The late Clark Clifford, advisor to US Presidents and legendary Washington attorney, was famed for warning new clients interested in legal representation before the executive branch and its agencies that he had no “influence.” Clifford claimed only to possess the expertise of someone intimately familiar with the workings of the US government, which allowed him to instruct clients on how best to place their views and needs before administrative agencies and executive branch departments. Clifford's caveat has struck many as implausible, even ridiculous, because he clearly offered more than sound legal argumentation: a wealth of “insider” contacts with government officials at all levels, and a reputation that preceded him.

Whatever the real source of his influence – perhaps sui generis – Clifford's legacy still clouds our understanding of how lawyers conduct the practice of law before administrative agencies. Indeed, both academics and journalists in search of Clifford's contemporary equivalents seem to hold the notion that if regulatory lawyers are not the equivalent of lobbyists “moving and shaking” the government on behalf of corporate interests, then they are merely technicians of the law without an appreciable impact on administrative politics. The simplicity of these visions is understandable, not least because if the advocacy made by lawyers is not presented with the color and force of a lobbyist, then it is made in arcane legalisms typically understood and appreciated only by lawyers.

Regulatory systems are pervasive in modern society.