Until recently, the lawyer played a secondary role in juvenile courts. Juvenile defenders had little prestige and earned modest salaries, and most lawyers have not been interested in this field of law. A model of educational justice served as the basis of the law on juvenile delinquency from February 2, 1945. In this model, the juvenile judge occupied a dominant position whose main roles were to protect young offenders and, in cases of serious offenses, to punish them. However, educational measures were preferred to punishment. Therefore, the lawyer only had a minor scope of action, serving as the mediator between the juvenile, the judge, and other socio-educational actors. Today, this situation has changed somewhat. Since the early 1990s, lawyers have gained more importance in juvenile justice, which accounts for the present sociological analysis. How should we interpret the creation and rise of groups of lawyers specializing in juvenile law whereas the profession has traditionally let paralegals and junior associates handle such cases? What are the factors that account for lawyers’ growing interest in an area of law that was neglected for so long? What new or specific factors do they contribute? Today, the issues of juvenile defenders and the roles and mandates of their lawyers merit further examination. Based on an interactionist analysis of the sociology of the professions and the sociology of juvenile justice, this paper shows that, with regard to some contextual evolutions, some lawyers have tried to create names for themselves in the juvenile courts by forming an association and undertaking a specialized training. However, having one’s competencies recognized by peers and clients is not sufficient. It is also necessary to bring something to the organization in which one works. This paper mentions their usual role of negotiating the ceremonial order of a penal audience, appeasing conflicts and, more unusually, their investment in the management of juvenile defense. Lastly, this paper discusses how the defense of their position has encouraged a regulation of professional capacities, thus returning “each to his own seat.” The data on which this paper is based consist of observations of lawyers’ work in juvenile courts and 50 interviews with juvenile lawyers and judges from three different courts from 1997 to 1999.