{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023381294964028777, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008992805755395684, 'mean_word_length': 5.115384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Change is Pain”: Ethical Legal Discourse and Cultural Competence

Ethical legal discourse traces many overlapping and connected stories and myths through and around the conceptual justifications for self-regulation of the legal profession, which are independence, the adversary system and public service.1 However, when some of these stories and myths, and the principles central to them, are critically examined, they may be seen as cultural artifacts which appear deeply flawed to the modern eye, or at least in need of repair or replacement, rather than as exquisite and time-honoured traditions. And the prospect of change to tradition, while welcome to some as a catalyst for transformation toward progress, may be perceived by others as the harbinger of expense, or even pain, and at the very least an unsettling threat to the familiar. There is no doubt that the legal profession is a site in which change is occurring: new ways of thinking about clients and the changes to the traditional lawyer–client relationship, for example, seem to be regarded as foundation-shakers instead of ways of mending (and