Little attention has been devoted to legislation’s point of origin — the legislative drafting process. Such commentary as has been offered is essentially technical in nature. However, the relationship between drafter and text is the furthest thing from a technical, value-neutral enterprise.

        For example: a question confronted by every drafter and one with obvious ethical and political implications is, “How much is to be left to the drafter’s discretion?” Obviously, the drafter who less frequently inquires about the client’s desires will have greater latitude to exercise discretion and accordingly can play more of an “advocacy” role in shaping the legislation, a situation which can lead to his or her sidesteping the duty of abiding by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.

        But this is not to paint too malevolent a portrait of legislative drafting personnel. They are not a fifth column of subversives who pursue personal advocacy objectives in everything that they do. Indeed, many may even be unaware of their power. They are, though, continually called upon to exercise personal judgment in the performance of their duties. Such judgments are frequently policy judgments, and drafting decisions are often influenced consciously or subconsciously by the advocacy agenda of the individual drafter. The legislative drafter plays a more active role in the process than is generally accorded to the stereotypical scribe, laboring in nameless and faceless obscurity to produce a bill draft.

David Marcello. The Ethics and Politics of Legislative Drafting.

In: Tulane Law Review, vol. 70, p. 2437, 1996 (adapted).