The question of how to explain policy change has led to important academic debate over the past two decades. This article challenges explanations regarding veto players (VPs), arguing that interest groups (IGs) sometimes play a more decisive role than VPs —depending on the degree of organization and mobilization of such groups. The comparative analysis of judicial reforms in Italy, Belgium, and France shows the conditions under which IGs—understood here as legal professions—matter in the lawmaking process. Ceteris paribus, the more cohesive and legitimate an IG, the more likely it is to influence lawmaking regardless of the VP configuration. Analyses of legislative and policy change should therefore consider not only institutional and partisan actors but also the role of social group and IG in this process.