LIVING BY PERCENTAGES: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF LAWYERS ACTING AS TALENT AGENTS AND MANAGERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian entertainment lawyers who represent individual creators and performers (“talent”) often find themselves providing their clients with advice or services that are not strictly legal in nature. These services have more in common with the work of talent managers or agents. Such “non-legal” services must be provided in a manner that comports with the requirements of lawyers’ professional ethical obligations, but doing so can prove challenging for even experienced counsel. There are various sources of restriction on lawyers’ ability to act as managers and agents, including the fact that ethical obligations “travel” even when a lawyer is not providing legal services. Drawing on prior scholarship, which posits that lawyers have a duty to remain independent from their client’s interests, this article examines how acting as a manager or agent interfaces with the duties of competence, integrity and loyalty. In addition, the ethical implications of conventional entertainment industry fee arrangements are canvassed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".