Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:15:51.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawyers of the Right: Networks and Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Anthony Paik ,
Ann Southworth  and
John P. Heinz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lawyers for conservative and libertarian causes are active in organizing and mobilizing interest groups within the conservative coalition, and networks of relationships among those lawyers help to maintain and shape the coalition. Using data gathered in interviews with seventy-two such lawyers, this article analyzes characteristics of the lawyers and the structure of their networks. The findings suggest that the networks are divided into segments or blocks that are identified with particular constituencies, but that a distinct set of actors with extensive relationships serves to bridge the constituencies. Measures of centrality and brokerage confirm the structural importance of these actors in the network, and a search of references in news media confirms their prominence or prestige. This “core” set of actors occupies the “structural hole” in the network that separates the business constituency from religious conservatives. Libertarians, located near the core of the network, also occupy an intermediate position. Regression analysis of ties within the network suggests that the Federalist Society plays an important role in bringing the lawyers together.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Fall 2007 , pp. 883 - 917
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abramson, Jill. 1986. Right Place at the Right Time. American Lawyer June: 99–100.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. Norman Jr. 1963. A Method for Processing Sociometric Data. Sociometry 26:268–69.Google Scholar
Baker, Frank B., and Hubert, Lawrence J. 1981. The Analysis of Social Interaction Data: A Nonparametric Technique. Sociological Methods and Research 9:339–61.Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures. American Journal of Sociology 92:1170–82.Google Scholar
Broder, David S. 2005. From Miers, Telling Words. Washington Post, October 6, A27.Google Scholar
Brown, Steven P. 2002. Trumping Religion: The New Christian Right, the Free Speech Clause, and the Courts. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Patterson, Samuel C. 1987. Political Friendship in the Legislature. The Journal of Politics 49:953–75.Google Scholar
Chaddock, Gail Russell. 2005. A Judicial Think Tank—or a Plot? Christian Science Monitor, August 4, A1.Google Scholar
Congressional Universe. 2000. Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis (division of Reed Elsevier).Google Scholar
DeParle, Jason. 2005. Debating the Subtle Sway of the Federalist Society. New York Times, August 1, A12.Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William. 1983. Who Rules America Now? A View from the ’80s. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1986. Who's Running America: The Conservative Years. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Eades, Peter. 1984. A Heuristic for Graph Drawing. Congressus Numerantium 42:149–60.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Federalist Society. 2004. Our purpose. http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm (accessed May 24, 2004).Google Scholar
Fernandez, Roberto M., and Gould, Roger V. 1994. A Dilemma of State Power: Brokerage and Influence in the National Health Policy Domain. American Journal of Sociology 99:1455–91.Google Scholar
Fernandez, Roberto M., and McAdam, Doug. 1988. Social Networks and Social Movements: Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Mississippi Freedom Summer. Sociological Forum 3:357–82.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Michael A. 2005. What the Federalist Society Stands For: Group Is Haven for Conservative Thought. Washington Post, July 29, A21.Google Scholar
Frank, Kenneth A., and Yasumoto, Jeffrey Y. 1998. Linking Action to Social Structure within a System: Social Capital within and between Subgroups. American Journal of Sociology 104:642–86.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton. 1979. Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarifications. Social Networks 1:215–39.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton. 2005. Graphic Techniques for Exploring Social Network Data. In Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, ed. Carrington, Peter J., Scott, John, and Wasserman, Stanley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedkin, Noah E. 1991. Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures. American Journal of Sociology 96:1478–504.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1979. Exchange Networks and Community Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, John H., and Keith, Hope. 1972. Occupational Grading and Occupation Prestige. In The Analysis of Social Mobility: Methods and Approaches, ed. Hope, Keith. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Roger V. 1989. Power and Social Structure in Community Elites. Social Forces 68:531–52.Google Scholar
Gould, Roger V., and Fernandez, Roberto. 1989. Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks. Sociological Methodology 19:89–126.Google Scholar
Hacker, Hans J. 2005. The Culture of Conservative Christian Litigation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Hatcher, Laura. 2005. Economic Libertarians, Property, and Institutions: Linking Activism, Ideas, and Identities among Property Rights Advocates. In The Worlds Cause Lawyers Make: Structure and Agency in Legal Practice, ed. Sarat, Austin and Scheingold, Stuart A. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., and Laumann, Edward O. 1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., Nelson, Robert L., and Salisbury, Robert H. 1993. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policymaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., Nelson, Robert L., Sandefur, Rebecca L., and Laumann, Edward O. 2005. Urban Lawyers: The New Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., Paik, Anthony, and Southworth, Ann. 2003. Lawyers for Conservative Causes: Clients, Ideology, and Social Distance. Law and Society Review 37:5–50.Google Scholar
Hoover, Dennis R., and Den Dulk, Kevin R. 2004. Christian Conservatives Go to Court: Religion and Legal Mobilization in the United States and Canada. International Political Science Review 25:9–34.Google Scholar
Houck, Oliver. 1984. With Charity for All. Yale Law Journal 93:1415–563.Google Scholar
Kadushin, Charles. 1995. Friendship Among the French Financial Elite. American Sociological Review 60:202–21.Google Scholar
Kamada, Tomihisa, and Kawai, Satoru. 1991. A General Framework for Visualizing Abstract Objects and Relations. ACM Transaction on Graphics 10:1–29.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, David D. 2005a. Despite Recent Gains, Conservative Group Is Wary on Direction of Court. New York Times, November 11, A20.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, David D. 2005b. Ruling on Property Seizures Rallies Christian Groups. New York Times, July 11, A13.Google Scholar
Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knoke, David. 1993. Networks as Political Glue: Explaining Public Policy Making. In Sociology and the Public Agenda, ed. Wilson, William J. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Knoke, David. 1994. Networks of Elite Structure and Decision Making. In Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. Wasserman, Stanley and Galaskiewicz, Joseph. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, David. 1987. QAP Partialling as a Test of Spuriousness. Social Networks 9:171–86.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, David. 1988. Predicting with Networks: Nonparametric Multiple Regression Analysis of Dyadic Data. Social Networks 10:359–81.Google Scholar
Krishnan, Jayanth K., and Den Dulk, Kevin R. 2002. So Help Me God: A Comparative Study of Religious Interest Group Litigation. Georgia Journal of International Comparative Law 30:233–79.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Heinz, John P., Nelson, Robert L., and Salisbury, Robert H. 1985. Washington Lawyers and Others: The Structure of Washington Representation. Stanford Law Review 37:465–502.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., and Knoke, David. 1987. The Organizational State: A Perspective on National Energy and Health Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Knoke, David, and Kim, Yong-Hak. 1985. An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation: A Comparative Study of Energy and Health Domains. American Sociological Review 50:1–19.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., and Marsden, Peter V. 1979. The Analysis of Oppositional Structures in Political Elites: Identifying Collective Actors. American Sociological Review 44:713–32.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Marsden, Peter V., and Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1977. Community Influence Structures: Replication and Extension of a Network Approach. American Journal of Sociology 31:169–78.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Marsden, Peter V., and Prensky, David. 1989. The Boundary Specification Problem in Network Analysis. In Research Methods in Social Network Analysis, ed. Freeman, Linton C. and White, Douglas R. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., and Pappi, Franz U. 1976. Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liasson, Mara. 2005. Miers Nomination Divides Conservatives. Morning Edition, October 21.Google Scholar
Marwell, Gerald, and Oliver, Pamela. 1993. Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington Community and Legal Elites. American Journal of Political Science 37:365–90.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moody, James, McFarland, Daniel, and Bender-deMoll, Skye. 2005. Dynamic Network Visualization. American Journal of Sociology 110:1206–41.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Laura Beth, and Albiston, Catherine R. 2006. The Organization of Public Interest Practice. North Carolina Law Review 84:1591–621.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983. The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation. Journal of Politics 45:479–89.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1989. Public Interest Law Groups: Institutional Profiles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padgett, John F., and Ansell, Christopher K. 1993. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology 81:730–80.Google Scholar
Ponnuru, Remesh. 2005. Why Conservatives Are Divided. New York Times, October 17, A19.Google Scholar
RightGuide's Conservative Directory. 2000. http://www.rightguide.com/links-alpha.htm (accessed June 21, 2000).Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H. 1969. An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science 13:1–32.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H. 1984. Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions. American Political Science Review 78:64–76.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert, Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O. and Nelson, Robert L. 1987. Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition. American Political Science Review 81:1217–34.Google Scholar
Savage, David G. 2005. The Nation; Engaged in a Very Civil War; The Federalist Society has Reshaped the Legal System Without Ever Going to Court. New York Times, November 11, A1.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl, and Varian, Hal R. 1998. Information Rules. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Shils, Edward. 1968. Deference. In Social Stratification, ed. Jackson, John A., 104–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, James A. 1991. The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Southworth, Ann. 2005. Conservative Lawyers and the Contest Over the Meaning of “Public Interest Law.” UCLA Law Review 52:1223–78.Google Scholar
Useem, Michael. 1983. The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and Business Politics in the U.S. and the U.K. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Bridgett G., Hilboldt, John E., and Korsvall, Eric T. 2000. Policy Experts 2000: A Guide to Public Policy Experts and Organizations. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
Washington Representatives. 2000. Washington, DC: Columbia Books.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine, Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Harrison C., Boorman, Scott A., and Breiger, Ronald L. 1976. Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions. American Journal of Sociology 81:730–79.Google Scholar

Case Cited

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).Google Scholar