No. There is a fundamental link between explaining the law and advocating for change in the law. You might as well say that nobody who can program computers sho

No. There is a fundamental link between explaining the law and advocating for change in the law. You might as well say that nobody who can program computers should be allowed to submit PRs or feature requests. If I were to advocate for changes in the law without explaining what the law says and why it needs to be changed, I would almost by definition be trying to manipulate my audience - trying to get them to give me their support while keeping my reasons and agenda hidden. As I read your comment, no, Sir, I cannot agree. But perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case I'm happy to be corrected. Perhaps what you mean is that legal minds shouldn't coyly accept the benefits of the tendency of the public to accept the implicit argument by authority. Perhaps you mean simply that advocacy shouldn't take the guise of a dispassionate explication. In the talk of the trade, a lawyer shouldn't pass a brief (persuasive) off as a memo (analytical). If that is the heart of what you're trying to say, I think that's fair and reasonable.