited effects of legal rights. I illustrate contentious coupling by examining how international human rights law has shaped solitary confinement reform in Taiwan. While hierarchical enforcement led by rights advocates and policymakers has successfully reduced prolonged solitary confinement, it has also alienated frontline correctional officers by triggering a sense of relative deprivation and perception of hypocrisy, encapsulated in their complaints of a “human rights upsurge.” In response, these officers engage in two forms of passive resistance – formalistic care and resistance spillover – both of which undermine the authority of human rights and hinder their capacity to transform correctional culture.