Thinking like a lawyer/acting like a professional: communities of practice as a means of challenging orthodox legal education

Increasingly, there is pressure upon law schools, in Australia and elsewhere, to impress upon students the significance of the ethical and professional obligations of legal practice. The recent Carnegie Report explicitly looked to law schools “to initiate novice practitioners to think, to perform, and to conduct themselves (that is, to act morally and ethically) like professionals”. Many law students, however, have little appreciation of legal ethics and any concept they may have of professionalism tends to be envisaged as applying only after graduation. In this paper, we explore the idea of a “community of practice”. Lave and Wenger, who coined the phrase, contend that “learning is conceived as a trajectory in which learners move from legitimate peripheral participant to core participant of the community of practice”. We will argue that law students should appreciate that they are entering the legal profession's community of practice and that all aspects of their conduct relevant to professionalism – not only academic integrity, but matters such as time management, teamwork, relationships with peers and staff – relate to this transition into a legal professional community. Such an approach may not only serve to impress upon students the significance of “professionalism” and ethics, but inculcate in them a sense of belonging to a professional community.     

Participation, Fragmentation and Union Response: The 1998–2000 ACT Public Sector Bargaining Round and the Workplace Relations Act

The current Australian Capital Territory (ACT) public sector workplace bargaining round lasted more than two years with most agreements involving a trade-off between low wage outcomes and protection of job security within performance improvement measures. The main focus of this paper is on government and agency experiments with bargaining structures and processes. The first was a limited and largely unsuccessful attempt in 1998 and 1999 at participative agreement making without the involvement of the key unions. The second, a selective decentralisation of bargaining to parts of a single business, was more successful: of 50 agreements, over 40 have been achieved. The procedural success of the decentralisation strategy is a significant outcome. However, the fragmentation strategy contained internal contradictions and required strong centralised policy control of bargaining agendas and outcomes, leading to delays and breeding distrust. Unions conducted effective defensive campaigns against non-union agreements and involuntary redundancies, but face their own dilemmas in finalising this round and preparing for the next.     

Impact Assessment of EU Non‐Legislative Rulemaking: The Missing Link in ‘New Comitology’

Impact assessment (IA) has gone from an innocuous technical tool typically used in the pre‐legislative phase to an instrument at the heart of the European institutional machinery. However—in deviation from its roots as a tool governing delegated rulemaking in the US—most experience with IA in the EU has been gathered in a legislative context. Against the background of the recent evolution of the EU's old ‘comitology’ system into a two‐track system of delegated acts and implementing measures, this contribution discusses in three parts the ‘whys,’ ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of extending IA to ‘non‐legislative rulemaking.’ It explores various aspects of the rulemaking process that IA—if properly applied—could strengthen: consultation, control and quality.     

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Current Concepts and Controversies

The diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) sometimes is raised in compensation claims, in tort settings, and in other medical–legal settings. Accordingly, health-care and legal professionals working in these areas need to be familiar with the current findings and controversies concerning the disorder. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we review the most important findings concerning the clinical features, etiology, and treatment of PTSD. Second, we examine six major controversies concerning the disorder that are relevant to psychologists and other medical–legal practitioners: (a) the issue of what qualifies as a traumatic stressor, (b) the question of whether traumatic stress causes brain damage, (c) the validity of the concept of delayed-onset PTSD, (d) the recovered memory controversy, (e) the question of whether PTSD can arise when the person has no memory of the trauma (e.g., due to concussion), and (f) issues concerning PTSD malingering. Throughout this article we offer recommendations for psychological and other medical–legal practice in relation to the evaluation of PTSD claims.