The professionalism of practising law: A comparison across work contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditionally, the literature assumed that solo practitice best exemplifies the ideal professional work arrangement and that when professionals become salaried employees their professionalism is seriously threatened. The primary goal of this paper is to examine lawyers' sense of professionalism across two work contexts: solo practitioner offices and law firm settings. We also examine status distinctions within law firms, between associates and partners, and compare both to independent practitioners. Solo practitioners and law firm partners are similar on most key dimensions of professionalism, whereas the greatest contrasts occur between partners and associates within law firms. Partners and solo practitioners share similar experiences of autonomy and service as owner‐managers, whereas partners and associates share greater collegiality among professionals, perhaps fostered through law firm cultures. All three groups report comparable amounts of variety in their work and are equally committed to the practice of law. The key factors that account for gaps in professionalism reflect the nature of law practices, primarily through time spent with corporate clients and pressure to generate profits. We conclude that different versions of lawyers' professionalism are influenced by the everyday aspects of their work and one version is not necessarily more professional than the other. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".