Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alice Woolley's survey of contemporary legal ethics (UTLJ 60.4) discusses Daniel Markovits's A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age (Princeton University Press, 2008) and my The Counsel of Rogues? A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer's Role (Ashgate, 2009). Woolley argues that philosophical legal ethics has focused ‘too much on the ethical experience of the lawyer's life’ (???) and too little on ‘what, in a free and democratic society, the role of a lawyer should be’ (???). From that perspective, she finds my approach congenial. However, I do not entirely endorse the view that legal ethics should focus on one rather than the other of these sets of concerns. I discuss these issues in the first part of this response. In the second part, I contrast the accounts Markovits and I offer of integrity and roles. Markovits concludes that roles can underwrite integrity-preserving redescription only insofar as they are authoritatively insular, such that occupants ‘are not shaken by the fact others reject these concepts or even reject the role outright for themselves’ (225). Law, Markovits argues, is no longer insular in this way. I offer a different account of integrity, according to which whether a person has integrity turns upon whether they have engaged in a process of sincere and thorough reflection and displayed a readiness to accept the implications of such reflection. I argue that this is the better view of integrity, and that it allows the recognition of the authority of roles and so the possibility of integrity to lawyers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".