Another legal historian has referred to Professor Mossman’s earlier book, The First Women Lawyers, as being a ‘magisterial’ work… and I see you have called this one a masterpiece. That’s good enough for me!

And, as you’ve probably heard, it’s insanely hard to say exactly what you want: instead you get “bugs”, and have to test extensively to just keep the number small. Those you debug

With an LLM, you’re trying to write a “prompt”, in an ambiguous human language to compile into a formal argument.

I wouldn’t use LLMs that way unless you have a way to write tests for the correctness of the outputs, and a debugger to fix errors when you find them.

I fear you’ll have to use a formal logic language to write prompts. An example of this, for some some math I did is:

Lower Hull

Given: A finite set of points P = {p₁, p₂, …, pₙ} in 2D space

Output: An ordered sequence of points L = [l₁, l₂, …, lₖ] representing the lower hull

Postconditions (what must be true after execution):

Subset property: L ⊆ P (all points in the lower hull are from the original set)

Ordering property: l₁ has the minimum x-coordinate (leftmost), and lₖ has the maximum x-coordinate (rightmost). For all i 0

Minimality property: L is minimal — no point from P can be removed from L while still maintaining properties 2 and 3. (This ensures you have the actual hull, not just some counterclockwise path)

Completeness property: All points on the lower convex hull boundary are included. Formally: for any point p ∈ P that lies on the lower boundary of the convex hull, p ∈ L

Preconditions (assumptions):

P contains at least 2 points
Points are distinct (no duplicates)
The meaning of lower hull is understood by all

I’m not sure I could write that kind of logic in order to create a court submission (:-)) And I still don’t have a tester or debugger for it.

That idea of “informing the hope for an outcome” is exactly it. Firms put enormous care into selecting the right students, and then, almost unintentionally, shift into a model where success is expected to follow from that decision alone.

And your point about the “back end” really being the beginning is such an important reframing. It’s where capability, confidence, and contribution are actually shaped.

The challenge, as you noted, is that this part of the process competes with everything else that demands attention in a busy firm. So the focus naturally gravitates to the front end, where the decisions feel more immediate and concrete.

But when you step back, it becomes clear that even modest shifts in how firms approach that early period can have an outsized impact, not just on outcomes, but on the experience of those young professionals as they find their footing.

I really appreciate you sharing this perspective – it captures the tension, and the opportunity, exceptionally well.

I agree that the by-law could be clearer, and it will be interesting to see how the LSO approaches enforcement. When preparing LSO contingency plans for clients, I found the Convocation Report accompanying the By-Law 7.1 amendment process helpful and I incorporated that context as a “best practice” for the plans I have prepared.

I think the Law Society’s expectations of lawyers is much broader than a plain reading of By-Law 7.1 would suggest. I’d also note that the plan is meant to be a living document, and updated when any critical systems or processes used by the lawyer (or paralegal) are changed. The annual update is a bare minimum. I also read the By-Law as requiring firms to prepare firm-level plans, including the scenario where no licensee is left to carry on the practice in the event of a common disaster or catastrophic absence, (the meteorite falling from the sky at the firm picnic scenario.) I think many will be surprised by this and I expect the LSO will be providing some clarification once they turn their mind to enforcement.

It’s also worth noting that the LSO’s client contingency requirements are a bare minimum when it comes to practice continuity planning. The LSO’s requirements are about protecting client interests in an unplanned lawyer absence. Many in my circle are using this compliance requirement as a gateway to a broader practice continuity plan. This involves incorporating practice coverage agreements so that a lawyer has a practice to come back to while they recover from an illness; financial strategies to fund a temporary absence or buyout; and more formal agreements with colleagues to take over the practice and serve clients if a lawyer is going to step away permanently due to death or disability . These are all such important conversations to have, to protect not only a lawyer’s clients, but the practice they’ve worked so hard to build.

I’ll be happy to see the Roster thrive in its new home with the good people at Access Pro Bono and their Lawyer Referral Service.