The ABA Journal has published my essay entitled What Should We Do with “Nonlawyer”? Go here.
I wrote it because I thought polemic on the subject (including a couple of contributions by me) doesn’t tell the whole story.
In my essay, I suggest that for two reasons, we can ease up on the indignation over nonlawyer. First, this use of non- isn’t unique to the legal profession. I’ve found non- used with all sorts of vocations. As I say in the essay, “So ‘nonlawyer’ is in the mainstream of English usage.”
And second, it’s routine that circumstances require considering lawyers separately from those who aren’t lawyers. Again, from the essay: “So we’re stuck with needing to refer to the ‘others’ group.”
That leaves us with the question of how best to refer to the “others” group. In the essay, I say that the trend in public discourse favors using over nonlawyer a negative verb structure, as in a person who is not a lawyer. That has the added benefit of sounding less bureaucratic.
Here’s what it boils down to:
In a context in which you might be inclined to use “nonlawyer,” I suggest you consider the alternatives: Could you call the people in question what they are instead of what they aren’t? If that’s not possible, could you use a negative verb structure (as in, for example, ‘a person who is not a lawyer’) instead of “nonlawyer”? Or do you have to express the idea enough times that “nonlawyer” offers real economy? Or are you forced to use “nonlawyer” because you’re referring to regulations that use “nonlawyer”?
Incidentally, this is my first article about something other than contracts. What breadth! 😉 But I don’t plan on making a habit of it.