Reconceptualizing Professional Responsibility:Incorporating Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are legal professionals concerned with "doing good" or just with "doing well" financially? In an age of increasing and intensifying public scrutiny there is a need to examine and challenge the legal profession's conception of professional responsibility, and how it translates into practice. This paper expresses the concern that the profession has moved too far in the direction of a "billable hours" culture, a culture that is falling short of the legal profession's obligation as a self-regulated entity to consider and acknowledge the public interest at all points. The author calls for a broader conception of professionalism, one that encompasses more than service for the client. This standard cannot be attained without a commitment to incorporating equality into all facets and corners of the profession. The Charter's broad and generous equality provisions, and the Supreme Court's subsequent expansive interpretations have entrenched the equality value as a fundamental component of the legal system. As a result, it is imperative for the legal profession to exhibit a commitment to justice that moves beyond rhetoric and translates into practice. While acknowledging the lack of simple solutions, the author discusses the National Judicial Institute 's Social Context Education Project as an example of the judiciary's efforts to respond to these issues. The profession is challenged to follow the judiciary's lead and incorporate equality issues more fully into its formal institutional structures and informal norms.
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 | 0.039 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".