What is Advocacy?

This week has been Passover.  As part of the Passover celebration,  we re-tell the story of Exodus.  Unlike  some other religions, in Judaism, "re-tell"  means dissect, debate and analyze the story.  In particular, at Passover,  the learned men (called Rabbis), discuss the meaning of the word "day."  Does it mean simply the daylight, or does it include nighttime as well?  Does the plural of the word mean a few days, a week, or a lifetime?  Each of the various interpretations changes the meaning of the bible passage in which they are found, so the rabbis continue to debate, looking not only to the word itself, but the modifiers in the sentence, and its location in the passage.  What the ancient rabbis knew was that the meaning of a word depends on its context.
So, what does this have to do with advocacy?  Plenty.  The advent of collaborative practice has created a new debate concerning what it means to advocate for a client.  "To advocate"  means to set forth  and promote one's position, to argue for or plead in favor of a position before a tribunal.  Does advocacy have a different meaning depending on whether one is advocating before a court or before the audience of one's family?  Those attorneys who are hostile to alternative methods of dispute resolution such as mediation or collaborative practice would say it does.  I think not.  How we advocate changes depending on the venue, but the venue does not change the advocacy itself.  Just as with the rabbis at Passover who argued over the meaning of the word "day,"  lawyers are engaging in a discussion over the definition of the word "advocate."  
That debate hinges on what is or should be a client's position.  Traditional lawyers and litigators would say that the client's position is what the client says they want - the house, no alimony, primary custody, and that is for what they advocate.   If instead, we look at the client's "position"  as what meets their highest needs, what is at the root of their position, what  helps the client not return to court, and what is practical for the client, then we are still advocating for the client, albeit at a deeper, more meaningful level for the client.  If we help the client to understand why they are taking a position, and to inform them of the law and make sure they are making an intelligent decision, and help them speak for themselves, then are we not also advocating?  If we level the playing field by making the process fair and even-handed, and sharing information and communicating openly, in order to make it safe for the client to explore and address their needs, isn't that also part of advocacy?  Presenting evidence in court, supporting a client in mediation, representing a client in collaboration are all the advocacy - the question is whether the public face is all there is to one's advocacy, or whether it is the public face is really the overt manifestation of the long process and deep work of the advocate.  The latter serves our clients better than the former, and gives them tools to move forward in their lives.