A Spade is a Spade

Let’s call a spade a spade. The ‘nonlawyer’ terminology is an ugly, yet accurate, reflection of the legal world.

Controversial? Sure. But I'd like to expand on my recent thoughts regarding the campaign to remove the word 'nonlawyer' from American Bar Association (ABA) materials and other content.

First, I can’t stress this enough: my concerns aren’t with the individuals leading this campaign.

In a vacuum, I see this as a straightforward step towards a more inclusive legal profession—removing a clear dividing wall of vocabulary. And of course, it’s a well-meaning campaign that echoes a broader movement to reevaluate how we label and categorize people in workplaces.

The 'Nondoctor' Comparison

Recently, I’ve read several comparisons to medicine, noting that industry's lack of a similar dichotomy. Simply put: you don’t hear the word 'nondoctor' in a hospital or other healthcare setting.

Nurses, medical assistants, advanced practitioners, pharmacists, and surgical assistants are recognized by titles that reflect their specific roles, training, and contributions to healthcare. But this differentiation in the medical field isn't the result of a spirited campaign to change formal vocabulary.

Realistically, the semantic differences are reflective of a vast infrastructure supporting a diversity of healthcare professions— with pathways for career advancement, education, and fair compensation. The nuanced titles recognize the specialized skills and contributions of each role, contributing to a more cohesive and effective healthcare system.

A professional mission

As William Henderson notes in his article 'Mindshare Matrix for Legal Professionals' (Legal Evolution, 2023), recent data shows roughly 82% of healthcare workers hold either a bachelor, associate, or vocational degree, while only 9.3% are doctors (MD or DO). "In contrast, 80% of legal service workers had a law degree."

Henderson goes on to discuss the laundry list of credentialing bodies and professional organizations supporting the healthcare system's 'nonphysician' professionals.

As Henderson succinctly puts it:

Folks, the above chart represents a lot of collective action in service of a professional mission. In contrast, in the legal industry, we’re trying to elevate our game through 60-90 minute educational sessions at industry events that are substantially funded by vendors. This hinders our progress and reflects poorly on our so-called profession.

In fact, the American Medical Association continues to use the term ‘nonphysician’ in its content, even making a point to use this differentiation. Fortunately for the rest of us, the AMA only represents one of several groups within a much larger system—as evidenced by recent pushback from pharmacist organizations against the AMA’s position on ‘scope creep’ in medical care.

A Useful Dichotomy

In contrast, the legal industry's persistent use of 'nonlawyer' as a catch-all term shows how a lack of similar infrastructure impacts the entire industry. While the word accurately delineates who is and isn't licensed to practice law, its usage extends far beyond this practical application.

In my experience, it’s an accurate reflection of the rigid, top-down hierarchy that plagues the legal field. Even worse, it’s a reflection of more practical divides in our work, like employee benefits and compensation.

Take a look at the salaries for common legal and healthcare professions in Chicago—the OFLC wage data shows average earnings across experience levels, from Level 1 (entry) to Level 4 (management/supervisory) professionals for each position type.

Compare the career earnings potential for nondoctor and nonlawyer roles versus their licensed counterparts. In the first image, the 'NOT Doctors' roles show a broad range of salaries with lots of potential for future earnings.

Meanwhile, nonlawyer professions offer little room for salary growth, with Level 4 wages often falling below entry-level earnings for associates at many law firms. Frankly, it’s tough to make a sustainable career out of many ‘nonlawyer’ jobs.

The Heart of the Issue

So, I question whether this effort to shift language will really address the heart of the issue. While the intent is good, I’m concerned they may inadvertently divert attention from the bigger picture. I also fear it will give too many law firm owners an undeserved chance to pat themselves on the back and return to business-as-usual.

The way I see it, the willingness to use a broader set of labels to describe legal professionals will come naturally—but only once we address the structural and cultural hurdles that define our workplaces.

A multi-tool legal garden

The real game-changer would be reimagining how rigid, institutionalized hierarchies continue to restrict 'nonlawyers' from fully participating in business leadership and decision-making processes. As many have argued, giving other legal professionals a seat at the table could be the natural catalyst for these vocabulary-level changes. When roles are clearly defined, respected, and supported by collective organizations, the terminology we use will naturally hold more weight.

Ultimately, I think we’ll need to look beyond terminology and towards more substantive changes in how legal teams are structured and operate. As we navigate these conversations, let's not lose sight of the broader goal: to foster a more inclusive, equitable, and efficient legal industry.

It's time we recognize and reward the diverse talents and roles that contribute to its success. In doing so, we can naturally phase out the antiquated 'nonlawyer' distinction. After all, a spade's a spade—but only when we recognize the variety of tools in the shed, and the value each brings to our collective goals.