Ethics, Legal Professionalism and Reconciliation: Enacting Reconciliation Through Civility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action, and the obligations they place upon law societies and legal professionals, was conducted. This article addresses the concept of intercultural competency under Call to Action 27, delineating doctrinal barriers and possibilities for the fulfillment of these obligations under current systems of lawyers’ ethical and professional regulation. I argue that current competence requirements, as set out in Canadian law societies’ codes of conduct, are too limited to fulfill the Call to Action alone. Duties of civility, however, are argued to present potential for achieving reconciliation. This productive potential derives from the broad scope of civility requirements, civility requirements’ role in promoting access to justice, and the unique ability of civility requirements to implicate lawyers within an embodied approach to the ethics of reconciliation. Critical attention is also shown to be necessary to prevent duties of civility being used to marginalize Indigenous peoples as they have done historically.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".