Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

President Trump on a large TV screen behind a woman wearing a statue of liberty inspired crown.

President Donald Trump speaks at the RNC midterm convention in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2026.

How Anti-Bribery Laws Apply to Trump’s Promise of $5,000 Payments if Republicans Keep Control of Congress

In his keynote address to the Republican midterm convention on Sept. 9, 2026, President Donald Trump promised that if Republicans retain control of Congress in November, he would authorize a US$5,000 payment to every American adult.

Trump’s offer seems to run afoul of federal laws, which make it a crime to pay for votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less