Top Law Schools

“I hate politics.” Ironically, this refrain cuts across political lines. Everyone has thought about this or said it out loud. Of course, it’s usually just a generalized statement of discontent or a summary of a specific set of grievances against current events. Statements like this instantly prompt questions from me. How would you change it? Why do you believe in those policies? What experiences in your life have led you to that conclusion? Canvassing on the street is one way I’ve been able to experiment of my ability to quickly infer the answer to these questions and make an appeal based on that information. In a personal context or the mediation room, I’m able to allow the respondent to tell their story in full.

By the end of the conversation, I aim to help the hater of politics understand that what we call “politics” is just a term for how we interact with people - even if it’s filtered through an institution, organization, or government. It’s inevitable for impassioned disagreement to arise when people of varying dispositions come together and coexist; the process of identifying a problem, discussing the circumstances, and outlining a solution are healthy for a society. Unfortunately, there is rarely a catharsis through honest conversation, sharing of common ground, and the collaborative discovery of solutions.

I am guided by the principles of mediation, though the majority of the time, a negotiation is the method for finding an agreeable conclusion. Every negotiation is inherently political - and the client benefits from a deeper understanding of the personal values and circumstances motivating every party involved. The law can be explained as an extension of previous events similar to the ones at present - formed to expedite the resolution of discrete but similar sets of facts. The challenge that remains is communicating the legal resolution when parties are driven by emotion, common sense, social psychological pitfalls, tradition, a moral code, science, or popular opinion. The law’s complex history, interrelating contexts, and influence from prevailing social conditions allow me to give nuanced and meticulous explanations.

Though I find the law to be more interesting the more complicated it gets, I understand that it is decidedly the opposite for the vast majority of people. With careful humility, I naturally gravitate towards becoming a medium for broadening access to the legal system for underserved and under-resourced people. Lack of access to the law, as with politics, is more than just a material or economic detriment. It means an inability to engage fully with the world around them, emotional, social, and psychological turmoil, and barriers to structures that facilitate their community and human development. These negative outcomes persist not only because of disagreement with the outcome, but also a sense of unfairness in the process: feeling uninvited to a societal system that is actually, at its core, a interpersonal, human endeavour. With legal training, I can begin to build bridges between those who have been left behind and the means to make them whole again.