In-House Counsel

Redefining Roles: A Conversation With Stepan Khzrtian On Moving Beyond The Term 'Nonlawyer'

By embracing terms that recognize the diverse contributions within the legal sector, we can foster a more collaborative and motivated professional community.

By  
on

Biglaw woman partner male paralegal teamwork collaborationIn the landscape of legal terminology, few words carry as much divisive potential as “nonlawyer.” It’s a label that seems innocuous but sets a tone of exclusion within the legal community. Recognizing the power of words and their profound impact on professional culture, Stepan Khzrtian, co-founder and CEO of Corpora.us, shares his insights on how changing this terminology can uplift and unify legal professionals. In this exclusive interview, we delve into the implications of current language practices and explore the transformative potential of more inclusive terminology.

Olga V. Mack: What aspects of the legal profession are currently hindered by using the term “nonlawyer,” and how could changing this terminology improve those aspects?

Stepan Khzrtian: Labeling all the members of the legal profession who are not lawyers themselves as “nonlawyers” means confiscating them of the credit they are rightfully due. One can imagine the second-order effects this can have on these members, who are crucial to delivering legal services: a reduced sense of self-worth, limited sense of achievement, and myopic view of their role in the legal profession.

By jettisoning the term “nonlawyer” and, instead, properly naming and acknowledging the specific role each member of the legal profession plays, we’ll be empowering them with increased agency and, with it, an increased sense of responsibility and self-worth. The result is a more robust, motivated legal profession that ultimately translates into improved access to justice. 

OM: How do you perceive the impact of language, particularly the term “nonlawyer,” on the professional culture within the legal community?

SK: As lawyers, we know all too well the power of words. Here, the term “nonlawyer” acts simultaneously as an apathetic equalizer and a ruthless polarizer.

First off, it’s a negative definition and, thus, acts as an equalizer. It says not who one is, but only who one is not — not a lawyer. Well then, who exactly is this person? Be it a paralegal, a clerk, a knowledge worker, a law firm executive — or simply a member of the public who has no relation to the legal profession — they are bundled into the same nontelling label, “nonlawyer,” with full apathy toward the content of that person’s role.

Sponsored

This, in turn, leads to polarization. By design, a negative definition splits a category into two diametrically opposed groups — you either have this quality and are part of us, or you lack this quality and are not part of us. That’s what binary concepts do: they fail to appreciate gradients and, thus, create tension. That same dynamic is in play with the “lawyer-nonlawyer” dichotomy. 

OM: What alternative terminology could effectively replace “nonlawyer” while accurately reflecting the diverse roles and contributions within the legal profession?

SK: “Legal professional” succinctly captures all the persons involved in delivering legal services. This can then be broken down into granular taxonomy — lawyers, paralegals, clerks, legal assistants, law firm executives, etc.

What’s important to stress here is that the term “lawyer” or “attorney” must continue to be reserved for those individuals who are properly licensed to practice law. There is no mistake in society’s vested interest in knowing who a lawyer is. 

OM: The petition suggests promoting inclusive language guidelines to encourage respectful discourse. How do you envision implementing these guidelines, and what impact do you think they could have?

Sponsored

SK: Language guidelines are necessary to set guardrails and serve as a North Star for members of the profession. Suppose the legal profession foregoes the term “nonlawyer” without establishing an alternative that enjoys broad consensus. In that case, we’ll be paving the path for bad actors to fill the void in a way that harms society.

These guidelines can be found in the ABA Model Rules, the codes of professional conduct of state bars, the charters of bar associations, the employee handbooks of law firms and legal institutions, the editorial guidelines of agencies covering the industry, and so forth.

However, while this is a necessary step, it’s insufficient. For words to live, they must go beyond official text and be used in interactions, ranging from ethical opinions handed down by state bars and coverage of the legal profession by news organizations to the general public discourse we follow and participate in on social media. Members of the legal profession should be encouraged by their peers to consider and adopt the improved terminology in their interactions. Over time, with critical mass and consensus being reached, the polarizing terminology will successfully be phased out. 

OM: Lastly, what are the potential challenges or obstacles in implementing this change, and how do you think they could be addressed?

SK: My colleagues are concerned that changing the current terminology will harm society’s vested right to know who is qualified — in the true sense of the word — to help it navigate legal matters. This concern is the biggest challenge to the success of this initiative. Once this fundamental concern is addressed and allayed, all the other pieces will fall into place.

The only possible way to sustainably bridge differences of opinion is truly listening to those who disagree with you and proving it through the solutions that you put forth. In fact, through such open dialogue, we’ll quickly realize that we’re all committed to protecting society’s vested interest and then work off this ground to ensure a solid solution.

Stepan Khzrtian’s perspective illuminates the challenges posed by the term “nonlawyer” and highlights a path forward through respectful and inclusive language. By embracing terms that recognize the diverse contributions within the legal sector, we can foster a more collaborative and motivated professional community. Implementing this change will require thoughtful dialogue, widespread consensus, and a commitment to redefining professional identities. As we strive for a more inclusive legal landscape, the insights from leaders like Khzrtian remind us that our words can shape our professional realities and the justice system at large. Together, with continued effort and understanding, the legal community can transform its lexicon to reflect the dignity and value of every member, paving the way for a more equitable professional environment.

Olga MackOlga V. Mack is a Fellow at CodeX, The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, and a Generative AI Editor at law.MIT. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat, Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security, and  Blockchain Value: Transforming Business Models, Society, and Communities. She is working on three books: Visual IQ for Lawyers (ABA 2024), The Rise of Product Lawyers: An Analytical Framework to Systematically Advise Your Clients Throughout the Product Lifecycle (Globe Law and Business 2024), and Legal Operations in the Age of AI and Data (Globe Law and Business 2024). You can follow Olga on LinkedIn and Twitter @olgavmack.

Topics

, , ,