In
the
landscape
of
legal
terminology,
few
words
carry
as
much
divisive
potential
as
“nonlawyer.”
It’s
a
label
that
seems
innocuous
but
sets
a
tone
of
exclusion
within
the
legal
community.
Recognizing
the
power
of
words
and
their
profound
impact
on
professional
culture,
Stepan
Khzrtian,
co-founder
and
CEO
of
Corpora.us,
shares
his
insights
on
how
changing
this
terminology
can
uplift
and
unify
legal
professionals.
In
this
exclusive
interview,
we
delve
into
the
implications
of
current
language
practices
and
explore
the
transformative
potential
of
more
inclusive
terminology.
Olga
V.
Mack:
What
aspects
of
the
legal
profession
are
currently
hindered
by
using
the
term
“nonlawyer,”
and
how
could
changing
this
terminology
improve
those
aspects?
Stepan
Khzrtian:
Labeling
all
the
members
of
the
legal
profession
who
are
not
lawyers
themselves
as
“nonlawyers”
means
confiscating
them
of
the
credit
they
are
rightfully
due.
One
can
imagine
the
second-order
effects
this
can
have
on
these
members,
who
are
crucial
to
delivering
legal
services:
a
reduced
sense
of
self-worth,
limited
sense
of
achievement,
and
myopic
view
of
their
role
in
the
legal
profession.
By
jettisoning
the
term
“nonlawyer”
and,
instead,
properly
naming
and
acknowledging
the
specific
role
each
member
of
the
legal
profession
plays,
we’ll
be
empowering
them
with
increased
agency
and,
with
it,
an
increased
sense
of
responsibility
and
self-worth.
The
result
is
a
more
robust,
motivated
legal
profession
that
ultimately
translates
into
improved
access
to
justice.
OM:
How
do
you
perceive
the
impact
of
language,
particularly
the
term
“nonlawyer,”
on
the
professional
culture
within
the
legal
community?
SK:
As
lawyers,
we
know
all
too
well
the
power
of
words.
Here,
the
term
“nonlawyer”
acts
simultaneously
as
an
apathetic
equalizer
and
a
ruthless
polarizer.
First
off,
it’s
a
negative
definition
and,
thus,
acts
as
an
equalizer.
It
says
not
who
one
is,
but
only
who
one
is
not
—
not
a
lawyer.
Well
then,
who
exactly
is
this
person?
Be
it
a
paralegal,
a
clerk,
a
knowledge
worker,
a
law
firm
executive
—
or
simply
a
member
of
the
public
who
has
no
relation
to
the
legal
profession
—
they
are
bundled
into
the
same
nontelling
label,
“nonlawyer,”
with
full
apathy
toward
the
content
of
that
person’s
role.
This,
in
turn,
leads
to
polarization.
By
design,
a
negative
definition
splits
a
category
into
two
diametrically
opposed
groups
—
you
either
have
this
quality
and
are
part
of
us,
or
you
lack
this
quality
and
are
not
part
of
us.
That’s
what
binary
concepts
do:
they
fail
to
appreciate
gradients
and,
thus,
create
tension.
That
same
dynamic
is
in
play
with
the
“lawyer-nonlawyer”
dichotomy.
OM:
What
alternative
terminology
could
effectively
replace
“nonlawyer”
while
accurately
reflecting
the
diverse
roles
and
contributions
within
the
legal
profession?
SK:
“Legal
professional”
succinctly
captures
all
the
persons
involved
in
delivering
legal
services.
This
can
then
be
broken
down
into
granular
taxonomy
—
lawyers,
paralegals,
clerks,
legal
assistants,
law
firm
executives,
etc.
What’s
important
to
stress
here
is
that
the
term
“lawyer”
or
“attorney”
must
continue
to
be
reserved
for
those
individuals
who
are
properly
licensed
to
practice
law.
There
is
no
mistake
in
society’s
vested
interest
in
knowing
who
a
lawyer
is.
OM:
The
petition
suggests
promoting
inclusive
language
guidelines
to
encourage
respectful
discourse.
How
do
you
envision
implementing
these
guidelines,
and
what
impact
do
you
think
they
could
have?
SK:
Language
guidelines
are
necessary
to
set
guardrails
and
serve
as
a
North
Star
for
members
of
the
profession.
Suppose
the
legal
profession
foregoes
the
term
“nonlawyer”
without
establishing
an
alternative
that
enjoys
broad
consensus.
In
that
case,
we’ll
be
paving
the
path
for
bad
actors
to
fill
the
void
in
a
way
that
harms
society.
These
guidelines
can
be
found
in
the
ABA
Model
Rules,
the
codes
of
professional
conduct
of
state
bars,
the
charters
of
bar
associations,
the
employee
handbooks
of
law
firms
and
legal
institutions,
the
editorial
guidelines
of
agencies
covering
the
industry,
and
so
forth.
However,
while
this
is
a
necessary
step,
it’s
insufficient.
For
words
to
live,
they
must
go
beyond
official
text
and
be
used
in
interactions,
ranging
from
ethical
opinions
handed
down
by
state
bars
and
coverage
of
the
legal
profession
by
news
organizations
to
the
general
public
discourse
we
follow
and
participate
in
on
social
media.
Members
of
the
legal
profession
should
be
encouraged
by
their
peers
to
consider
and
adopt
the
improved
terminology
in
their
interactions.
Over
time,
with
critical
mass
and
consensus
being
reached,
the
polarizing
terminology
will
successfully
be
phased
out.
OM:
Lastly,
what
are
the
potential
challenges
or
obstacles
in
implementing
this
change,
and
how
do
you
think
they
could
be
addressed?
SK:
My
colleagues
are
concerned
that
changing
the
current
terminology
will
harm
society’s
vested
right
to
know
who
is
qualified
—
in
the
true
sense
of
the
word
—
to
help
it
navigate
legal
matters.
This
concern
is
the
biggest
challenge
to
the
success
of
this
initiative.
Once
this
fundamental
concern
is
addressed
and
allayed,
all
the
other
pieces
will
fall
into
place.
The
only
possible
way
to
sustainably
bridge
differences
of
opinion
is
truly
listening
to
those
who
disagree
with
you
and
proving
it
through
the
solutions
that
you
put
forth.
In
fact,
through
such
open
dialogue,
we’ll
quickly
realize
that
we’re
all
committed
to
protecting
society’s
vested
interest
and
then
work
off
this
ground
to
ensure
a
solid
solution.
Stepan
Khzrtian’s
perspective
illuminates
the
challenges
posed
by
the
term
“nonlawyer”
and
highlights
a
path
forward
through
respectful
and
inclusive
language.
By
embracing
terms
that
recognize
the
diverse
contributions
within
the
legal
sector,
we
can
foster
a
more
collaborative
and
motivated
professional
community.
Implementing
this
change
will
require
thoughtful
dialogue,
widespread
consensus,
and
a
commitment
to
redefining
professional
identities.
As
we
strive
for
a
more
inclusive
legal
landscape,
the
insights
from
leaders
like
Khzrtian
remind
us
that
our
words
can
shape
our
professional
realities
and
the
justice
system
at
large.
Together,
with
continued
effort
and
understanding,
the
legal
community
can
transform
its
lexicon
to
reflect
the
dignity
and
value
of
every
member,
paving
the
way
for
a
more
equitable
professional
environment.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
LinkedIn
and
Twitter
@olgavmack.