Following Bourdieu, he assigns the lay person only a marginal role in his legal thought. For him, the lay person is not only non-influential with regard to the constitution of law but he is also completely uninvolved when it comes to the ‘objective‘ layer of the legal field. In this contribution I argue that this view is too short-sighted insofar as it exhibits a void regarding the lay persons’ ability to act in their legal contexts of everyday life. Due to this diagnosis, I extend Bourdieu’s legal thought. At the same time, my findings disclose that Bourdieu’s understanding of the legal field’s borders and thus, the way Bourdieu conceptualises the constitution of law, must gradually be challenged. By this means, the lay person fulfils the role of a precedent for Bourdieu’s legal architecture.