Between ‘i’ and ‘they’: Distributing authorship for evidence-making: how asylum lawyers construct credible accounts before the French court of asylum law
By: Stoufflet ,Bénédicte
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Social and Legal Studies Description: 34(6), Dec, 2025: p.814-831.Subject(s): Asylum Lawyers, Evidence making, Credibility, Legal lay communication, CNDA
In:
Social and Legal StudiesSummary: Lawyers who represent asylum seekers in the French Court (CNDA) face the critical issue of ‘credibility’ on a daily basis. Drawing on legal advice meetings and court hearing sequences, I show how they navigate the tension between applicants’ natural storytelling and the legal framework's demand for consistency. I demonstrate that lawyers possess a ‘professional vision’ that enables them to distribute authorship between the applicants and themselves. On the one hand, the applicant is expected to deliver a genuine account in “I”. But they should also attempt not to defeat judges’ background assumptions. To this end, the lawyer familiarizes their client with this practical “know-how” using suggestion rather than explanation. On the other hand, judges suspiciously address self-identification in typical cases. The lawyer speaking in “they” in their defense speech allows them to rearticulate the applicant's personal reasons into a legal category.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09646639241308702
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 34(6), Dec, 2025: p.814-831 | Available | AR137693 |
Lawyers who represent asylum seekers in the French Court (CNDA) face the critical issue of ‘credibility’ on a daily basis. Drawing on legal advice meetings and court hearing sequences, I show how they navigate the tension between applicants’ natural storytelling and the legal framework's demand for consistency. I demonstrate that lawyers possess a ‘professional vision’ that enables them to distribute authorship between the applicants and themselves. On the one hand, the applicant is expected to deliver a genuine account in “I”. But they should also attempt not to defeat judges’ background assumptions. To this end, the lawyer familiarizes their client with this practical “know-how” using suggestion rather than explanation. On the other hand, judges suspiciously address self-identification in typical cases. The lawyer speaking in “they” in their defense speech allows them to rearticulate the applicant's personal reasons into a legal category.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09646639241308702
There are no comments for this item.