The injuring state in armed conflict settings typically does not allow civilian victims on the other side to access its domestic courts in order to seek redress for their injuries. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict presents a rare exception to this rule. A unique mechanism enables Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as foreign nationals, to bring claims for damages against the State of Israel before Israeli civil courts, for injuries caused as a result of Israeli security forces activity in the Palestinian Territories. In this paper, I focus on one central aspect of these claims: the lawyers and their role in shaping the nature of the
litigation. Through 50 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the various types of lawyers involved in the litigation, alongside quantitative content analysis of court decisions, the paper offers, for the first time, insight into the motivations and practices of lawyers who practice law in this field. Using the conceptual framework of cause lawyering, the research reveals how in the political climate of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, private plaintiffs’ lawyers, who practice law on a contingency fee basis, stepped into a void left by human rights NGOs—well-versed in litigation before the Israeli High Court of Justice, but less so in civil litigation—that shied away from employing this tool. The paper argues that while these tentative, “de-facto” cause lawyers have had achievements on the individual client’s level, they have also contributed to the ultimate
demise of a potentially important political and social tool. More specifically, the involvement of plaintiffs’ lawyers has shaped the litigation as a stream of particularized claims and supported Israel’s efforts to limit the use of this mechanism. Through this case study, the paper challenges the scarce existing literature on private lawyers operating as cause lawyers, showing how the involvement of private lawyers, with their specific characteristics, shapes the litigation processes they participate in, which bears implications for anyone who cares about challenging social injustice through legal mechanisms. Importantly, the paper constitutes a first step towards understanding and conceptualizing the role of domestic civil litigation in promoting international human rights norms, a goal for which international tribunals often do not suffice.