Book Review: The New Lawyer: How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law, by Julie Macfarlane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROFESSOR JULIE MACFARLANE is onto something here.As she does in the Preface to The New Lauyer, I too would recommend this book not only to those lawyers who may be disillusioned with what she calls the "warrior mentality" of legal practice but also to lawyers who may be skeptical of the alternative legal image that Macfarlane sees emerging.The "new lawyer" may seem foreign to some legal interests,'but there is nothing to fear; the book is by no means a mere indictment of the old paradigm.For Macfarlane, the new lawyer is the result of a natural evolution that is and should be occurring in a vital and vibrant profession like law.The new lawyer represents not so much a rejection of traditions, but rather, a convergence of litigation and consensusbuilding cultures, resulting in what she calls the new skills, knowledge, and sensitivities of "conflict resolution advocacy."In this review, I first set out how Macfarlane carefully develops and supports her thesis of the emerging new lawyer.Second, I summarize who this new lawyer is and what he or she looks like.Finally, I refer to a recent case that illustrates this new lawyer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".