Gladue at Twenty: Gladue Principles in the Professional Discipline of Indigenous Lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the legal profession and its regulators have focused on the training and education of lawyers and law students, particularly in “intercultural competency,” as emphasized in Calls to Action 27 and 28.9 For example, in 2018 the Advocates’ Society, the Indigenous Bar Association, and the Law Society of Ontario jointly published a Guide for Lawyers Working with Indigenous Peoples, which observed—among other things—that “there is no such thing as a culturally neutral practice of law.” However, this training and education focus is important but incomplete: The journey toward reconciliation will also involve law societies’ re-examination of their relationship with and regulation of Indigenous lawyers.\nA key facet of the regulation of Indigenous lawyers is the disciplinary process, including the determination of penalties. It is in this respect that the applicability of Gladue principles warrants consideration.\nIn the twenty years since Gladue, Gladue principles have been extended well beyond their origin in criminal sentencing. However, there have been only two matters in which these principles have been explicitly applied by professional discipline tribunals—both in disciplining lawyers. Neither of these decisions were judicially reviewed, which means no court has stated whether or not this extension is appropriate. Moreover, these discipline decisions are not considered in the leading treatise on lawyer discipline. As a result, there is doctrinal uncertainty.\nIn this article, I address this doctrinal uncertainty by analyzing these disciplinary decisions and tracing the appellate extensions of Gladue that preceded them and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that followed them to determine whether these disciplinary decisions were correct in applying Gladue principles.\nFor my purposes, Gladue principles may be described as a recognition of the unique circumstances of Indigenous persons, particularly their alienation from the criminal justice system, and the impact of discrimination, cultural oppression, dislocation, and poor social and economic conditions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".