Lawyers as Prophets or Pilgrims?

Something in Fr. Neuhaus's Public Square Column in the March issue of First Things made me think of Rob's questions about whether Christian lawyers are all called to be prophets, and what that might mean.  Neuhaus quotes Christopher Levenick's review in the Claremont Review of a series of recent books (by Jimmy Carter, Michael Lerner, Robin Meyers, Dan Wakefield, and Jim Wallis) "attacking conservative Christians in public life."  Levenick apparently criticizes the self-righteous tone of these books, writing:

"Perhaps [more reflection on moral ambiguities] will remind them that we are pilgrims more than prophets, that we pass through this City of Man as strangers in a strange land, longing for and ultimately arriving, we pray, in the City of God.  And until we achieve that distant Kingdon, we will do best to recognize each other's good intentions, offer one another patient correction, and pray for our mutual betterment and withal follow the counsel of Micah, to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God."

Fr. Neuhaus then adds:

And it may be that you cannot always do all three at once.  There is, I would suggest, an ordering of imperatives in Micah's counsel.  When you do not know what justice requires, or cannot do what you believe justice requires, then at least love mercy;  and when you discover, as you inevitably will, how difficult is such love, then, at the very least, walk humbly with God.

Maybe too much focus on forming lawyers to be "prophets" ignores the rest of those imperatives -- loving mercy and the humble walk with God?