“In the Public Interest”: Understanding the Special Role of the Government Lawyer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of the “public interest” is the foundational principle that guides and structures the special role of government lawyers. This public interest role is derived from a number of constitutional and statutory sources but, in Ontario, it finds its foundation in section 5 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, which provides that the Attorney “shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law”. This responsibility to uphold and advance the rule of law falls not just to the Attorney but to all government lawyers who act on his or her behalf. What does this mean in practical terms for government lawyers on a day-to-day basis? in the view of Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, there are three foundational principles that must serve as touch-stones in the fulfilment of their public interest role, namely: (i) independence; (ii) a commitment to principled decision-making; and (iii) accountability. This paper elaborates the significance and implications of each of these foundational principles. It also considers whether, in light of the public interest role of government lawyers, they should be held to a higher or different standard of professional responsibility. The author argues that any such special or higher duty would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the proper limits of the lawyer’s professional role within government. Finally, the paper explains how and why solicitor-client privilege plays a critical enabling role in the fulfilment of government lawyers’ responsibilities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".