Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Future of Self-Regulation—Canada between the United States and the English /Australian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author analyses and assesses the impact of recent and dramatic changes to self-regulatory models for the legal profession in England, Australia and the United States to discern whether legal self-regulation can or ought to continue in Canada. He concludes that a nuanced co-regulatory approach balancing the competing concerns of accountability with independence of the profession may ultimately serve to respond to concerns of both the public and the legal profession. Further, the transformation of regulatory and disciplinary models internationally has been tied to broader conceptions about delivery models for legal services, including law firm IPOs and multidisciplinary practice. Accordingly, the key to preserving self-regulation by and for the profession lies in a broader conception of service in the public interest, accompanied by co-regulation and a separation of regulation from discipline. [NOTE: Paper commissioned for the ABA Canons of Ethics Centennial Celebration and will be published in a Special Edition of The Professional Lawyer, Fall 2008]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".