Abstract
In this essay, I apply Jacques Lacan'sfour discourses to the legal profession. A lawyer –i.e. a legal expert – engages in the Master'sdiscourse when he writes the law; he engages in theUniversity discourse when he interprets or attempts tojustify the law. In contrast, an attorney – i.e. a legal advisor – engages in the Analyst'sdiscourse when she counsel's her client; she engagesin the Hysteric's discourse when she represents herclient. From a Lacanian perspective, the two lawyer'sdiscourses are masculine, while the two attorney'sdiscourses are feminine. I divergefrom Lacan's view that the Analyst's is the mostradical discourse. The insight gained throughanalysis can only challenge and change the law iftranslated through the Hysteric's discourse. Consequently, despite dominant sexual stereotypes tothe contrary, to be an effective advocate should takeon a radically hysteric femininity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
