Adam S. Hofri-Winogradow is Assistant Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law (firstname.lastname@example.org). The author thanks his interview subjects, listed in the references section. For their important comments, he extends thanks to Ilan Benshalom, Ritu Birla, Binyamin Blum, Hanoch Dagan, Charles Donahue, Mary Louise Fellows, Lawrence Friedman, Joshua Getzler, Dror Goldberg, George Gretton, Ron Harris, Assaf Likhovski, Michael Livingston, Maurizio Lupoi, Hector MacQueen, Bill Maurer, Greg Rawlings, Jothi Rajah, Mitra Sharafi, Lionel Smith, Sief van Erp, Eyal Zamir, and participants at the 2011 meeting of the Law and Society Association, the Comparative Legal Histories Workshop held at Stanford Law School in June 2011, the Third International Congress of the World Society of Mixed Jurisdiction Jurists, held that same month in Jerusalem, and the November 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Legal History. The author thanks Shlomi Balaban for excellent research assistance, above and beyond the call of duty. Funding was supplied by the Israel Science Foundation, Personal Grant 333/10.
Professionals' Contribution to the Legislative Process: Between Self, Client, and the Public
Article first published online: 28 FEB 2013
© 2013 American Bar Foundation
Law & Social Inquiry
Volume 39, Issue 1, pages 96–126, Winter 2014
How to Cite
Hofri-Winogradow, A. S. (2014), Professionals' Contribution to the Legislative Process: Between Self, Client, and the Public. Law & Social Inquiry, 39: 96–126. doi: 10.1111/lsi.12006
- Issue published online: 12 FEB 2014
- Article first published online: 28 FEB 2013
How may professionals be made to contribute to legislative processes so that their expertise redounds to the public interest, despite the legislative product being likely to have a negative impact on their clients' wealth? Drawing on a case study of the legislative process that gave birth to Israel's recent (2002–2008) trusts taxation regime, based on five years of participant observation among the trust professional community, I find that to obtain the benefit of private-sector professionals' expertise under such circumstances, government should have legislation drafted in a dispassionate, exclusive environment of experts rather than in the political arena; it should build professionals' trust in government by adopting an explicitly collegial approach; it should focus reform efforts on elements of the existing law so clearly inequitable as to make a refusal to contribute difficult to justify; and take care that the new regime creates a compliance practice lucrative enough to compensate for any loss to professionals consequent on its enactment. Once professionals' interests are suitably safeguarded, their loyalty to clients appears surprisingly brittle and government can successfully combine with them in the public interest.