Intermediaries are communication experts who facilitate communication between individuals with communication needs and the criminal justice system. In executing the role, intermediaries interact with police, lawyers, judges and other criminal justice professionals. But is the intermediary a professional in its own right? This article argues that a more useful question to ask is whether intermediaries engage in what Andrew Abbott terms ‘professional work’. It reveals how the role tussles for legitimate control over its work tasks through the staking of ‘jurisdictional claims’. Intermediaries do so through the performance of ‘boundary work’ which involves the construction and negotiating of boundaries that mediate interaction. This article presents findings from thirty-one in-depth, semi-structured interviews with intermediaries and judges in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It concludes that the future of the intermediary role and its work depends largely on the type of ‘jurisdictional settlement’ which its practitioners seek to carve out.

Climate litigation based on the constitutional rights of future generations is an emerging and promising approach to enforcing long-term policies based on intergenerational and climate justice. In Germany, a high-profile constitutional judgment triggered by climate activists ruled that the German climate policy infringes future freedom rights. Based on an assessment of legal opportunity structures and interviews with key actors, this research finds that the complainants utilised the opportunity to facilitate a strong public perception of intergenerational injustice set by the Fridays for Future movement. While the court’s response in the form of the intertemporal effect doctrine is ambiguous and does not constitute clear fundamental rights of future generations, the complainants reached their strategic goal to directly influence policymakers and draw public attention to the issue of climate protection as an intergenerational responsibility. An interplay of four different legal arguments and numerous actors associated with the climate movement was crucial to triggering this outcome. These findings from a sociolegal bottom-up perspective are of great relevance as they show that impactful climate litigation through intergenerational principles relies on the strategic utilisation of the cultural context beyond the legal sphere.

This study examines the types of interactional trouble that arise from narrative variation in institutional interviews. Specifically, we examine protective order interviews in which Latina women tell of domestic violence to paralegal interviewers charged with the duty of helping them obtain a protective order. Victims' narratives are shown to take different shapes, and paralegals respond to them in different pragmalinguistic ways, depending on how they diverge from institutional needs. The factors found most heavily to influence narrative outcomes are contextual ones, related to participant social roles, the type of communicative activity interlocutors perceive themselves to be engaged in, and their interactional goals. An additional finding is that when expectations of what constitutes appropriate speech behavior differ, the interlocutor holding greater institutional power will try to constrain the speech of the other, despite the fact that both appear to share an extralinguistic goal, in this case obtaining a protective order.