Corporations play an increasingly significant role in public policy and democratic politics. This article seeks to understand how corporate political activities gain political influence through intertextual strategies. The analysis is conducted on the texts produced by the Australian government in proposing a new tax as well as the texts produced by the mining industry in campaigning against the tax. We show how the government texts represent the proposed tax as a fair opportunity, while the mining industry texts represent the tax as an unfair threat. The findings attend to the processes of how the mining industry 'stitched' together constituencies in support of their representation. This article contributes to the existing literature on corporate political activity by showing how overt and indirect corporate activities and communications influence public policy agendas. It also contributes to critical studies of corporate political activity by theorizing how textual strategies can be used to align corporate interests in hegemonic political struggles through the creation of a phantom community. Finally, the article contributes to theories of intertextuality by developing a typology to analyse textual representation.

This article focuses on individual lawyers’ responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in their practice. More specifically, it examines the ways in which a lawyer’s ethical capabilities and motivations are tested by the rapid growth of automated systems, both to identify the ethical risks posed by AI tools in legal services, and to uncover what is required of lawyers when they use this technology. To do so, we use psychologist James Rest’s Four-component Model of Morality (FCM), which represents the necessary elements for lawyers to engage in professional conduct when utilising AI. We examine issues associated with automation that most seriously challenge each component in context, as well as the skills and resolve lawyers need to adhere to their ethical duties. Importantly, this approach is grounded in social psychology. That is, by looking at human ‘thinking and doing’ (i.e., lawyers’ motivations and capacity when using AI), this offers a different, complementary perspective to the typical, legislative approach in which the law is analysed for regulatory gaps.

No abstract

No abstract

Post-Global Financial Crisis, global law firms and in-house departments have started to take up ‘Legal Project Management’ (LPM). LPM adopts and adapts project management methods for the law context as a means of streamlining, planning and costing legal work. This article examines LPM as an aspiring driver of managerialist change within the legal profession. In its reframing of all legal matters as ‘projects’, LPM is also an example of a more specific type of managerialist change, ‘projectification’: the process by which work activities, and our activities generally, are being organised and shaped as projects or temporary endeavours. Though we know managerialism is occurring, our understanding of how it manifests in, and is promoted by, specific practices and discourses within the workplace organisation is under-developed in the law context. It may be tempting to read managerialism as sullying traditional professionalism. But an extensive body of literature has documented the interactions of professional and managerial imperatives that result in what has been described as a hybridisation of different logics or belief systems. This article adds vital detail to the existing literature about managerialism within the legal profession by looking closely at LPM as projectification. To do so, it utilises Mirko Noordegraaf’s three dimensions of professionalism that represent core points of distinction: coordination of work, authority or the grounds for legitimacy, and values at stake. Through these facets, it analyses LPM’s somewhat contradictory aspects, illustrating the schismatic nature of projectification as both exciting and empowering, and ethically risky and dehumanising.