Guide to the legal profession: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|work|
{{a|work|
[[File:Monitor support.png|450px|thumb|center|Pride of place in the [[JC]] library of functional publications]]
[[File:Monitor support.png|450px|thumb|center|Pride of place in the [[JC]] library of functional publications]]
}}
}}Those vanity-published [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner: they make ''excellent'' platforms for raising your monitor in the home office. They are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance, and when used in groups, even competing products (like the “[[Legal 500]]” or any of the [[Chambers]] Global Practice Guides) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible.  
Those vanity-published [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner, because they make ''excellent'' platforms for raising your monitor in the home office. They are sturdy, stable, stiff, give a good inch or so of clearance, and even competing market products (like the “[[Legal 500]]” or any of the [[Chambers]] Global Practice Guides) are fully stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible.  


As a monitor support, a legal almanac scores over the traditional ream of A4 printer paper in one important regard: ''durability''. Because there is no other practical ''use'' for a guide to the legal profession, you may safely stuff two or three of them under your screen indefinitely without fear of having to disassemble your workstation because you have an urgent job and the last sod who used the printer didn’t restock the paper supply in the cupboard.  
A [[legal almanac]] scores over the traditional ream of A4 printer paper in one key regard: ''durability''. Because it has is no other practical ''use'', you may safely stuff two or three of them under your screen indefinitely without fear of having to disassemble your workstation because you have an urgent job and the last sod to use the printer didn’t restock the paper supply in the cupboard.


Recent times have nonetheless been tough for publishers of legal almanacs. They have been hit by a triple cocktail of woe:  
Recent times have nonetheless been tough for [[legal almanac]] publishers. They have been hit by a triple cocktail of woe:  
===[[Critical theory]] got ... critical ===
===[[Critical theory]] got ... critical ===
In 2019, from nowhere, almanac publishers were forced into panicky defensive [[virtue-signalling]] when their “rigorous selection methodology” — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless [[Critical theory|critical legal theorist]]s.<ref>Or possibly practitioners, ''posing'' as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.</ref> The publishers’ response, though reasonable —“wait a minute? I don’t think anyone actually ''reads'' these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf ears.
In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive [[virtue-signalling]] when their “rigorous selection methodology” — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless [[Critical theory|critical legal theorist]]s.<ref>Or possibly practitioners, ''posing'' as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.</ref>  


But almanac publishers are nothing if not resourceful: there is now a “Chambers Diversity & Inclusion” guide to the exclusive intersectionally marginised global elite.<ref>https://diversity.chambers.com/ “Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are all, in that regard, fundamentally the same, yet at the same time we screen our people to make sure D&I is a fundamental part of our DNA.”</ref>
The publishers’ response, though reasonable —“wait a minute? No-one actually ''reads'' these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf ears.
 
But publishers are nothing if not resourceful: the new “Chambers [[Diversity & inclusion|Diversity & Inclusion]]” is an exclusive guide to the intersectionally-marginised global elite.<ref>https://diversity.chambers.com/ “Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are all, in that regard, fundamentally the same, yet at the same time we screen our people to make sure D&I is a fundamental part of their, and therefore our, DNA.”</ref>


===Covid goes virtual===
===Covid goes virtual===
But alas it didn’t stop there. The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted the move of much of the legal almanac publishing industry to digital, thereby making the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s did, which was to assume that ''people acquire guides to the legal profession because they want to read them''. But as we know, they do not. People like legal almanacs to prop up their monitors, hold fire-stop doors open, and sandwich between pot plants around the department to make the place look bookish. An e-version of a legal almanac no good for that, ''unless you print it out'', in which case you are better just to use a ream of virgin A4 paper, as you can at least use that if need be if you otherwise run out.  
But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish [[snowflakes]]. The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted the legal almanac publishing industry to go digital, thereby making the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s did, which was to assume that ''people want guides to the legal profession to read them''. But as a moment’s reflection should tell us, they do not. They look up their own entry, send a photocopy to their mum, and them put the whole guide to better uses propping up monitors, holding fire-stop doors open, and sandwich between pot plants around the department to make the place look learned.  
 
An ''e-''version of a legal almanac no good for any of those purposes ''unless you print it out''. But that will blow a ream of virgin A4 printer paper, and you are better just to use it as it  is, just in case you need it for printing.


=== Printing is so 2019 ===
=== Printing is so 2019 ===
Covid is a double crisis, too, because no-one prints any more, so a ream of A4 is now a fairly safe bet.
But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will. Covid is a double crisis, because the working mediocritariat has discovered that it doesn’t need to print, so no-one does any more, so there are oodles of reams of A4 lying around the office, which make ''perfect'' monitor stands...
 
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}
<references />

Revision as of 19:19, 30 September 2021

Office anthropology™
Pride of place in the JC library of functional publications
The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Those vanity-published annual guides to the profession are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner: they make excellent platforms for raising your monitor in the home office. They are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance, and when used in groups, even competing products (like the “Legal 500” or any of the Chambers Global Practice Guides) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible.

A legal almanac scores over the traditional ream of A4 printer paper in one key regard: durability. Because it has is no other practical use, you may safely stuff two or three of them under your screen indefinitely without fear of having to disassemble your workstation because you have an urgent job and the last sod to use the printer didn’t restock the paper supply in the cupboard.

Recent times have nonetheless been tough for legal almanac publishers. They have been hit by a triple cocktail of woe:

Critical theory got ... critical

In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive virtue-signalling when their “rigorous selection methodology” — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless critical legal theorists.[1]

The publishers’ response, though reasonable —“wait a minute? No-one actually reads these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf ears.

But publishers are nothing if not resourceful: the new “Chambers Diversity & Inclusion” is an exclusive guide to the intersectionally-marginised global elite.[2]

Covid goes virtual

But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish snowflakes. The Covid pandemic prompted the legal almanac publishing industry to go digital, thereby making the same category error the critical theorists did, which was to assume that people want guides to the legal profession to read them. But as a moment’s reflection should tell us, they do not. They look up their own entry, send a photocopy to their mum, and them put the whole guide to better uses propping up monitors, holding fire-stop doors open, and sandwich between pot plants around the department to make the place look learned.

An e-version of a legal almanac no good for any of those purposes unless you print it out. But that will blow a ream of virgin A4 printer paper, and you are better just to use it as it is, just in case you need it for printing.

Printing is so 2019

But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will. Covid is a double crisis, because the working mediocritariat has discovered that it doesn’t need to print, so no-one does any more, so there are oodles of reams of A4 lying around the office, which make perfect monitor stands...

See also

References

  1. Or possibly practitioners, posing as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.
  2. https://diversity.chambers.com/ “Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are all, in that regard, fundamentally the same, yet at the same time we screen our people to make sure D&I is a fundamental part of their, and therefore our, DNA.”