Theories of justice (Kantian ideas, for example) have engaged with concepts of “charity” and the “duty of charity” and “justice”. In modern social construction, charity approaches have often been associated with donations, relief efforts, volunteer work, and (after the Parkland shootings in the US) “thoughts and prayers”. Charity work is an important part of supporting people and communities. Many people have benefitted and thrived because of charity-based interventions. However, charity models have also been criticized for either ignoring root causes of suffering or for papering over deeper sources of inequality. Thus, justice models are another way of thinking about and approaching social change. Justice models rely on many types of systemic advocacy to achieve their goals.

The “river” metaphor is often used to describe systemic approaches. If a company pollutes a waterway, communities downstream of the waterway will experience harmful effects. In the “downstream” approach, a government could address pollution in each community individually. In an “upstream” approach, a government could go to the source of the pollution and stop the pollutor from polluting the waterway in the first place.

Lawyering can sometimes resemble a charity model, and sometimes resemble a justice model depending on how it is practiced. Using the water methapor, a “downstream” approach might involve representing individual clients at the Social Benefits Tribunal for a disability appeal. An “upstream” approach might involve changing the legislation to make eligibility less challenging, instituting a universal basic income, or providing living and working conditions such that fewer people become disabled to begin with.

Both models are important to ensure no one is left behind, but attention should be paid to both in considering meeting clients’ needs and supporting good practice and policy.