MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066843474

The Implications of Federalism for the Regulation of Federal Government Lawyers

2020· article· en· W7066843474 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentLegislationFederalismGovernment (linguistics)JurisdictionAdministrative lawPublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implications of Canadian federalism for the regulation of lawyers for the federal government are largely overlooked in the literature and case law. This article argues that employees of the federal government can practice law without being licensed by the corresponding provincial law society (or any law society). However, if they happen to be licensed by a law society, they can be disciplined by that law society—unless and until Parliament adopts legislation immunizing them from law society discipline. The article also considers the possibility that Parliament could create a separate bar for federal government lawyers. It concludes that some form of regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction over federal government lawyers is necessary to protect the public interest and public confidence in federal government lawyers.\nLes implications du fédéralisme canadien sur la réglementation des avocats à l’emploi du gouvernement fédéral sont largement négligées dans la littérature et la jurisprudence. Dans le présent article, nous soutenons que les employés du gouvernement fédéral peuvent pratiquer le droit sans être autorisés par le barreau provincial correspondant (ou tout autre barreau). Cependant, s’ils sont autorisés par un barreau, ils peuvent être sanctionnés par ce dernier, à moins que le législateur n’adopte une loi les immunisant contre la discipline du barreau. Dans l’article, nous envisageons également la possibilité que le législateur crée un barreau distinct pour les avocats du gouvernement fédéral. Nous concluons qu’une certaine forme de compétence réglementaire et disciplinaire à l’égard des avocats du gouvernement fédéral est nécessaire pour protéger l’intérêt public et la confiance du public dans les avocats à l’emploi du gouvernement fédéral.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it