Self-Interest, Public Interest, and the Interests of the Absent Client: Legal ethics and Class Action Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are existing ethical norms adequate to address the realities of class proceedings? In this article, the author explores the premise that current rules of professional conduct are effective when applied to class action praxis. In Part I, she discusses the peculiar features of class proceedings and how they create unique challenges to the ethical conduct of litigation. In Part II, the author confronts a fundamental (and often overlooked) question: Who is the client in a class proceeding to whom ethical duties are owed? Having identified the range of judicial and academic views on the unique dimensions of class actions, she turns, in Part III, to a discussion of two sources of ethical norms that seek to respond to them: the strictures of class proceedings legislation and the judicial development of rules and guidelines. Throughout the article, the author relies upon information obtained from seven judges interviewed for this project. The article concludes with proposals for amendment to Ontario's Rules of Professional Conduct that would more accurately address the realities of this model of litigation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".