Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From Survivor To Advocate: A Latina Lawyer’s Call for Legal Reform

Opinion

Lady Justice
On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.
the_burtons/Getty Images

The American legal system prides itself on upholding justice. But behind its polished façade lies an uncomfortable truth: the law often protects abusers—particularly when they hold power within the system itself.

From Jeffrey Epstein’s elite legal defense to the many unresolved allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump, we see how wealth and status create insulation from accountability. But what’s less visible is how this dynamic plays out within the legal profession, where lawyers, judges, and law professors abuse their power. The institutions tasked with accountability often remain silent.


I know this reality intimately.

As a public interest lawyer and survivor of domestic violence, I navigated a harrowing custody battle, secured a restraining order, and ultimately won the right to relocate with my child. But what should have been a moment of safety was overshadowed by professional betrayal. My abuser, a fellow attorney and adjunct law professor, faced no professional consequences. Even while under a court-ordered restraining order, he continued teaching law students—his record unblemished, his reputation protected. Law school administrators were informed. I was never contacted, supported, or believed.

This isn’t a personal grievance. It’s a systemic failure.

In a field where reputation often outweighs integrity, survivors are routinely discouraged from speaking out. When the accused are high-status men in legal academia or practice, institutions close ranks to preserve their image. Survivors—especially women, people of color, and those in early career stages—pay the price: lost income, mental health crises, professional isolation, and, in many cases, forced exit from the profession.

These failures aren’t just workplace issues—they’re failures of civic infrastructure. When government agencies, courts, and bar associations ignore or minimize abuse, they undermine the very democratic principles they exist to uphold: equal protection under the law, access to justice, and institutional transparency. A democracy that fails to protect its most vulnerable participants—particularly within the legal system—loses legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

We are not talking about rare cases. Nearly 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Studies show that survivors lose approximately 8 million days of paid work each year due to abuse. When the abuser is a legal professional, the imbalance of power is intensified. They know how to weaponize the law to harass, delay, and drain their victims—using legal filings not for justice, but for punishment.

And the profession lets them.

Law schools rarely have trauma-informed procedures for student or faculty survivors. Bar associations focus on attorney discipline for financial misconduct, not abuse. Employers don’t know how to handle disclosures—so they ignore them. Meanwhile, abusers continue teaching, practicing, and climbing ranks, aided by silence and institutional complicity.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

If the legal profession is to retain any moral authority, it must reform from within. That starts by acknowledging that domestic violence isn’t just a social issue—it’s a workplace issue, a legal ethics issue, and a democratic integrity issue. Civic institutions—especially those charged with interpreting and enforcing laws—must model the accountability they demand from others.

We need:

  • Trauma-informed training for all legal professionals—including judges, professors, and bar association staff.
  • Survivor support systems within law schools, firms, and courts.
  • Bar disciplinary reform to ensure violence, harassment, and coercive control are treated as ethical violations.
  • Bans on non-disclosure agreements and gag orders in cases involving abuse.
  • Transparency around institutional handling of abuse allegations, especially when the accused hold teaching or leadership roles.

For Latinas and other women of color, these institutional failures often carry additional burdens. We are more likely to be disbelieved, stereotyped as “emotional” or “unprofessional,” and punished for speaking out. Cultural stigmas, immigration concerns, and economic disparities compound the risks. In my own case, navigating these dynamics as a Latina in a predominantly white legal institution only deepened my isolation. Addressing abuse in the legal system must include an intersectional lens—because democracy cannot thrive if entire communities are excluded from its protections.

As a pro bono attorney, I’ve also had the honor of serving dozens of Latinas navigating the aftermath of abuse. The sheer number of survivors and the invisible wounds they carried enraged me, and still do. Domestic violence affects people across all backgrounds, but I witnessed firsthand that immigrant women face unique and compounded barriers—language, isolation, financial dependence, and fear of deportation. Nearly half of Latina immigrants may never seek help, fearing indiscriminate detention. Abusers exploit immigration status as a weapon of control, creating a brutal dynamic that demands a legal system responsive to their lived realities. For these women, obtaining a restraining order was not just a legal step—it was an act of courage and a means of survival. I walked many through the process in Spanish, acting as both lawyer and translator, bridging the cultural and linguistic divide in a system that too often seemed stacked against them.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of public trust. When we fail to hold legal professionals accountable for abuse, we erode faith in the very system meant to protect the vulnerable. Survivors—inside and outside the courtroom—deserve better.

My memoir, Survivor at Law, shares this lived experience and the broader patterns of complicity I’ve witnessed. But one voice isn’t enough. We need a profession-wide reckoning.

A healthy democracy depends on trust in its institutions. And justice must begin at home. For the legal field, that means inside our own institutions.

Dovie King is a public interest attorney, author of Survivor at Law, and lifelong advocate for survivor justice. Born in San Diego to immigrants from Mexico and Costa Rica, she brings a nuanced understanding of the legal and cultural barriers faced by marginalized communities. A graduate of Brown University and the Northeastern University School of Law, she has advised aspiring public service lawyers at Harvard Law School and worked to dismantle systemic silence surrounding abuse—particularly within legal institutions, the media, and political structures.



Read More

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin
Judge gavel and book on the laptop
Getty Images/Stock

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin

The Scene: The State of the Union Address, front row.

Thought bubble above the head of Chief Justice John Roberts:

Keep ReadingShow less
Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

A large plume of smoke rises over Tehran after explosions were reported in the city during the night on March 07, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

In what is being called “Trump’s War,” the United States has increased attacks against Iran recently, after the initial attack killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s Supreme Leader.

Congress did not approve the action, nor was informed of it—as is the law. Later, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejected a bid to rein in actions pertaining to the Iran war.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr attends U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

The “Unitary Executive” doctrine has become a talisman for expanding the sphere of Presidential prerogatives. Chief Justice John Roberts has been a key architect of this doctrine. It underlies the Supreme Court’s use of its shadow docket to reverse many detailed, well-reasoned lower federal court decisions over the last year. Those decisions, after carefully hearing and assessing the facts and the law, had enjoined unprecedented, far-reaching presidential actions (including the imposition of tariffs) that were almost certain to inflict immediate and substantial harm on millions of people and on the functioning of government itself.

As a lawyer, I have grave concerns about the so far unconstrained actions of this Executive branch and what they mean for the rule of law and the survival of our personal liberties. But even those too jaded to care or who think naively, “it will never happen to me,” should be concerned about ineptitude, greed, and waste. These are the costs imposed on all of us when government resources and employees are deployed on personal vendettas or redirected from critical government functions to support impulsive, arbitrary, and often futile actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

A protest group called "Hot Mess" hold up signs of Jeffrey Epstein in front of the Federal courthouse on July 8, 2019 in New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

In America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need, I argued that despite partisan division, Americans share core expectations. They want upward mobility that feels real. They want elections that are credible. They want markets where new entrants can compete. They want rules that bind concentrated wealth. They want stability without stagnation.

The Epstein case directly tests those expectations.

Keep ReadingShow less