| Scholarship tells us that cause lawyers, including those in the LGBTQ movement, are likely to avoid non-litigation tactics in favor of court-centered strategies (Klarman 2005; Rosenberg 2008; Scheingold 1974). Other research suggests that lawyers are likely to steer the LGBTQ movement's agenda away from both grassroots interests and its more radical agenda (Leachman 2014; Levitsky 2006). However, more recent scholarship shows an increased reliance on non-litigation tactics in the LGBTQ movement and publicly available evidence indicates cause lawyers are working on diverse sets of issues within the movement (Cummings and NeJaime 2010; Marshall 2006).;Additionally, the LGBTQ movement's legal industry, which includes impact organizations and direct legal service providers, have experienced many successes in and out of court. These legal organizations are important to social movements for a number of reasons: they are structural resources (Epp 1998), they create opportunities (Andersen 2006), and they can influence the agenda of non-legal organizations (Levitsky 2006; Leachman 2014). Yet, for all that we know about how these organizations can affect social change, we do not know as much about their priority-setting process and tactical choices (e.g. litigation, lobbying, public education, training, etc.).;To gain a better understanding of both cause lawyers and legal organizations, I examine the agenda setting and tactical behavior of legal organizations representing the rights of LGBTQ people. Because so much of the cause lawyering literature has focused on litigation, I use the idea of "multidimensional advocacy" (Cummings and NeJaime 2010) as a starting framework. This term describes the use of an array of tactics (litigation, policy, education) in a variety of venues (courts, legislatures, agencies, media, and the public) to reach an organizational goal. By looking beyond litigation, I explore uncharted aspects of cause lawyer agenda-setting.;Ultimately, I demonstrate that the current narratives about cause lawyers and legal organization behavior, particularly those that depict "isolated lawyers," are incomplete. First, as scholars we take for granted the significance of how perceptions of community need influences agendas. Scholars tend to focus on other elements (often material ones like resources). While those elements remain important, the evidence here suggests that those elements can take back seat to perceptions of need. A sense of need may even drive organizations to pursue an issue when they see little chance of success (legally and politically). Second, by pushing non-litigation work to the margins, we have also missed how lawyers are engaged in extra-judicial processes. Lawyers recognize a "trap" in using courts alone and have navigated a course around that trap by engaging with state and non-state actors outside of courts. While previous scholarship has noted the use of non-litigation tactics, this project goes further by demonstrating that lawyers believe public education and public policy work are central to achieving organizational goals.;The primary lessons of this study, shown through dozens of interviews, archival work, and analysis of publications, are that lawyers recognize a limit to litigation and they approach agenda setting through a difficult balance of factors. Of those factors, community need and perceived opportunity are the most significant. |
