I often find myself surprised by the responsibility I am given in professional contexts. Because I see myself as a novice–still a student of law, not yet a practitioner of it–my instinct is to defer to the opinions of my supervisors, who have far more experience and expertise. Some of the most challenging moments in clinic have arisen where I have asked a question, and Jayashri or Lisa have responded by reflecting the question back and asking, “What do you think?”

I was equally surprised to see this dynamic play out in our advocacy meeting. While we have dedicated so much time to honing our skills as attorneys–from client-centered lawyering to legal research and writing exercises–I feel even more inexperienced in the immigration advocacy space. While I felt prepared to discuss the research I had done, I approached my role in our conversation with our organizational partners with a lot of deference. I expected our partners to lead the conversation and the project. But I found myself taken aback by the deference they showed us. They encouraged our group to plan our project, schedule meetings whenever we felt they were necessary, and reach out if we have questions in future. Where I had expected our partners to have set expectations for deliverables and deadlines, they left these decisions to us.

I thought our project partners would have a strong vision for the end product we would create, and I was surprised when they empowered us to make choices based on our own instincts and preferences, rather than based on theirs.

I have learned, however, that these moments where I am put on the spot to share my opinion pose the greatest opportunity for growth. Throughout my time in clinic, I have become increasingly confident in answering the question “What do you think is right?” in the legal context. I have become better at voicing my initial thoughts and accepting that sometimes, there is no one right answer.