The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia, which I direct, is representing the AMMD Pine Grove Project—largely a group of former Pine Grove students who are seeking to preserve this remarkable school. But Muriel Miller Branch, a cofounder of the AMMD Pine Grove Project, has resisted framing the case exclusively as a school preservation effort.
Reflecting on what is at stake, Ms. Branch has noted that her “connection to the Pine Grove community is spiritual.” She adds, “This is the place that gave me that sense of being, of who I am, and a sense of purpose. I am determined to preserve that legacy as much as the legacy of Pine Grove School. This is more than a building.”
Hearing these words have helped me understand that our work needs to focus on preservation of all resources—not just the physical structure of the Pine Grove School, but also the community of which it has been the center.
Ethics and environmental justice
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are replete with guidance for lawyers on how to advise their clients. But there is little in the rules on how to listen.
One of the comments to Rule 1.1 advises that “Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of” the facts underlying a problem. Rule 1.2 is clear that “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation. . . .” Further guidance comes from Rule 1.4, which directs lawyers to “reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.”
Still, these rules never expressly endorse the view that listening to a client requires being patient. There is no prescription about resisting the urge to offer immediate advice on a course of action. There is nothing about taking time to let a client’s fears, concerns, aspirations, and expectations sink in.
Case law from the U.S. Supreme Court does a bit better, with one of the clearest statements on how to listen to our clients coming from McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018). That case focused on a criminal defense attorney who had conceded his client’s guilt as a legal strategy “best suited to avoiding the death penalty.” Id. at 1508. The client—who wished to maintain an assertion of innocence—protested. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg emphasized, “These are not strategic choices about how best to achieve a client’s objectives; they are choices about what the client’s objectives in fact are.” Id.
The McCoy Court was adamant that a lawyer is obliged to honor a client’s “autonomy”—even when that contradicts a lawyer’s insight on the best path forward. Doing so requires accepting that our expertise as lawyers matters less than a client’s dignity. It demands humility.