Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the law of business organizations, individuals have generally been unrestrained in choosing which legal form they will use to carry on productive endeavors. Professionals, however, have not been afforded such freedom. They have found themselves prohibited by their self-regulatory bodies from practicing their profession in a corporate form. As a result, members of professions have practiced either as sole practitioners or in partnership with other members of the same profession. Professionals practicing in partnership expose themselves to personal liability for the obligations of the partnership and wrongdoing by their partners. This Article analyzes the rise of limited liability partnerships ("LLPs"), a newly created form of business association that shields innocent partners from personal liability for the negligence of their partners, in the United States and Canada. Professor Puri argues that the development of LLPs has significant implications for the legal profession. First, the private benefits conferred upon lawyers by LLPs are at the expense of consumers of legal services, particularly unsophisticated consumers. Second, the benefits of LLPs will accrue disproportionately to partners in large law firms because the judiciary is more likely to pierce the LLP veil in the context of small law firms organized as LLPs, thereby creating a further divide between the two "hemispheres" of lawyers. Third, LLPs represent another step in the commercialization of the legal profession, suggesting that we ought to reflect on how to distinguish between the practice of law and the carrying on of other businesses, and re-evaluate the benefits associated with being members of a profession.
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 | 0.024 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.008 |
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".