The Attorney General as Lawyer (?): Confidentiality Upon Resignation from Cabinet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unique role of the attorney general raises several special issues of legal ethics. This paper addresses one previously unaddressed: whether it is appropriate for the attorney general to publicly announce his or her reasons for resigning from Cabinet. Unlike other ministers, the attorney general is almost always a practicing lawyer and thus bound not only by Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet confidentiality, but also by the lawyer’s professional duty of confidentiality and by solicitor-client privilege. The paper begins by canvassing a hierarchy of reasons for a principled resignation and the rare historical examples where these have occurred. It then turns to the roles of the attorney general, analyzing how the legal ethics implications of the primary role — legal advisor to Cabinet — may be affected by two more amorphous roles: legal advisor to the legislature and guardian of the public interest. Finally, it considers the special case of the non-lawyer attorney general and how these issues would apply, as well as the more common situation of lawyers with other portfolios.
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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".