The Implications of Federalism for the Regulation of Federal Government Lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".