What Do Changing Cultures of Dispute Resolution Mean for Legal Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, a significant cultural change is taking place in legal practice as a result of the widespread introduction of court-connected and private programs, which aim to resolve litigation matters as early as possible by party agreement. The most complex and far-reaching of these changes is a challenge to the traditional model of the lawyer as a manager of war - the strategic and skillful facilitation of peace now appears to be equally important. The increasing acceptance of processes within civil litigation also has immediate practical consequences for legal practice. Clients, especially repeat users, are starting to expect early efforts to explore settlement, using mediation or other consensual processes wherever possible. Developments within the profession itself include the emergence of specialist counsel; the establishment of ADR Departments in big litigation firms; and the development of collaborative lawyering networks, where lawyers are retained to settle but not to litigate. Similar court-based reforms and private sector initiatives in the management of civil disputing are being implemented - although not yet on the same scale - in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. As a consequence, similar patterns of change seem likely to be repeated. There is a growing recognition among legal educators at all levels of the need to respond to changes in both the expectations and the realities of the lawyer's role with an enhanced curriculum that more fully equips lawyers to operate successfully in the new millieux of settlement conferences, mandatory mediation, case management and so on. Most lawyers presently in practice have received little or no legal education in the use of methods. But the changing face of legal practice as it responds to developments in presents a challenge for legal education which extends well beyond the development of discrete, supplemental courses - or segments of courses - on negotiation or mediation. A simple add-on approach does not address the fundamental challenges of changing perspectives on dispute resolution, which extend all the way to the normative assumptions of legal education, in particular the traditional emphasis on mastery of substance, competitive individualism and the enduring culture of dichotomies (right/wrong, moral/immoral, win/lose, lawyer/client, etc). This presentation will present the results of qualitative research commissioned this year by the Law Commission of Canada which explores changing cultures of litigation practice among commercial lawyers in Ontario. This research reveals attitudinal, strategic and behaviourial changes, both individual and systemic. These are changes that are fundamental to the modern day and future role of lawyers, and which call into question the conventional premises of legal education and training.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.048 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".