What role do lawyers play when democracies start to erode across the world? One academic research group looks at the question of how lawyers can best resist authoritarian regimes or potentially enable them
The Lawyers and Declining Democracy (LADD) project examines the pivotal, yet complex roles lawyers play in resisting or enabling authoritarianism in nations that may be experiencing erosion of their democratic principles.
Under the leadership of Kathryn Hendley, a professor of law and political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, LADD unites scholars to explore this phenomenon. And over the past year, LADD researchers have been discussing their work in symposiums at Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, Indiana University-Bloomington, and elsewhere.
LADD’s work emphasizes comparative studies to better understand the dynamics of legal professions across diverse political systems, reflecting a timely and critical response to democracy’s current challenges worldwide.
In fact, one of the central questions explored in the LADD project is why lawyers matter in understanding authoritarianism or backsliding democracies. The perspective in the United States often overemphasizes the role of lawyers as indispensable to democracy; however, LADD’s research in countries with different legal traditions reveals that lawyers may wield limited influence. The project goes on to examine how lawyers’ roles as facilitators, resistors, or passive actors are shaped by societal expectations, professional norms, and institutional structures, underscoring the importance of lawyers’ self-perception and their societal roles — whether that role is as technicians offering legal expertise or as advisors influencing ethical decision-making.
The Russian legal profession
In many states that are regarded as authoritarian or near-authoritarian, like Russia, the legal profession is institutionally fragmented. Some lawyers actively resist the regime by challenging repressive laws or advocating for citizens’ constitutional rights. This resistance is especially evident among, logically, criminal defense lawyers. For example, these lawyers could offer procedural resistance by identifying technical errors in government enforcement actions in order to acquit clients, especially low-level dissidents. Such resistance tactics are often subtle and avoid direct challenges to the authoritarian regime.
On the other hand, many legal professionals — such as state-employed lawyers, prosecutors, and judges — are instrumental in advancing authoritarian policies. And still other lawyers choose to remain on the sidelines, navigating their roles without direct engagement with authoritarianism or its resistance.
LADD identifies three categories of lawyers: resistors, enablers, and passive actors. The reasons behind their positions vary by country and context. For instance, professional norms might socialize lawyers to view themselves as technicians rather than moral actors, and unfortunately, such a mindset can facilitate compliance with authoritarian agendas.
However, resistance strategies also emerge. In some systems, lawyers challenge unconstitutional laws through constitutional or supranational courts. Even when unsuccessful, such efforts may tarnish a regime’s international reputation over time, as seen during the Cold War.
LADD identifies three categories of lawyers — resistors, enablers, and passive actors — and the reasons behind their positions vary by country and context.
Indeed, a significant contribution of LADD’s comparative approach is the identification of patterns in authoritarian regimes’ strategies to suppress legal resistance. For example, Russia has prosecuted prominent defense lawyers under the pretext of extremist activity, echoing tactics seen in other countries like China. These measures not only diminish legal dissent but also reinforce authoritarian control over the legal profession. Comparative studies reveal that authoritarian playbooks often involve co-opting or undermining professional associations that could support resistance. Over time, these associations — especially bar associations in repressive regimes — tend to shy away from confronting state power directly.
Using innovative resistance methods
The project also considers how lawyers in authoritarian regimes innovate resistance methods in response to changing state tactics. Another example from Russia shows how lawyers have shifted from constitutional arguments to procedural challenges, leveraging technical knowledge to navigate authoritarian legal systems. Although such efforts rarely lead to high-level political change, they offer glimpses of hope by securing justice in individual cases.
Comparatively, countries like the US exhibit unique challenges concerning government lawyering in the context of democratic backsliding. The debate around whether civil servants should resist or comply with troubling policies underscores the tension between technical professionalism and moral responsibility. Today, the US has seen a resurgence of resignations as a form of resistance, echoing practices in countries like the United Kingdom. Yet, this strategy raises questions about the long-term implications for resistance movements.
Prof. Hendley has said that authoritarian legal systems often present “multiple stories about law,” revealing a duality in which mundane legal cases adhere strictly to the law, while political cases flout it. This paradox reflects the complexities that many lawyers find themselves having to navigate within authoritarian systems.
Despite the challenges, instances of resilience inspire hope. LADD’s work offers examples such as efforts by Russian lawyers and non-governmental organizations to support protestors and uphold legal rights despite escalating repression. The inclusion of nontraditional lawyers in any resistance initiatives demonstrates more innovative ways to expand the movement. Although such efforts may not reverse authoritarian trends immediately, they represent meaningful contributions to the broader struggle for justice.
Looking ahead, LADD aims to expand its research to more countries facing similar challenges, including Hungary, Belarus, and Turkey. By fostering a global perspective, those behind the project seek to deepen understanding of the legal profession’s role in shaping democratic trajectories and resisting efforts to undermine them.
Check out the Thomson Reuters Institute’s Human Rights Crimes Resource Center here
